Chicago School Bans Lunches From Home
You know, I wasn’t going to post this because I figured that liberals would be all for it and conservatives would be against and it would just be a simple story that wouldn’t go anywhere. Enter HuffPo.
Look at the comments. Almost no one agrees with this, even in the liberal Valhalla, HuffPo.
You want an example of government officials thinking they know better than parents, here you go. One more example of a one size fits all approach that is doomed to nothing but failure. I read in another article than many students were simply observed buying the lunch and dumping it in the trash. Boy, they sure are eating healthier.
Schools seriously need to return to what they are supposed to be doing, educating children in the basic subjects that society has determined everyone should know. History, biology, chemistry, English, math, etc. They need to spend no time deciding what kids should be eating, if parents want to pack a tub full of lard for lunch that’s not the schools business. It’s the schools business to provide lunches to those who want to buy them, not to determine what everyone must eat.
Leave a comment
When in the course of human events... 
I waded through and I have to make one disagreement – a lot of the liberals are upset because they don’t think the food is as good as what the parents provide. I suspect many of them would support the policy is the school served lowfat organic fairtrade hummus.
It’s not the principle, it’s the details some of them don’t like.
That thought did occur to me, but in the end, politics will always make strange bedfellows.
Ummm, you DO know that liberals are all about individuality and freedom, right? About simplicity and home-made stuff?
What would make you think liberals would be supportive of being told they can’t bring their own school lunches?
Perhaps you don’t understand liberals as well as you might think you do?
Dan, when I read this story the first thing I thought was, here goes the liberals again…
It’s clear that this is an extremist position, but it doesn’t not contradict left wing views. This embraces the idea of putting experts in charge instead of risking the public making the “wrong” decision.
How do you explain the bans on trans fat, flavored tobacco and caffeinated alcohol – and that was just in the last few years. Why would this be any different from that mindset?
Liberals value free speech.
Liberals value free choice.
Liberals don’t like gov’t telling them what to do.
SOME Liberals, like many conservatives, DO like to tell others what to do. But it’s not a liberal value.
Its off subject, but I remember you saying in regard to a flat tax that “equal isn’t always fair”. I just came a cross a video going over a simple flat tax better than I could ever hope to. I think you’ll find it interesting.
Seriously? I thought the Cato Institute was, for all it’s flaws, supposed to be producing stuff by smart people. This video looks like it was written by and for third graders? Are they talking down to people or is that the way they always speak/promote ideas?
I’m only halfway through it and had to quit because it was so silly, but I’ll go back to see if they get around to dealing with the problems with a flat tax.
“its” flaws. Not “it’s,” obviously.
I’m sorry, but that’s just about the silliest thing I’ve ever seen produced by someone who supposedly is associated with a reputable organization. I’m assuming that the Cato Institute does not endorse or approve of that message, does it? Seriously, it looks like it was trying to make the case for a flat tax to third graders. I just can’t tell if it’s intentionally patronizing of just written by someone who’s coming from that level.
He does not deal with the problem of fairness/justice. As I noted before, treating everyone EQUALLY is not the same as acting with JUSTICE or FAIRNESS.
I think it’s written for the lowest common denominator, but that’s kind of the point I gather.
The point I was hoping you would pick up on is simply that a complex tax system is inherently unfair to poorer people. Any progressive tax system is going to be complex, since it deals with people inequitably, by necessity there are going to be exemptions and credits to try and even things back out a little. As a result of the thousands of pages of ‘tweaks’ the people and business’s with more resources are going to be able to exploit the system more than most of us can.
The necessary complexity makes progressive systems more unfair and more unjust in my opinion. Whereas in flat tax system, as the third grade teacher notes, you give a generous exemption at the bottom and as a reasonable person should be able to figure out from that, the rate of taxation would be set to meet the governments needs above that.
The point I was hoping you would pick up on is simply that a complex tax system is inherently unfair to poorer people.
How so? That is what I’m not hearing from the flat tax side – HOW does this help poor folk?
