|
General Note: I think it might be important to talk about food assistance and generally keeping the poorest fed. There's been a lot of discussion about this topic lately, but it's always simmered. For my part, in this opening post, I'm going to mention two topics that I have familiarity with (thought, not by any means an expertise). Both topics are specific to the United States. This is because I can talk at least somewhat intelligently about these topics, in ways I can't about food deserts, food assistance in other developed countries, food aid to developing countries, or nutritional policy in general. I'd like to know more about those topics as well, and others that may not have occurred to me at the moment. I'd like to spend a little time talking about (1) U.S. Food Assistance Programs, and (2) sales tax relief for food and groceries. These topics have been getting a bit of press lately, and they overlap to an extent. I'm going to start with sales tax. Sales Tax Overview: In general, 45 states and the District of Columbia have sales taxes. Of those, all but seven provide at least a global partial exemption for grocery food, if not an outright global exemption. The ones that don't won't surprise anyone: Hawaii (well, this one may be surprising, but it has to do with the nature of Hawaii's sales tax, which is actually a gross receipts tax that can be visibly allocated on a buyer's receipt, which is bit technical and outside the scope of this thread), Idaho, Kansas, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Mississippi, and Alabama (a few of these offer refunds/rebates to the extremely poor that are confusing and narrow and hard to get). The remaining states vary in what they offer. For example, Tennessee taxes food at 5.5% instead of 7% (plus whatever local rate applies), Illinois at 1% (and no additional local, if I recall correctly). South Carolina exempts food entirely from the state tax, but certain local penny taxes may apply. North Carolina and Georgia also exempt food from the state tax, but not from the local. Michigan exempts food entirely due to a state constitutional issue. So, as you can see, it's a little across the board. The rules get more complicated from there. Candy, and soft-drinks may or may not be exempt. Even if candy is exempt, some products that have flour (Kit-Kats, Twix) may not be "candy." Nearly universally, "prepared food" or "food for immediate consumption" or some similar vague term will not be exempt. What this means is also across the board. In some places, it's just hot food and stuff that comes on a plate or from a fountain (somewhat oversimplified). In Ohio, as long as you tell the teller the food is "to-go" it's exempt, even if you sit down and eat it there. In California, there is the 80/80 rule, which is its own kind of fun. http://www.boe.ca.gov/lawguides/business/current/btlg/vol1/sutr/1603.html See subsection (c) if you're interested. One major thing to notice is that these tend to be global exemptions. That is, they are as much relief for the richest as they are for the poorest. It's easier to administer that way and it avoids seeming "unfair," but it also reflects at least some level of "you shouldn't get a benefit if I don't." There are also questions about what "prepared food" is, and where the line is drawn. Now, the policy reason for excluding prepared food is that it's a luxury. But, keep in mind prepared food nearly universally includes hot food (Ohio is an outlier here). So a $1 cheeseburger or a gas station hot dog grabbed during lunch by a minimum wage day laborer is luxury food. Better yet, a number of state's include "two or more ingredients mixed by the seller" in "prepared food." So, under this rule, a take and bake pizza or a tub of macaroni salad from the deli is taxed, while the same products by third party vendors aren't. This is already bizarre. But even better, a lot of states exclude candy, but candy doesn't include products with flour. So a kit-kat isn't candy. Now, most people aren't particularly familiar with these rules, because they're kind of insane. So even though a person has the chance to avoid a purchase being a luxury, it's unlikely they'll even realize there's a distinction. Food Assistance Overview: There are two major food assistance programs. SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly known as food stamps), and WIC (Women, Infants, and Children). SNAP is broader than WIC, and gets a lot more press. Their goals are different. SNAP is a general program meant to ensure people don't starve. WIC is narrowly intended to ensure positive health outcomes for pregnant women and infant children. As a result, WIC eligible foods are greatly limited compared to food stamps. Edit: These programs