Students in Massachusetts will get free lunch and breakfast at school thanks to a new 4% tax put on people who earn more than $1 million.
We need different terms for people who HAVE a million dollars and people who MAKE a million per year. Lots of people will read this millionaire’s tax and think it will apply to them when they are nearing retirement since they finally have a million dollars after saving all their life.
The descriptor “free” misleads - this is exactly the type of thing taxes were always meant to pay for.
It’s mad that children could some how not deserve or accumulate debt to eat. It’s even more mad that its exactly what happens.
It’s also mad that this is also the case for adults. When you turn 18, you shouldn’t suddenly lose basic rights (like access to food and shelter), but that’s exactly what most capitalists want to happen (and so that’s how it works).
Goods with inelastic demand shouldn’t be driven by the profit motive. Food, healthcare, housing, etc. We can let luxury goods stay within the private sector for now since people don’t need them to survive, and come back to that conversation at a later date.
Free school meals should be a given since our taxes should go to what our elected officials have so thoughtfully decided where to apply them. What no one rarely brings up let alone tries to solve is the disgusting and unsafe food that the local, state and fed officials decide to make available. There’s too much politics in cafeteria food. They should focus there budget in getting healthy food not the cheapest, uncles cousins or corporate friend contract.
That’s great news! No kid should ever be hungry at school, especially when they really are legally forced to be there!
But that will teach them that free stuff is good which will make them communists who love big government!!1! I want children to hunt for their own food like in the good old days. Didn’t catch anything? Too bad little Timmy, guess you won’t eat tonight because we don’t got no welfare state!
Also I believe in protecting the children and am pro-life.
/s
deleted by creator
COVID response is wild because for like 2 years we had a robust expansion of both direct government aid and healthcare coverage and accessibility, and the poof most of it disappeared. Like we literally had free healthcare at point of service for one disease which is crazy.
Great to see that at least some states responding to the demand for these heightened services. We should be pointing towards the example of COVID aid to show what the government can do if the public pressure is there. If we did it once we can do it again!
As a student who grew up attending Massachusetts public schools, this is fantastic news. Just wish that could have been me!
I used to bring a lot of boxed lunch in most days instead because school lunches were an unnecessary expense, but sometimes I’d buy school lunch if it was one I liked.
I don’t know if this applies everywhere, but my school district at least had a needs-based free lunch (and breakfast) program for those from low income families, but honestly all students deserve to eat a healthy and nutritious meal during school, which I am sure also takes quite a bit of stress off of parents.
The trouble with needs based programs is that students who receive the free lunch then get shamed by other students for being poor. Thus the movement to give the lunch to everyone. The cost per student is fairly low compared to the other expenses of running a school. Plus there are savings resulting from getting rid of the bureaucracy that figures out who is needy enough to get a free lunch, getting rid of the payment collection operation, etc, that partly offset the cost of the additional free lunches.
But but that’s socialism
Slightly off topic. A lot of public schools already get free meals thanks to federal education dollars. The school lunches are free in my area because of this, even though the (red) state won’t act.
The state has attempted to kill off those dollars in the past.
The GOP is dead set on continuing something called “school lunch debt.” Let that phrase sink in for a moment.
https://www.npr.org/transcripts/1167163106
https://jacobin.com/2023/05/universal-free-school-meals-program-act-lunch-debt-opposition
Indiana did free meals, then announced kids had to get approved nicknames like Florida…
Just to clarify for other here. Indiana does not do universal free lunch like Massachusetts. You have to apply for it.
Honestly, as a Hoosier, surprised they even went for the free meals.
It’s like the us is always 20 years behind the rest of the world when it comes to things that actually matter.
Common sense rules in these blue areas.
Good. Now slap a 0 to the end of that 4, and then double it.
Made me curious what the total tax rate would be in Mass. Apparently it has a flat 5% income tax, plus 4% millionaires tax, plus federal rate for income over about 578k is 37%, so altogether it’s 46% for income over a mil in Mass.
Definitely think it should be higher for such wildly high income. Also disappointed to see for being a relatively progressive state Mass has a flat rather than progressive income tax.
Definitely think it should be higher for such wildly high income.
Higher, nothing. There should be a rate above which it’s taxed at 100%. No one needs to be as rich as Musk or Zuckerberg or Bezos.
And yet you guys wonder why millionaires move to Texas. You increase the taxes above a certain number and they’ll take all their wealth, consumption and their taxes to another state.
Taxes should be sustainable. High taxes on rich people aren’t sustainable because they’ll leave taking whatever taxes they pay and whatever consumption they do which contributes to the economy.
The wealth that they hoard? The consumption they import? Let me guess, they’re also “job creators.”
Who pays your salary?
A corporation. Not a rich individual.
Who do you think created these corporations? Rich people with aim to make more money.
Capitalism pays your salary. Without capitalism and with theft of wealth via unfair taxation, your job won’t exist.
I’m pretty sure at an 80% rate the millionaires would just spend the rate moving, out of state or out of country depending on how far reaching it was.
And nothing of value was lost…
Like, oh no, what would a state do without their money hoarding exploiters that alredy contribute less than the bare minimum???
And worse - if everyone decided to make these laws, where will the poor millionaires escape to then???Oh, won’t someone think of the millionaires!!!11
And nothing of value was lost…
Except the taxable income you wanted to tax?
You mean the money that we already aren’t getting?
I don’t want to tax, I want to eat.
Oh look, someone else who doesn’t understand how progressive tax brackets work. Their effective tax rate wouldn’t be 80%, only income above a certain (very high) number would be taxed at 80%.
Colorado did something similar last year as well.
https://www.npr.org/2022/11/09/1134832752/colorado-free-school-lunch-results-measure-midterms
And my kid will still refuse to eat it… We had free lunches here during the pandemic.
How did you do the custom font on your username? It looks awesome!!!
emojis, doesn’t look as good on iOS because half of them are tiny so it just looks like cOkANe
Lol, Thanks!
Not to discourage continued bleeding of the rich, but I wonder if this is the right way to go about it. Theoretically, we should already have a lot of laws on the books that slam millionaires for their advantageous position. But, their budget also allows for accountants that shift and hide that money, sometimes on a questionable basis of legality.
Could one prong on this assault be to increase the IRS’ operating budget, so that they’re able to track down and stop more of these tax haven shenanigans?
Could one prong on this assault be to increase the IRS’ operating budget, so that they’re able to track down and stop more of these tax haven shenanigans?
Well you could simply start by plugging up a few questionable tax loopholes.
Whether or not the reason the IRS can’t collect the tax revenue to be able to provide certain services is because of them not having enough money, I don’t know.
But if you’re issue is with certain laws on taxation, it would makes more sense to deal with those first.
EDIT: To mention something else that’s important to all of this, there’s something called the Laffer Curve. The simple explanation is that there’s a happy medium between the percentage of income tax and the amount of tax revenue gained. Too much or too little income taxation and you end up with less tax revenue. You can see this in a few times during US history where the income tax wasn’t as high, but the tax revenue was great. So to further determine where we should go with income tax you could look at the past few years of projected and actual tax revenue, as well as spending to service government debt among other government spending.
I’m not an economist nor an accountant, but this is likely what you’d have to do to figure out the balance between taxation and government spending in order to have money for certain social services. However, no one wants to do that and another big problem is the government doesn’t like being told it needs to manage it’s spending better.
