The biggest social safety net in the US

[LucyStoner]

I agree with this, but when I've used this argument in the past, I have been told that that mother should be buying at second hand stores instead.

I've been one of those moralizing people prognosticating on what others should do.

 

And I was wrong.

 

One, there aren't thrift stores for many of the things people rely on getting cheap at discounters. Soap. Food. Laundry detergent. Tampons.

 

Two, thrift shopping takes time. I know, I'm big on thrifting. Time isn't something everyone has.

 

Three, if people choose that new and cheap is better than than used, that's up to them. Who am I to say what is better for them?

 

Four, some times you need something you can't find at a thrift shop when you need it. Case in point. I have a boy with a 28-29 inch waist and who is rapidly outgrowing his 32 inch inseam. 😂 Finding 28/34s is hard enough to do in regular retail stores, odds are slim to none that I will be able to locate even one pair of jeans for him in a thrift store...to say nothing of the fact that he is starting a high school with a strict dress code in the fall and he will need 3+ pairs of nicer khakis or dress slacks in that size all at once. Plus jeans and dress shirts, a hoodie and new shoes in a gargantuan size. I'll be happy if I can get most of the shirts knocked out of the way used. I expect the rest will all come from carefully shopping sales between now and September.

 

Five, many thrift stores are selling not great quality things for about the same cost as Old Navy and Target and Walmart clearance. I've seriously seen higher prices on used Target brands AT St. Vincent de Paul's and Goodwill than for those same items brand new on the sale rack.

 

So this is why I just laugh when I hear people pronouncing that thrifting and "shopping responsibly" is the salve.

Edited March 20, 2017 by LucyStoner

[Murphy101]

And another thing about thrift shopping. If you shop one in the ghetto, you get ghetto handmedowns that are way dated and way worn out. Whereas if you go to thrift stores on the nicer side of town, what you get is completely different. For example, on one side of the city the thrifts are mostly jeans and tshirt, on the other they have a more professional office wear selection. But that's a lot more time and you have to be able to get there.

 

I'm pro used bc I'm a fan of repurposing and reusing, but sometimes it just doesn't work to meet the need of the moment.

[SKL]

My kids' nicest clothes are second-hand (or beyond) which I bought online, or my sister picked up for us at thrift stores.  (Now one of my kids is getting big enough to wear hand-me-downs from some petite adults.)  I get many compliments, and I'm often asked whether someone made those clothes for my kids.  :)

 

Good second-hand clothes tend to cost about the same as cheap in-store clothes, but they look nicer and last longer.  Some of my own favorite clothes were bought at thrift stores decades ago.  Still decent enough to wear to church.  The only reason I don't shop more at thrift stores is the time factor.

 

Not moralizing, of course.  I have done the "only organic bla bla bla" thing and it is fine if you're in a high income bracket with no financial worries.  Most people have to focus on more immediate needs.

[HTRMom]

I read the first pages of posts and the last, but not all of the middle, so forgive possible repetition.

 

Imagine that there were not corporate or personal tax deductions for mortgages, health insurance, etc. The government, if you combine all levels, currently collects and spends about 7 trillion dollars of our 16.6 trillion GDP. Without any tax breaks, that would be 8 trillion.

So the government spends about 42% of our collective money. Without tax deductions it would be 50%. So do we say that the 8% difference is a gift from the government to taxpayers? Or that the 42% is a gift from taxpayers to the government?

 

Who has a fundamental right to decide where the wealth and resources produced by everyone in our nation should be spent? The people who work and create the wealth? The state? The collective taxpayers? Some of each? The argument of the entire article rests on the idea that the government has a right to at least half the wealth of the whole nation.

 

The people who far and away benefit most from the tax structure is poor people. The poorest actually receive more dollars in tax credits than they pay in, a negative net tax rate. (I know because this was our situation the first years we were married with a baby.) Wealthy Americans pay over half of their incomes in taxes. The author is complaining that some of a family's healthcare comes from the 42% taken by the government rather than all of it coming from the 58% left.

 

As far as poor people not benefiting, or black people not benefiting, I'm not seeing it. Poor people do not pay income taxes at all but still receive public school, food stamps, libraries, roads, Medicare and Social Security. They receive much, much more from the state than they contribute, and I'm not complaining about that, but to say that they are left out of our state welfare system doesn't make sense to me.

 

If I pay 25% of my income in taxes instead of 50%, would you say that taxpayers have funded my home? Never mind that to actually deduct mortgage interest, you have to use itemized deductions, and I've never been wealthy enough to do that. Anyway, tax deductions over 30 years might pay for 10% of a home at most.

 

I believe that if I could have all of the money back that I have paid into taxes or my employer has paid on my behalf, I could do much better for myself than what the government has given me as far as retirement savings, healthcare, etc. Heck, if I could just give all of that money to charity I would do more good than the state has done with it. I think that most Americans give more to the government than they get in benefits in any sense, except people who are poor their entire lives.

