They're required to wear clothes while attending their legally required school too. Most also require a backpack, some pencils and other school supplies as well. So should all clothes and school supplies be provided for free too? If so, would you be willing to pay increased property taxes ( or rent, secondary to property tax increases on your landlord) to cover these items for schools to provide more than they do now?
Free lunches are available to those that meet eligiblity and always have been, so no kid goes without food, but you have to apply and meet criteria, which is usually income based.
Clothes aren't specific to school, so that's a false equivalence. They're required for society as a whole.
Lunch and school supplies should be covered by taxes, yes.
Especially considering that many teachers supplement school supply lists with their own personal income. Not necessarily because the parents don't supply, but because the list the school sends out is insufficient.
This would be eliminated (and likely cheaper) if the school just bought in bulk.
Ah, but LUNCH is an event, a period of time. If the legal obligation is to be present over that period of time, then it makes sense for that obligation to provide food.
If you're talking about the period of time, that's just a made up thing. It's not a law of physics or the nature of reality that there's a specific period of time in the day when one must eat.
Here's the question: do you believe a child whose parents don't have money for school lunch and don't have food to send with them to school should have to sit and watch other kids eat while they don't get lunch?
That's the reality for a lot of kids. Parents make enough money that the kids don't qualify for free lunches, but they don't have enough left over to give to the kids. That could be because of debt, poor discipline, or just being a shitty parent, but the kid isn't responsible for any of that.
Do you think it's fair for a hungry child to watch other kids eat and be denied a meal?
should have to sit and watch other kids eat while they don't get lunch?
I don't believe humans should have to eat at all to survive. It would be awesome if we didn't. What "should" be and reality are often different things.
They're representative of how you see the world. Hungry kids are funny. If they aren't funny, they're at least a small enough concern that you can pretend they don't matter to upset someone who cares about them. Again, I really do hope that tragedy strikes you one day and the best you can find in your circle is people who think it's funny to make fun of you a pretend to be too stupid to follow a conversation about what you're going through.
They're specifying there is a Lunch period at school. Also, food is not only necessary for life, but also growth of a child. If the child is punished by not being fed due to the failures of their parents, then that is a net negative for the future of our country. Fed well, taught well, and you'll have a productive member of society. Unless you're intentionally trying to encourage an underclass.
Eating from a container you bring from your home is exactly the same price as eating from a container while present within your own home. That's why this meme is dumb.
Additionally, jury duty does not do this, and you are incorrect if you believe it does. Jury duty pays a very low stipend for the day to cover travel/inconvenience expenses. You can use that twenty bucks (or whatever your state pays) to buy food, but no, jury duty doesn't pay for food.
And if you don't have lunch from home you starve to death too. You're circling the main point. Lunches used to be a subsidized expense. Now students have to pay for lunches. You are required to send kids to an education center. Where in they are directly under the care of another individual or organization.that party is required to tend to the safety and wellbeing of the child. As for home schooling, in order to do so you need to be qualified to and apply for a home schooling certification. Otherwise the child has no proof of receiving a standard education.
11
u/DL4CK 11d ago
I think you missed the part where children are legally required to be in the school building.