are federal, so purchases are never subject to a sales tax. For example, here's what USDA has to say about SNAP eligible food at http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/eligible-food-items. quote:The Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (the Act) defines eligible food as any food or food product for home consumption and also includes seeds and plants which produce food for consumption by SNAP households. The Act precludes the following items from being purchased with SNAP benefits: alcoholic beverages, tobacco products, hot food and any food sold for on-premises consumption. Nonfood items such as pet foods, soaps, paper products, medicines and vitamins, household supplies, grooming items, and cosmetics, also are ineligible for purchase with SNAP benefits... And here's a little blurb about WIC from http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/wic/WIC-Fact-Sheet.pdf. quote:he foods provided through the WIC Program are designed to supplement participants’ diets with specific nutrients. WIC authorized foods include infant cereal, baby foods, iron-fortified adult cereal, fruits and vegetables, vitamin C-rich fruit or vegetable juice, eggs, milk, cheese, yogurt, soy-based beverages, tofu, peanut butter, dried and canned beans/peas, canned fish, whole wheat bread and other whole-grain options. For infants of women who do not fully breastfeed, WIC provides iron-fortified infant formula cial infant formulas and medical foods may also be provided if medically indicated. Here are some general rules about WIC:
States can forbid any food with sweeteners States can allow the participant to use their Cash Value Voucher (portion of the program for fruits/veggies) at farmer's markets States must provide some staple items, but can require approval so that only particular brands are available States can decide whether cheese can come in slices or pre-shredded States can decide what size and color eggs are permissible States must allow fresh fruits and vegetables, but need not allow canned, frozen, or dried It should be immediately apparent that this is far more limited than SNAP. For good reason, although I think it's questionable if some states have taken it too far. Here are some WIC lists to compare
http://www.health.state.mn.us/wic/vendor/fpchng/shopguide.pdf http://www.scdhec.gov/Library/ML-025486.pdf https://public.health.oregon.gov/HealthyPeopleFamilies/wic/Documents/1001-food-list-engl.pdf https://www.dshs.state.tx.us/wichd/approved_foods/new_foods.shtm Now, the program intentions aside, is this too paternalistic? Many, but not all, states produce glossy lists like above, with pictures of individually approved brands. Whether the pictures are examples or strict requirements varies by state. When they are strict requirements, they come of as horribly paternalistic. "You're not smart enough to find the right bread. Here, we've done it for you." Why Does Any of this Matter? On a global level, it matters because it says a lot of things about where a state's priorities are. A state's WIC list can be instructive into that state's values and concerns. Moreso, a state's sales tax policy indicates how it feels about the poorest among us. Finally, there are movements to tie SNAP eligible foods to either (1) sales tax exempt products, or, worse (WIC approved lists + some other staples). For example, in Wisconsin there's this quote:The bill, introduced by Rep. Rob Brooks, R-Saukville, would require that two-thirds of all purchases made with FoodShare benefits must be spent on foods approved under the federal nutritional program for women, infants and children (WIC) or beef, pork, chicken, fish, fresh produce and white potatoes. There are also movements to tie SNAP eligibility to sales tax grocery exemptions. This gets weird and inconsistent. As discussed above, prepared food tends to get excluded from sales tax exemptions. Now, I've only heard rumblings about these types of reforms, and haven't seen any proposed legislation, so maybe they'd be smart enough to work out these idiotic distinctions, but who knows. Things I Haven't Touched: I also know there are pushes to limit food stamp eligibility by the unemployed. I'm not familiar enough to provide a rambling discussion though, and would invite somebody with more knowledge to address that. Further, I've heard there may be pushes to lower eligibility thresholds to kick people off of the benefits. I also haven't gone into the widely held myth of the SNAP recipient seen leaving parking lot in a Mercedes. All of these topics deserve discussion, because they touch on how we treat the weakest and most vulnerable people in our society. HashtagGirlboss fucked around with this message at 05:28 on May 11, 2015 |
#
?