Edited March 20, 2017 by HTRMom

[Barb_]

1. You may decide to give to charity, but what if no one else in your neighborhood does? Your dollars won't go very far by themselves.

 

2. we do fund retirement with 401ks, IRAs and other savings vehicles but they are subject to a volatile market. Ours were almost wiped out last decade. If we'd been 10 or 15 years older we'd have been in a pile of trouble.

 

3. Not everyone has the expertise to do well on their own. In a working society, we each must give up a little individual freedom to do whatever we please in order to help those who for a multitude of reasons, may not be able to help themselves. "I have mine, you figure yourself out" isn't a model for a compassion.

 

4. I'm a little lost as to how morgatge deductions, etc fit into the conversation. I don't think it's relevant?

 

5. No one has said the poor are "left out of the system". Did you miss the arc of the thread when you skipped the middle part?

 

6. Wealthy people pay more than half their income in taxes? Please back that up with some links and statistics.

[Sneezyone]

I read the first pages of posts and the last, but not all of the middle, so forgive possible repetition.

 

Imagine that there were not corporate or personal tax deductions for mortgages, health insurance, etc. The government, if you combine all levels, currently collects and spends about 7 trillion dollars of our 16.6 trillion GDP. Without any tax breaks, that would be 8 trillion.

So the government spends about 42% of our collective money. Without tax deductions it would be 50%. So do we say that the 8% difference is a gift from the government to taxpayers? Or that the 42% is a gift from taxpayers to the government?

 

Who has a fundamental right to decide where the wealth and resources produced by everyone in our nation should be spent? The people who work and create the wealth? The state? The collective taxpayers? Some of each? The argument of the entire article rests on the idea that the government has a right to at least half the wealth of the whole nation.

 

The people who far and away benefit most from the tax structure is poor people. The poorest actually receive more dollars in tax credits than they pay in, a negative net tax rate. (I know because this was our situation the first years we were married with a baby.) Wealthy Americans pay over half of their incomes in taxes. The author is complaining that some of a family's healthcare comes from the 42% taken by the government rather than all of it coming from the 58% left.

 

As far as poor people not benefiting, or black people not benefiting, I'm not seeing it. Poor people do not pay income taxes at all but still receive public school, food stamps, libraries, roads, Medicare and Social Security. They receive much, much more from the state than they contribute, and I'm not complaining about that, but to say that they are left out of our state welfare system doesn't make sense to me.

 

If I pay 25% of my income in taxes instead of 50%, would you say that taxpayers have funded my home? Never mind that to actually deduct mortgage interest, you have to use itemized deductions, and I've never been wealthy enough to do that. Anyway, tax deductions over 30 years might pay for 10% of a home at most.

 

I believe that if I could have all of the money back that I have paid into taxes or my employer has paid on my behalf, I could do much better for myself than what the government has given me as far as retirement savings, healthcare, etc. Heck, if I could just give all of that money to charity I would do more good than the state has done with it. I think that most Americans give more to the government than they get in benefits in any sense, except people who are poor their entire lives.

 

The red bolded bit was settled by the Constitution. We the people, ALL of the people, get to decide. Not just the wealthy. Not just the taxpayers. All citizens. There is no government in the U.S. without the consent of the governed. If you want changes in governance, change who you elect to serve in the government.

 

As for the bit in blue. A citation or it doesn't exist. I already know that's a bunch of horse-poo but I want to give you the chance to defend it.

 

You do not believe in using government to facilitate the equitable distribution or redistribution of benefits, fine. But you need to back up these numbers/suppositions with some real facts.

[maize]

The people who far and away benefit most from the tax structure is poor people.

The people who far and away benefit most from the resources of our nation, including our vast human capital and our collective political and economic clout, are the wealthy.

 

They also benefit most from our legal system, our military complex, our infrastructure, our public education system, and less directly from the wellfare programs that allow them to hire and retain labor for wages below subsistence level.

 

The argument that the folks at the top of the heap experience less economic benefit from our government and tax structure than those at the bottom is not economically sound.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

The people who far and away benefit most from the resources of our nation, including our vast human capital and our collective political and economic clout, are the wealthy.

 

They also benefit most from our legal system, our military complex, our infrastructure, our public education system, and less directly from the wellfare programs that allow them to hire and retain labor for wages below subsistence level.

 

The argument that the folks at the top of the heap experience less economic benefit from our government and tax structure than those at the bottom is not economically sound.

"Not economically sound" is by far the politest thing you can say about that statement.

[maize]

I take the bit about "promote the general welfare" in the preamble of the constitution as a call for the Government of the nation to promote the wellfare both of the nation as a whole and, to the extent possible, of the individuals who make up this nation. I am not comfortable with a system that works primarily to the benefit of the wealthy, the powerful, the ruthless, and the lucky to the detriment of every person born in the wrong place, with the wrong parents, the wrong skin color, the wrong sex, or just the wrong luck. That allows some ever increasing wealth and luxury while other are left with starvation and rags. That is precisely what happens when there are not systems in place to provide for the most basic and essential needs. We have some systems in place here, such that most in this country have not seen or experienced the devastating poverty and misery that occurs when they are lacking. I have seen it, in many parts of the world. There is no way I will knowingly be party to getting rid of the small protections we have. I would rather increase them, here and elsewhere. I cannot find it in my heart to be so callous towards fellowhumans as to not fight for basic human needs and dignity.

