Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "Fox News Host Offended By Kids Eating Free Food" video.

@cwkay6847 the parents that adjusted the form 4 times either were in need of the free lunch, or they could afford but do not want to pay. (no one knows if they live in an inherited home for free, or have to pay off medical debt, or the landlord just raised the rent, while another family at least has affordable housing. One family pays for the surgery of a beloved pet and they do so with an installment plan. Not all that adjust the form 4 times are little league grifters and the sums are nothing like the big grifts that go on in the country). Admin staff checks the form 4 times (that is red tape waste of wages), and if a parent has to resort to such tricks it can't feel good either and THEY also have to invest the time. IF the parents could pay but try to game the system - then there is an easy and fair way to means test. It is called TAXES. If all get it for free and every one pays taxes according to their ability it is the most NUANCED, fair, easy and efficient way to handle it. Accounting for things like number of children, if you have any property, capital gains, income of a partner, inheritance. Some people also will feel ashamed to ask for the form even though they would qualify - but no one feels ashamed if they pay little or not taxes. That a person reduces the income 4 times on the form does not necessarily mean they would not be a good fit for a free lunch program or a partially ! free program. But you cannot administrate a 30 % or 50 % discount - but that is exactely what a well designed tax system does. It is not 100 % in or out - it is GRADUALLY. Even the fairly financially stable parents would get the free lunch and they might get "only" a 10 or 20 % discount, whereas the affluent parents pay for 2 or more meals and the low income parents pay zero.
4
@cwkay6847 Yes but there likely is still the stigma of being the kid that does not pay. (and that it will be noticed by others who do pay). And children often feel the humiliation even if no one is unkind about it. Adults recall that experience, so it must be a huge thing. Another study I read about many years ago. What adults think is traumatic for children (age 6 - 8 in that range), and what children think is the worst that could happen to them (the 5 worst things). The adults got it right on a few issues: Losing a family member or pet would be the most terrible things, the children agreed on that. But the children also reported how bad it would be for them to fail in school and to not progress into the next class. The adults totally failed to realize how traumatic that is for children. Nature made it so that children want to fit in, want to have some standing in their group. That is the age where children try to figure out community and their place in groups. They are super sensitive about being the stupid kid, the one that loses all friends, that cannot read (think the times when they did not deal properly with legasthenics). About not fitting in and being "different". About not having the right clothes, or not paying for the lunch - like the other children. So even being the kid that gives the voucher to the cashier, or they pass by w/o paying - and most kids do pay, can be deeply humiliating for a child.
3
@cwkay6847 A comment from + Levi Nunya outside this thread “Those kids are gonna grow up thinking that school lunch is FREE!” Believe me, lady, as a kid who needed assistance with my lunch, it was painfully obvious EVERY DAY at lunch time that I was an exception and that my situation required special focus and attention. It was humiliating, and I stopped eating lunch pretty quickly. My empty, brown belly ought to provide you with Karenesque relief. Everybody, go down to that comment and like and add a comment so it goes to the top - I have read such comments before. That is wrong by "singling" out children for "programs for the poor" - painfully reminding the little ones that something is "not right with them". And as children are programmed to find their place in the group they are super sensitive about that.
2
If the school has the lunches for ALL kids they can have an efficient way to cook for all and to adminstrate it for all. But how will you impose the SHAME for needing vouchers or being the kid that does not pay (like the other kids) if ALL kids have it for fee (I read comments, that seems to be a thing, kids are aware that they are "on welfare" and feel ashamed and "singled out". That can be even if no one, not even the other kids are unkind about it). How will the distinctions of the haves and not-haves be maintained if no one means tests and it is made clear - often w/o words - out how it is an exception that the child get's it for free and they should not even be in that position. Being behind on school lunch money was used by insensitive workers to humiliate children in the past. They (or teachers) are annoyed that parents are not up to the little task (of course no one knows what is going on in that household, it is safe to assume things are not going swimmingly and that kid is not in need of MORE problems. Even if the parents cares and there is enough money, so it is more a neglect of a stressed out parent ... ). To the point where one person threw the lunch into the garbage so the kid would not get the lunch that was not paid for. children had a balance and that was overdrawn. The open sum was trivial, but that was not the first time the kid was behind (always trivial sums). In order to "punish" the mother (over a few dollars, really) they "showed" the kid. Another aspect. Every day a few kids witll be sick or otherwise absent, so if a child is neglected at home, they can have the extra food for free. And IF the parents are on drugs, or waste the money, or a part of their wages are garnished (even SS can be garnished, and that may be possible for disability as well) - the kids still get the food in school, parents do not have to pay, like they also do not have to pay for the services of teachers. But they realize of course that a lot of "anchor" kids will get free lunch and will not feel bad about that, while their parents (undocumented or not) try to work their way up. The costs for the food are not higher (the kids that can afford it supposedly have the same lunch made with by the same persons so it will cost the same to produce it). So the taxes needed to finance that for all, will not need to pay for more. It is just that affluent parents pay for 1.5 or 2 meals. And they cannot take credit for their charity because it is by default.
1