Well that's a stupid ass way to go about it, I'd rather tax everyone based upon their wealth to feed all the children. The poorest would even be exempt, as they cannot bear the tax burden, while the wealthy would pay more, as they can.
Ok, great, we are totally rebuilding the tax code. Let's do it. Let's set a threshold of ..... 100k before income tax kicks in. Even then, your money would be better spent targeting it.
Hoover Dam, Glen Canyon Dam, Theodore Roosevelt Dam, Parker Dam, Painted Rock Dam, Mormon Flat Dam? Quite a lot of dams in the desert, as it turns out.
It also turns out that the administrative overhead of means-testing government aid often costs more than just providing the aid to everyone. Food is relatively cheap compared to staff, so I’m going to guess that it’s cheaper just to feed the rich kids, if they want it, rather than expend a lot of money and effort to ensure that they don’t get any. This has the side benefit of removing an often-arduous and humiliating application process for poor families, and the stigma of “poor” that humiliates children in the lunchroom.
And, holy hell, we’re talking about feeding children, I don’t know why this is so hateful to so many people.
Touche. Ok, middle of the driest part of the Sahara.
Hang on. Are you saying live government bureaucracies are inefficient and wasteful?
This whole poor people being humiliated by receiving aid discourse it's toxic as hell. Is a supermarket in the UK that recently started selling their cheapest stuff with a yellow brand, people said this about that if we're going to humiliate the poor people buying it. The only people who think that are people who are not themselves poor.
Especially when the answer is to just turn on the money gun fire it randomly around I find that offensive.
Also it's interesting how people can be too poor to have to apply for a benefit or to have that benefit means tested yet they can't be too poor to not be proud about receiving that benefit.