 

We are a wealthy nation. We can afford to provide for our own. If we fail to do that it is to our everlasting shame. Can you imagine a household where some members of the same family wallow in luxury and others suffer in pain and starvation? Should my husband say "I've earned the money that pays for this house so the rest of you will just have to camp outside in the snow"?

 

Why would we do that as a nation?

Edited March 20, 2017 by maize

[Carol in Cal.]

The 2nd hand store idea is nice in theory but not great in practice. Some sizes are hard to find and a lot of it is high priced for the shape it is in. Our local Goodwill has some of the worst, worn out pieces of clothing and want $3.99 and $4.99.

 

The $8.00 new on clearance rack is a better use of money.

Around here, Goodwill is the most expensive thrift store.

Salvation Army has much better prices, and usually the hospital/charity/nonchain ones are even better.

[HTRMom]

1. I don't actually think that we should stop state welfare in favor of private charity. Just that the government itself consumes a large fraction of the money.

 

2. I'm fine with social security too, but I know that I'm paying in much more than I will get out and that it's a bad investment, especially because I'm young and doubt that SS will be solvent by the time I need it.

 

4. Mortgage deductions fit into the article itself. The article says that because of tax deductions, our homes are taxpayer funded.

 

5. Again, the article itself says that a certain group of white people get all the benefits, poor black people don't. The whole premise is that we are a socialist state, but only among this group of certain white people, leaving other groups out of our socialism.

 

6. You're right, I misspoke. What I really mean to say is that the top 5% of earners pay over half of the national income taxes; the bottom 50% of earners pay 3% of total taxes. I also consider payroll taxes in real taxes paid, which is another 15% up to a certain point. Then there are property taxes and sales taxes and investment income taxes... but poor people pay some of those too.

 

If the state or the voters really got to decide where all of the money was spent, we would be pure communists or socialists. If the individuals decided 100%, we would be not only capitalist but anarchist. Most Americans don't want any of those options and want some balance between the individuals spending money and the state spending money.

 

I do think that there should be some government redistribution. I just disagree with the article itself that we have a white socialism that leaves out everyone else, and I disagree with the author who believes that tax deductions are the same as welfare. Even if they have the same effect in state accounting, collecting less tax is not at all the same as distributing more welfare. One increases the state percentage of spending and the other decreases it.

 

My point is really directed to the article in the OP - I don't believe that there is a white socialism in the US that leaves everyone else out. The progressive tax code and the socialism welfare aspects of our government benefit the poor disproportionately and the rich not at all, which is their express purpose. Obviously rich people have more in life; that's beside the specific point of this article, about socialism in America.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[justasque]

...Wealthy Americans pay over half of their incomes in taxes. ...

 

In 2005, Donald Trump, who most would describe as "wealthy", paid $38million on $150million+ of income.  That is a tax rate of 25%.  Nowhere near "over half".

[Twolittleboys]

Well, I think volunteering is great BUT I don't think it could ever be sufficient (unless we lived in small, separate societies). The main problem that I see is that not every cause will have the same appeal. Lots of people seem willing to donate time/money for dogs, cats, military families, cute kids etc. - and there is nothing wrong with that. But there are other causes that just don't seem as worthwhile to many of us (often things we feel are the person's own fault). But really noone should live without the basic necessities and who are we to judge that someone is less "worthy" of help than someone else? Of course most of us do it anyway and that is where government programs come in. By spreading welfare more evenly across the recipients it cancels out some of the "appeal factor" (or should). And of course we all are free to spend money/time for those issues we personally find important.

[SKL]

In 2005, Donald Trump, who most would describe as "wealthy", paid $38million on $150million+ of income.  That is a tax rate of 25%.  Nowhere near "over half".

 

I would just point out that that figure is just federal income tax.  For people above a certain income level, state and local taxes and property taxes are also significant.  I doubt it averages 50% for any income level under the current tax rates, but it could be close for some.

[TechWife]

2. I'm fine with social security too, but I know that I'm paying in much more than I will get out and that it's a bad investment, especially because I'm young and doubt that SS will be solvent by the time I need it.

 

 

 

Social Security isn't an investment and was never intended to be an investment, though. 

[LucyStoner]

My kids' nicest clothes are second-hand (or beyond) which I bought online, or my sister picked up for us at thrift stores. (Now one of my kids is getting big enough to wear hand-me-downs from some petite adults.) I get many compliments, and I'm often asked whether someone made those clothes for my kids. :)

 

Good second-hand clothes tend to cost about the same as cheap in-store clothes, but they look nicer and last longer. Some of my own favorite clothes were bought at thrift stores decades ago. Still decent enough to wear to church. The only reason I don't shop more at thrift stores is the time factor.