May 11, 2015 02:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 20:29 |
|
|
I live in Southern California, where we actually have a massive food insecurity problem. I've volunteered and helped out at food banks and food pantries quite a bit and my mom had a job at a nonprofit dealing with assistance for underpriviledged families for quite some time. I can't speak much to the administrative end of the process. but I have seen some really illuminating things from my time there. I have actually seen people picking up assistance packages in nice cars, but that simply doesn't tell the whole story. The price of living in SoCal has always been high, but since the collapse of 2008, it has skyrocketed. Well, more accurately, it has continued its upward trend unabated while the average person's ability to pay for it has drastically diminished. That's the thing: you see well-to-do people in nice cars rolling up to pick up some food from the pantry, but they probably bought the car in 2007 when they had a stable, high paying job that was yanked away from them the next year. Government aid has not really expanded to meet the demand that government economic failures have created. I still remember an older woman applying for aid in tears because of all the social stigma surrounding it, and the fact that this had never been necessary before in her life. Having a Mercedes doesn't make you rich if you get fired from your job in a global depression. That was a few years ago now, but the reality is that a lot of people still haven't gotten back on their feet, and the number of people who were never on their feet to begin with continues to grow. It requires 144 hours of work per week on minimum wage to simply afford rent for a standard apartment in Orange County, and the demand for foodstamps and housing assistance are about as high as they have ever been. It's a real mess down here for a lot of people, but nobody in charge seems particularly inclined to talk about it. This isn't anybody's fault: if you don't have money to start with down here, then you are in a pretty terrible spot. There's a pretty sizable population of underpiviledged people here who aren't exactly at liberty to pack their bags and leave for cheaper areas.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 05:09
|
|
|
I'm only happy if the poor are trading their organs for gruel mix.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 05:12
|
|
|
That was an excellent OP, thank you. One thing that I've wondered is how big an issue food access is in the US. Are there a lot of people who suffer from malnutrition? I'd google it myself, but I think I lack the requisite knowledge to correctly interpret the stats on it.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 05:17
|
|
|
VikingofRock posted:That was an excellent OP, thank you. One thing that I've wondered is how big an issue food access is in the US. Are there a lot of people who suffer from malnutrition? I'd google it myself, but I think I lack the requisite knowledge to correctly interpret the stats on it. nearly all americans are able to consistently get enough food to survive, but somewhere around 5% of american households have at least one person involuntarily forego eating for a day every once in a while, largely due to lack of money. two big factors as to why people cannot purchase enough food is because 1) they need to prioritize some other long term expense, such as rent or car repair, over an adequate weekly food budget 2) there is a stigma attached to food assistance programs, only 2/3 of households who qualify for food stamps actually apply for and collect them another complicating factor is that garbage food is cheap in america. you can get a box of salty carbohydrates for like a dollar, and it will fill you up. households who tend to have low food security are correlated with lack of access to grocery stores. many poor people in the united states, both rural and urban, have a limited selection of food retail available, often independently owned low margin stores who often do not stock more expensive and perishable fresh foods in favor of boxed, processed food. some people supplement this with gardening, but that is not a feasible solution. so it's possible to afford enough raw calories to not qualify as hungry even if you're giving yourself diabetes and heart disease in the process we know that simple food is good for you. like just cook some vegetables and eat that, fills you up and not many calories. but processed food is calorie dense so paradoxially in america poor people are fat, because they eat cheap high energy food that slowly kills you if you rely on it as a dietary staple. like a mcdonalds meals is relatively cheap and tasty. so it depends on what you really mean by malnutrition, americans aren't really starving but the food we tend to eat is horrible boner confessor fucked around with this message at 05:34 on May 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 05:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 20:29 |
|
|
Dazzling Addar posted:Lots of relevant stuff This is true. I'm reminded of an article I read on salon a while back. http://www.salon.com/2014/10/08/im_the_welfare_mom_with_a_coach_purse/ That said, I think it has a lot to do with confirmation bias. You remember the one person who rolled up in the expensive car because it was novel, and you don't necessarily remember the dozens who came in a nondescript used car. Which isn't meant to mock you. I do the same thing. Popular Thug Drink posted:there is a stigma attached to food assistance programs, only 2/3 of households who qualify for food stamps actually apply for and collect them This is a really important point. There are people who are too proud to get assistance they deserve. I think this has to do with the stigma placed on public assistance. By not taking it, you're nobly adhering to your values of hard work and whatever... You get a kind of status from suffering. You're doing it "the right way." Popular Thug Drink posted:another complicating factor is that garbage food is cheap in america. you can get a box of salty carbohydrates for like a dollar, and it will fill you up. I think this is also complicated by the opportunity cost to make a healthy meal. To make a healthy meal, you need planning, preparation, pots, pans, a range top and and oven, and most importantly, time. Easy Mac or Ramen take a minute.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 06:01
|
|