• brygphilomena@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    11 months ago

    Is this actually true or just post hoc ergo propter hoc?

    It seems like we shouldnt need a tax on millionaires just to pay for lunches. It’s more depressing than we weren’t paying for lunches more than it is inspiring that we are now.

    • Hikiru@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      Just look it up. And we should need taxes for it, because that’s what taxes are (at least they should be) for.

      • brygphilomena@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        I think you misunderstood my question. I was genuinely asking if it was directly from this tax that the program was expanded. The articles I read on it said that this tax would help, as it’s allocated to public schools and transportation. But they also said part of it would be coming from federal grants.

        I am all for taxation, don’t get me wrong. But it’s a failure of our government that this took a millionaires tax to accomplish. And I don’t think this goes far enough in either the taxation or the allocation of funds for our school children.

    • explodicle@local106.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      IMHO it’s not just to pay for lunches (or whatever else); the primary goal is to limit price inflation and housing speculation. The fact that it generates revenue is an added bonus.

    • eskimofry@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      It’s more depressing than we weren’t paying for lunch

      Because billionaires lobbied congress to reduce budget for public schools