 

Not moralizing, of course. I have done the "only organic bla bla bla" thing and it is fine if you're in a high income bracket with no financial worries. Most people have to focus on more immediate needs.

This was totally true for my boys ages birth to 10. 11+ especially for boys clothing, not so much. I've gotten most of their clothes used over the years but now for my older son (13), quite a few things are not readily available. I assume there will be more selection once he is closer to his full adult size. At which time I hope and assume I won't be shopping for him anyways besides furnishing some or all of the money until he's done with college. 😂 For now he has the height of an adult but is only about as wide as a pair of chopsticks. Edited March 21, 2017 by LucyStoner

[Audrey]

I agree with this, but when I've used this argument in the past, I have been told that that mother should be buying at second hand stores instead.

 

 

Just using your post as a jumping off point (no criticism of your post intended)

 

This type of moralizing and by-proxy micromanaging is really very detrimental to furthering a more effective and efficient system.  It's also reprehensible as a practice, but that's another issue entirely. 

 

To place micro-restraints or moral judgments upon people receiving assistance is to deny the larger problem of why and how a government provides basic living supports.  The US systems seem designed with an eye toward viewing the recipients as potential criminals -- i.e we have to micromanage the money given to eliminate chances of fraud and abuse.  The populace (some parts of it anyway) then jump on this view and begin to stereotype recipients as criminals/fraudsters.  However, statistically, the recipient as fraudster is not borne out at all.  In fact, there is very little proven fraud in the US welfare systems/programs.  But... of course... as all stereotypes will do, the prevailing sentiment is the stereotypical one, no matter how inaccurate it may be.

 

Instead of micromanaging and judging the moral capacity of recipients, it would be more effective, efficient AND economical to allow people the freedom to spend a basic living support as it meets their needs. Bonus points to a government who can also provide some educational support to those recipients who may want to improve their budgeting skills. 

 

My point is ... most people, when treated like a human being with autonomy and worthy of respect, will be able to make reasonable decisions on how to spend the money they have, and they will create more effective use of that money than a laundry list of restrictions will be able to produce. 

[FaithManor]

Just using your post as a jumping off point (no criticism of your post intended)

 

This type of moralizing and by-proxy micromanaging is really very detrimental to furthering a more effective and efficient system. It's also reprehensible as a practice, but that's another issue entirely.

 

To place micro-restraints or moral judgments upon people receiving assistance is to deny the larger problem of why and how a government provides basic living supports. The US systems seem designed with an eye toward viewing the recipients as potential criminals -- i.e we have to micromanage the money given to eliminate chances of fraud and abuse. The populace (some parts of it anyway) then jump on this view and begin to stereotype recipients as criminals/fraudsters. However, statistically, the recipient as fraudster is not borne out at all. In fact, there is very little proven fraud in the US welfare systems/programs. But... of course... as all stereotypes will do, the prevailing sentiment is the stereotypical one, no matter how inaccurate it may be.

 

Instead of micromanaging and judging the moral capacity of recipients, it would be more effective, efficient AND economical to allow people the freedom to spend a basic living support as it meets their needs. Bonus points to a government who can also provide some educational support to those recipients who may want to improve their budgeting skills.

 

My point is ... most people, when treated like a human being with autonomy and worthy of respect, will be able to make reasonable decisions on how to spend the money they have, and they will create more effective use of that money than a laundry list of restrictions will be able to produce.

Three cheers for Audrey!!!

[redheadmom]

I don't think that volunteerism can be relied upon to replace government programs, but I think that the government could improve efficiency by funding volunteer programs AND filling gaps between them, without taking control of them, and without a lot of concern about the establishment clause if it was parsed right.

 

Big burocracies don't necessarily have economies of scale. They do up to a point, and then beyond that they tend to get top heavy, insensitive, and self-perpetuating rather than mission focussed.

My husband and I have been talking about the suggested cuts to the budget. The cuts to medical research worry me personally. My husband is concerned that pieces of our history like the Smithsonian could be changed.

 

However the government is not very efficient at running anything. Our defense budget is huge. But, in some sections of our military they only have 25% of their equipment/tanks/aircraft operational due to lack of parts, etc. Throwing more money at that problem probably won't fix it. I would like to see our veterans cared for, but again more money can't fix a bloated system full of red tape.

 

I'm scared of what the government would do to volunteer programs. I would honestly love to see someone be able to change our system into something efficient and beneficial to more people. I honestly don't care which party fixes it. Right now they both just seem to run in opposite directions from the other without bothering to figure out a solution. Don't get me started on the billions we waste in governement earmarks and subsidies to corporations.

[Guest]

I think the volunteer program funding is just as political as the official programs, and often the priority goes to the more effective lobbyist than the greater need, or a want will be funded while a need won't. I could give local examples, but I won't due to privacy, but think dental care for poor children unmet while park benches are funded.