Any progressive tax system is going to be complex, since it deals with people inequitably, by necessity there are going to be exemptions and credits to try and even things back out a little.
WHY so? Why not just have a SIMPLE progressive tax scheme? Under $15,000 = no tax. Under $75,000 = 15% tax. Over $75,000 = 25% tax.
A progressive scheme in no way needs to be any more complex than a flat tax.
IF we had a flat tax that did not involve the poor paying more than they already pay (and with sales tax on food, gas, and other necessities, an AWFUL lot of their income IS taxed), and it provided the right amount to fund the gov’t, I’m fine with that. As Jefferson noted, if the poor and working class could have their education, roads and other common needs paid for by the wealthier, that would be a good thing.
Why not put the standard deduction at 40,000 and have flat tax of 20% over that?
Explain to me why the wealthier need to pay more tax! If you are going to have a progressive income tax why not a progressive sales tax? The simpler it is, the less it costs to comply and the lower the tax rate the better chance you have of collecting all that is required by law.
The fact is that you lessen the incentive to have better paying job every time people people jump from one bracket to next one in a progressive system. There are more than 30 countries that have had fantastic success with a flat system. Uncollected taxes fall, meaning the tax rate can be lower for everyone, alternately the standard household deduction could move higher.
Progressive tax schemes become pretty dangerous when the economy takes a downturn. California and New York have recently found this out. They had such a high dependence on the wealthier persons with their incomes closely tied to the health of the economy. They took a hit and tax receipts crashed.
xplain to me why the wealthier need to pay more tax!
They are the ones benefiting most financially from the system as it exists, thus they should pay more.
They have the most to lose from the system collapsing, thus they should pay more (out of their own self interest, as Benjamin Franklin argued, I believe).
Because it is a self evident truth that to those who have received much, much will be expected.
As to your suggested 20% above $40,000, I’m okay with that (although I do not think it is as just as a more progressive scheme), presuming that 20% raises enough to pay for our common needs. My concern is for the poorest. If you are allowing for them to opt out somehow, then that alleviates my greatest concern. My second concern is for justice and as a matter of justice, I think a progressive scheme serves best.
The fact is that you lessen the incentive to have better paying job every time people people jump from one bracket to next one in a progressive system.
? Really? We’ve had a relatively (nominally) progressive tax scheme for decades now and I have yet to see folk giving up on trying to get richer.
As stated, if you want to eliminate tax loopholes for the wealthier, I’m all for that. If you want to say those under a certain amount don’t have to pay tax, I’m all for that.
But why NOT have a progressive scheme. I make much more than the guy who makes minimum wage. I WANT to pay proportionately increasing more than that person does. Why? As a matter of justice.
Taxing 20% of my salary for taxes might be a pain to a middle class guy like me, but it would be devastating for the guy making poverty wages.
But jumping back a second: If we did your proposal, eliminated taxes for those under $40k. And then, if the gov’t expenditures calls for everyone over $40,000 to pay 30% (25%, whatever), do you think most Americans are fine with that?
Or, do you think that most Americans are going to think like Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin and think that the wealthiest ought to be paying more, as a matter of justice and fairness?
these fall principally on the rich, it is a general desire to make them contribute the whole money we want…
…the farmer [ie, working class/poor] will see his government supported, his children educated, and the face of his country made a paradise by the contributions of the rich alone…
~Thomas Jefferson
You’re certainly not a man of few words (neither am I!). I’m exhausted at the moment, but I look forward to reading your comment today sometime and telling you why you’re wrong! haha!
Quite simply, now that I’ve had time to read this, I just don’t see any questions I haven’t already given answers to. Our country spent almost 400 billion dollars, just to comply with the complex progressive scheme this year. The maze of credits and such designed to encourage certain behavior (simply government meddling in what should be private choices) automatically give the advantage to the wealthy. They can afford to find out what behaviors are rewarded by the tax code, the rest of us can’t.
So again, I simply say that the rich will always pay more in a flat system than you or I. If they make 1,000 times more they will pay 1,000 times more. Instead of the exponential punishment you would like to foist on them.