[Dmmetler]

Tell me about it. I donated some clothes to Goodwill that were new with tags on that I couldn't return (well I could if I was willing to accept less than a dollar for each one) because I had procrastinated and they went on clearance. Weeks later I saw one of the shirts on the rack. The price portion of the original tag had been cut off, and the asking price from GW was significantly more than what I had paid.

 

I would agree here. We have a clearance center that mostly sells stuff returned to online vendors. For DD, I'd say 90% of her clothes have come from there in the last couple of years now that she's in women's sizes-apparently a lot of women return clothes in small sizes. They are doing a Spring clearance now where most of their winter stuff is discounted even lower than usual-we spent $15 there last night and got stuff with original price tags all in the $15-$20 range, and one dress with a $55 original price tag. All should, hopefully fit her next year.

 

At Goodwill, my guess is that each piece would have been $5 or more, and the dress probably would have been $20.  At the Junior League thrift shop, add another several dollars per piece.

[creekland]

Getting back to the original linked article (since that's where my mind was doing chores this morning)... IS there a way to encourage more to take advantage of opportunities available to them?

 

I mentioned the kids who sometimes go without lunch at my school because their parents won't sign up for free/reduced lunches.  This has been going on for the whole time I've been teaching (17 years now) so isn't really political - or if so - it's been through both parties, etc.

 

The parents don't want to "lower themselves" to accept aid.  Folks like me want to see their kids be able to eat rather than not.  It makes a physical difference in their brain development (and other physical development) esp since one assumes there isn't much at home either (my son has confirmed this with some of his friends).  It's not always a case of mom or dad squandering their $$.  Often they are working but need to pay rent and other expenses and only have low paid jobs, so there simply isn't money left over.

 

I understand from the article that what they want is to be wealthy enough to not need public (or charity) assistance and they voted for someone who promised to give it to them.  (NOTE: We can't debate whether that is likely to happen or not on this board.)  But in the meantime (since it certainly won't happen overnight if it ever happens - under any political party)... kids continue to go hungry if there isn't enough left over in the paycheck for food even when there are programs to help - not just food, but job retraining, etc.

 

Is there a way to combat that?  The mentality in the article?

 

Personally, I want all to have similar opportunities and for that to happen there has to be access to food, health care, & a decent education.  Not everyone is wealthy enough to provide these to their offspring, so programs have popped up trying to help (public and private).  We (Americans) seem to have a stigma that using these programs shames folks.  To me, it doesn't.  It means someone is smart - trying to use what opportunities they can to get to a place where they can totally support themselves. (Yes, I know some abuse the aid, but I don't think it's as many as some propose.)  How does one shift the "shame" to "smart?"  The "accept it now" to be able to "pay it forward later?"

 

I'm thinking there might be more "life skills" I need to work into my classes at school when the topic seems appropriate.

Edited March 21, 2017 by creekland

[maize]

With regard to school lunches, I suppose the programs that provide breakfast and lunch for all children at school can be effective. But that seems to be something done in only a few schools.

 

One elementary I know of has snacks like apples, yoghurt, and cheese sticks available at the office any time for any student who wants to come by. They make it clear that these are for anyone.

[SKL]

Re the comment about encouraging people to use the free breakfast / lunch programs, maybe the families are feeding their kids at home and don't want their kids eating the types and quality of food offered at school.  I saw an article the other day suggesting that some people worry the school breakfast program is contributing to obesity for kids who are eating two breakfasts.  There could be other good reasons for parents not to choose other "free services."

 

I would definitely ensure all are aware of what is available, but never put pressure on parents to use it.

 

Of course if the kid is sitting in school all day and does not have any lunch, that is a different story.  I think most schools have a policy to feed kids who show up without a lunch.

 

ETA another possibility is that kids are ditching their lunch on the sly because they are embarrassed about it, e.g., strong-smelling ethnic food which may have been an excuse for taunting in the past.  Again, that calls for a different response than pushing the parents to stop feeding their kids as they see fit.

 

Edited March 21, 2017 by SKL

[Guest]

We have a men's group that provides alternate lunch for free. in other nearby areas, wealthy retirees usually pay the lunch bill for everyone who has not paid theirs. An awful lot of students share or give a meal to a friend in the diverse schools. The districts do outreach to sign eligible families up. What we consistently see is the need is for the working poor..they don't qualify for free lunch, some qualify for reduced,.but most make a little too much, and while the price of home heating oil and gas has sunk, food, medical and taxes have not, so they are scraping.

 

I would like to see more from the school on the subject of investing in one's self, but that doesn't fit the political agenda.Students who want the STEM in STEAM must diy, as those courses are considered too elitist to offer in a diverse district.

 

Totally agree with skl. the double breakfast scenario is common, and since they can't pass it to the hungry kids,it gets tossed.

Edited March 21, 2017 by Heigh Ho

[creekland]

Re the comment about encouraging people to use the free breakfast / lunch programs, maybe the families are feeding their kids at home and don't want their kids eating the types and quality of food offered at school.  I saw an article the other day suggesting that some people worry the school breakfast program is contributing to obesity for kids who are eating two breakfasts.  There could be other good reasons for parents not to choose other "free services."

 

I would definitely ensure all are aware of what is available, but never put pressure on parents to use it.

 

Of course if the kid is sitting in school all day and does not have any lunch, that is a different story.  I think most schools have a policy to feed kids who show up without a lunch.

 

ETA another possibility is that kids are ditching their lunch on the sly because they are embarrassed about it, e.g., strong-smelling ethnic food which may have been an excuse for taunting in the past.  Again, that calls for a different response than pushing the parents to stop feeding their kids as they see fit.

 

I think you forget that I know these kids... but perhaps in other situations that's what's going on.  If so, that's not what I'm talking about.

 

Our school has a policy that a kid could get a lunch - a basic cheese sandwich - if they didn't have money or their account ran low, but talk about stigma.  The kids don't want that.  

 

Kids on free/reduced lunch have no stigma at the point of service anymore.  No one can know based upon anything there.  It's not like the days when we went to school and kids had a special meal ticket.  Now it's all an account and kids only have to enter their school ID number.  It's a much better system than before IME.  For a few each year (not a majority), it's just their parents not wanting to sign up.

 

Teachers who try to help do similar to what Maize mentioned - keeping pretzels or similar snacks available for anyone who wants to to help themselves - no questions or stigmas attached.  It's not the same as a lunch, but at least it's something.

[maize]

I think you forget that I know these kids... but perhaps in other situations that's what's going on. If so, that's not what I'm talking about.

 

Our school has a policy that a kid could get a lunch - a basic cheese sandwich - if they didn't have money or their account ran low, but talk about stigma. The kids don't want that.

 

Kids on free/reduced lunch have no stigma at the point of service anymore. No one can know based upon anything there. It's not like the days when we went to school and kids had a special meal ticket. Now it's all an account and kids only have to enter their school ID number. It's a much better system than before IME. For a few each year (not a majority), it's just their parents not wanting to sign up.

 

Teachers who try to help do similar to what Maize mentioned - keeping pretzels or similar snacks available for anyone who wants to to help themselves - no questions or stigmas attached. It's not the same as a lunch, but at least it's something.

Re: stigma

 

I don't know if this is still true but when my sister taught high school in one California district a decade or so ago the kids on free/reduced lunch got a different lunch from self pay students. It came in a cardboard box I think and was quite nasty--and advertised to everyone that you were getting the poor folks' lunch. She used to invite kids to come eat in her classroom so they could at least have a place away from social scrutiny to eat lunch.

Edited March 21, 2017 by maize

[Sneezyone]

I think you forget that I know these kids... but perhaps in other situations that's what's going on.  If so, that's not what I'm talking about.

 

Our school has a policy that a kid could get a lunch - a basic cheese sandwich - if they didn't have money or their account ran low, but talk about stigma.  The kids don't want that.  

 

Kids on free/reduced lunch have no stigma at the point of service anymore.  No one can know based upon anything there.  It's not like the days when we went to school and kids had a special meal ticket.  Now it's all an account and kids only have to enter their school ID number.  It's a much better system than before IME.  For a few each year (not a majority), it's just their parents not wanting to sign up.

 

Teachers who try to help do similar to what Maize mentioned - keeping pretzels or similar snacks available for anyone who wants to to help themselves - no questions or stigmas attached.  It's not the same as a lunch, but at least it's something.

 

There's a new girl at DDs school that consistently has no food or lunch money so DD shares. It's hard to know how much of what I've been told is true but this child wasn't signed up for the bus because the parents insist that she walk. It's bizarre. We're in a foreign country. No one walks in the 110 degree May/June heat around here. I wouldn't have believed it but DD's not generally one to lie about this sort of thing.

[HTRMom]

I wonder if there were some way that parents could earn lunch for their kids, or that the kids could "earn" lunch? But maybe the parents are working too hard anyway.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Sneezyone]

I wonder if there were some way that parents could earn lunch for their kids, or that the kids could "earn" lunch? But maybe the parents are working too hard anyway.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Why not. Making just the poor kids 'sing for their supper' has worked out so well for humanity in the past. Should they stay after school to mop floors while the better off kids play and do homework or give up Saturdays and Sundays to serve on community work parties?

Edited March 21, 2017 by Sneezyone

[maize]

Why not. Making just the poor kids 'sing for their supper' has worked out so well for humanity in the past. Should they stay after school to mop floors while the better off kids play and do homework or give up Saturdays and Sundays to serve on community work parties?

I think pp was trying address what is a real issue for some people-- unwillingness to accept charity. If the family is refusing to accept lunch for free then offering the option of earning it is not a preposterous or hard-hearted suggestion.

 

I saw that post as an attempt at a solution that would allow people their dignity and get the kids fed.

Edited March 21, 2017 by maize

[Sneezyone]

I think pp was trying address what is a real issue for some people-- unwillingness to accept charity. If the family is refusing to accept lunch for free then offering the option of earning it is not a preposterous or hard-hearted suggestion.

 

I saw that post as an attempt at a solution that would allow people their dignity and get the kids fed.

 

It still makes no sense in that context. Singling kids out because they are poor is wrong. Period. Making a 2nd grader miss recess and empty trashcans to 'earn' lunch is wrong. Period. There is no dignity for kids in being singed out for their poverty, even to salve their parents' ego. You think a parent who is unwilling to sign up for free lunch is going to hang a 'poor' sign around their kids' neck by making them a substitute janitor?

Edited March 21, 2017 by Sneezyone

[HTRMom]

Thanks, maize. I certainly think food should be offered to children with no strings attached. And it is. But the real problem is that many parents won't take it. So, what if you offered those children a "job" as the one who runs attendance to the office, or clicks to the next slide from the computer, or wipes the desks with Clorox for five minutes, in exchange for lunch? Just the easiest, least embarrassing thing you can think of that will let the parents save face about taking "handouts." Of course it would need to be offered subtly and individually, so it probably wouldn't work as any kind of national solution.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[FaithManor]

It still makes no sense in that context. Singling kids out because they are poor is wrong. Period. Making a 2nd grader miss recess and empty trashcans to 'earn' lunch is wrong. Period. There is no dignity for kids in being singed out for their poverty, even to salve their parents' ego.

Seriously this. If the parents want to volunteer at night at the school in order to save their egos, then by all means. After all, in a perfect world the responsibility for feeding younglings is on the parents, NOT the child.

 

Never, ever should the child have to prove "worthiness" to receive food by earning what is a given human right to other more fortunate children just because a parent has a bruised ego.

[FaithManor]

Thanks, maize. I certainly think food should be offered to children with no strings attached. And it is. But the real problem is that many parents won't take it. So, what if you offered those children a "job" as the one who runs attendance to the office, or clicks to the next slide from the computer, or wipes the desks with Clorox for five minutes, in exchange for lunch? Just the easiest, least embarrassing thing you can think of that will let the parents save face about taking "handouts." Of course it would need to be offered subtly and individually, so it probably wouldn't work as any kind of national solution.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In most cases there is no way for this to be a private endeavor for the child which means the classmates will know about it, and I guarantee you it will result in bullying because that is what the big nasty hen in the hen house does to the one that it perceives can be easily beat down.

 

Kids get bullied into suicide over their clothes, their talents, the "side of the tracks" they live on, let us not add "working for your food at school" to the list. These kids aren't dumb either. They know they will be vulnerable to the worst amongst them, and will likely not take the jobs. Better to be hungry than beat up, socially harassed, and targeted for scorn.

[Sneezyone]

Thanks, maize. I certainly think food should be offered to children with no strings attached. And it is. But the real problem is that many parents won't take it. So, what if you offered those children a "job" as the one who runs attendance to the office, or clicks to the next slide from the computer, or wipes the desks with Clorox for five minutes, in exchange for lunch? Just the easiest, least embarrassing thing you can think of that will let the parents save face about taking "handouts." Of course it would need to be offered subtly and individually, so it probably wouldn't work as any kind of national solution.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

There is nothing, right now, today that prevents staff from quietly approaching kids and feeding those in need, parents be damned. The only thing that stops us from seeing to the needs of every child in that position is our collective miserliness and unwillingness to intervene when neglect is occurring (and yes, refusing to fill out a form so your kid can eat is neglect in my book).

[creekland]

Re: stigma

 

I don't know if this is still true but when my sister taught high school in one California district a decade or so ago the kids on free/reduced lunch got a different lunch from self pay students. It came in a cardboard box I think and was quite nasty--and advertised to everyone that you were getting the poor folks' lunch. She used to invite kids to come eat in her classroom so they could at least have a place away from social scrutiny to eat lunch.

 

Hopefully that has changed there too.  There literally is no way now that anyone can tell at my school who is on full pay and who is getting free/reduced lunch unless the kids share the info.  It's so much better that way.

 

I think pp was trying address what is a real issue for some people-- unwillingness to accept charity. If the family is refusing to accept lunch for free then offering the option of earning it is not a preposterous or hard-hearted suggestion.

 

I saw that post as an attempt at a solution that would allow people their dignity and get the kids fed.

 

The truth at the high school level is the kids have adopted their parent's values (for better or worse).  Most will NOT accept free gifts (charity) of money or food even if offered privately.  The only time I've had success is when I share the "pay it forward" concept often coupled with the pros of nutrition for the body and brain.  They'll keep the debt in their mind and offer "payback" to someone else in the future when they can.  Once they have that idea, they'll willing accept a couple of bucks and head to the cafeteria.  I suspect some would prefer a private "job" for that reason too - just not one that singles them out in front of peers - if it can happen.

 

What some teachers do in providing snacks available to all is something that works too, but not nearly as nutritious or filling as the kids being able to get an actual lunch.  Then too, the teachers pay out of pocket, which can add up when all kids grab pretzels daily.  A big bucket doesn't go far.

 

So... my mind is wondering if I can work the "pay it forward" concept into class teaching rather than one on one as needed.  Is it possible to change the "stigma" for the majority of kids so when they become adults they can make intelligent decisions if life puts them in a similar situation?  Change the next generation while trying to help the current one?

[MedicMom]

I think pp was trying address what is a real issue for some people-- unwillingness to accept charity. If the family is refusing to accept lunch for free then offering the option of earning it is not a preposterous or hard-hearted suggestion.

 

I saw that post as an attempt at a solution that would allow people their dignity and get the kids fed.

This is actually a problem in my community. People view it as charity and don't want to accept it. The school's solution is to offer reduced lunch for 25 cents.

[kiana]

The truth at the high school level is the kids have adopted their parent's values (for better or worse).  Most will NOT accept free gifts (charity) of money or food even if offered privately.  The only time I've had success is when I share the "pay it forward" concept often coupled with the pros of nutrition for the body and brain.  They'll keep the debt in their mind and offer "payback" to someone else in the future when they can.  Once they have that idea, they'll willing accept a couple of bucks and head to the cafeteria.  I suspect some would prefer a private "job" for that reason too - just not one that singles them out in front of peers - if it can happen.

 

Frankly I always had that attitude (personally) about people buying or giving me things, and the only thing that got me to start accepting was my friends explaining that when they were in college, people gave them things, and they were paying it forward, and I should pay it forward when I had a job. I'm working on that now. 

[creekland]

Frankly I always had that attitude (personally) about people buying or giving me things, and the only thing that got me to start accepting was my friends explaining that when they were in college, people gave them things, and they were paying it forward, and I should pay it forward when I had a job. I'm working on that now. 

 

Paying it forward is a genuine concept.  Not many of us made it where we are without someone helping us out at some point (parents or otherwise).  When we've gotten to where we are, it's natural to want to help others have their chance to succeed too.

 

I wonder how many aren't in a better position merely because they were unwilling to accept help to step up (whether that help is public or private).  It wouldn't have to be school lunches, but job retraining options, assistance with necessary bills, or whatever.  I know there weren't many options available to oodles in the past (and there still aren't enough options for all), but how many are in areas where there are opportunities and turn it down?

 

It seems they may be waiting for someone to see to it that circumstances are different while simultaneously turning down offers that could help accomplish it.

 

Just musing.

[SKL]

I think it's a good idea to encourage kids to develop a mindset where they accept help when they need it, along with giving help when others need it.

 

Not being able to ask for or accept help is a problem for many people at all income levels.  To the point where some of us will endanger our health before we'll let someone help us.  Right now I'm thinking about the times when moms almost collapse (or do collapse) because we are supposed to be all things to all people.

 

How you get that across to teens, I'm not sure.  But it's worth a thought.  :)

[SKL]

PS I have absolutely no problem with people helping my kids out - if they forgot their lunch or whatever - and I'd expect my kids to pay back and also look out for opportunities to pay forward.  I also have no problem with my kids working for it.  I do understand why nobody wants to single out anybody for that, but it's probably not a bad idea to get high school students as a group working, helping, and sharing as it makes sense.

[creekland]

To the point where some of us will endanger our health before we'll let someone help us.  Right now I'm thinking about the times when moms almost collapse (or do collapse) because we are supposed to be all things to all people.

 

Careful you don't get too personal... ;)  (On a homeschool board with many of us uneasy about accepting physical help.)

[SKL]

Careful you don't get too personal... ;)  (On a homeschool board with many of us uneasy about accepting physical help.)

 

I've been there myself too many times.  Not just at home, but at work, in volunteer work ....

 

[Lady Florida.]

Just using your post as a jumping off point (no criticism of your post intended)

 

This type of moralizing and by-proxy micromanaging is really very detrimental to furthering a more effective and efficient system.  It's also reprehensible as a practice, but that's another issue entirely. 

 

To place micro-restraints or moral judgments upon people receiving assistance is to deny the larger problem of why and how a government provides basic living supports.  The US systems seem designed with an eye toward viewing the recipients as potential criminals -- i.e we have to micromanage the money given to eliminate chances of fraud and abuse.  The populace (some parts of it anyway) then jump on this view and begin to stereotype recipients as criminals/fraudsters.  However, statistically, the recipient as fraudster is not borne out at all.  In fact, there is very little proven fraud in the US welfare systems/programs.  But... of course... as all stereotypes will do, the prevailing sentiment is the stereotypical one, no matter how inaccurate it may be.

 

Instead of micromanaging and judging the moral capacity of recipients, it would be more effective, efficient AND economical to allow people the freedom to spend a basic living support as it meets their needs. Bonus points to a government who can also provide some educational support to those recipients who may want to improve their budgeting skills. 

 

My point is ... most people, when treated like a human being with autonomy and worthy of respect, will be able to make reasonable decisions on how to spend the money they have, and they will create more effective use of that money than a laundry list of restrictions will be able to produce.

 

Beautifully said, Audrey.