|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
United States43458 Posts
On July 30 2023 02:37 micronesia wrote:
What's it called when you aren't against food for poor kids, but you're against free food for rich kids and inadvertently keep food out of the mouths of poor kids as a result?
I think that’s called being against food for poor kids.
|
On July 30 2023 03:48 Introvert wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On July 30 2023 03:23 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2023 02:54 Introvert wrote:On July 30 2023 02:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2023 02:33 Introvert wrote:On July 30 2023 01:54 KwarK wrote:
The problem with the "pro life people are good people with a different ideology to you" theory is all the other political arguments they make.
Take free school lunches for example. When the exact same pro life voices are aggressively arguing that kids whose parents don't pay shouldn't get fed you have to wonder about the ethical framework that got them there. They're probably not getting taken care of properly at home either, given that school lunches ought to be high up on the list of priorities. So this is the most vulnerable and needy group of kids out there and the cost to the state of ensuring that all kids get a meal is negligible. If anything it's the most cost effective way of dealing with youth hunger, you already have all the kids in one place anyway and you already have food being cooked in that place. The cost of giving the kids the food is basically just the marginal cost on the extra platefuls which is nothing.
But these Christian moralists make the argument that feeding the hungry goes against everything Christianity stands for and that if we don't make the kids go hungry then how will we punish their parents for their irresponsibility.
It's that kind of thing that causes the "they're pro birth but they don't give a shit about the kids once they're out" argument. The starting point isn't "they're pro-life so they must be bad people". It's that they're obviously bad people due to the things they do and say. The fact that they're also pro-life isn't the cause, they're both caused by the same underlying problem with the ethical framework these people hold. You don't even understand the controversy around school lunches. The issue around universal school lunches centers on the "universal" part, not the "lunch" part. There are questions of federal involvement, as the NSLP is notoriously inefficient and makes hundreds of millions in improper payments already. The debate, for the most part, isn't around poor kids, it's actually around better off families getting the benefit of taxpayer funded meals for their kids for the purposes of fighting "stigma". There aren't many arguing against assistance to poor kids, though to be fair the number isn't zero. but it's small, especially when you filter out concerns about state and local programs vs. federal programs. I don't even have a super strong opinion on this matter, as I think you could make good arguments on either side, But food for *poor* kids is actually the least controversial part of the debate. On July 30 2023 02:37 micronesia wrote:
What's it called when you aren't against food for poor kids, but you're against free food for rich kids and inadvertently keep food out of the mouths of poor kids as a result? At the very least I think having a debate over dealing with stigma that may actually cause eligible children to forgo meals is a topic that can be debated in good faith rather than just throwing out that the other person doesn't want poor kids to eat. What are you referencing when you say: the NSLP is notoriously inefficient and makes hundreds of millions in improper payments already. ? I mean stuff like this https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-19-389The Department of Agriculture (USDA) has reported various actions aimed at lowering estimated improper payment error rates in the National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program (school meals programs). Examples include a new application prototype intended to reduce applicant errors and training for food service workers to reduce administrative errors. USDA uses a model based on a periodic study to estimate improper payments, and reported error rates will generally not reflect the effect of most actions until USDA's next study is released, likely in 2020. However, in fiscal year 2018, USDA redefined what it considers an improper payment. Specifically, meal claiming errors—for example, meals that are missing a required nutritional component but that are counted as reimbursable—are no longer considered improper payments, resulting in error rates for fiscal year 2018 that are not comparable to prior years.
USDA has not assessed fraud risks in the school meals programs, which hinders its ability to ensure that its key oversight practices—extensive processes designed for broad monitoring purposes—address areas at risk for fraud. The assess component of A Framework for Managing Fraud Risks in Federal Programs (Fraud Risk Framework) calls for managers to plan regular fraud risk assessments and to assess risks to determine a fraud risk profile. USDA officials stated that the agency considers fraud risks through efforts to assess overall program integrity risk in the programs, which include research projects and consideration of specific risks when allocating monitoring resources. However, GAO found that USDA's efforts to assess risk do not comprehensively consider fraud risks. As a result, these efforts are not aligned with the overarching concepts of planning and conducting fraud risk assessments in the Fraud Risk Framework. Establishing a process to plan and conduct regular fraud risk assessments that align with the leading practices in the Fraud Risk Framework—including those in the figure below—will help USDA design and implement an antifraud strategy, as well as evaluate and adapt its strategy to improve fraud risk management in the school meals programs.
n 2018, almost 30 million children participated in the National School Lunch Program and over 14 million participated in the School Breakfast Program, with cash payments totaling almost $17 billion. Historically, the school meals programs have reported high estimated improper payment error rates, which suggest that these programs may also be vulnerable to fraud.
GAO was asked to review improper payment error rates and potential fraud in the school meals programs. This report (1) describes steps USDA has reported taking since 2015 to lower improper payment error rates and (2) examines the extent to which USDA has assessed areas of risk for fraud in the school meals programs.
GAO reviewed the results of the most recent study USDA uses to estimate improper payments in the school meals programs, as well as the error rates and actions to reduce them reported in USDA's agency financial reports from fiscal years 2015 through 2018. Further, GAO analyzed guidance for key oversight practices and documentation regarding USDA's risk assessment processes. GAO examined these processes against the leading practices in the Fraud Risk Framework for assessing fraud risks. GAO also interviewed agency officials.
here's the USDA's summary from a recent quarter https://www.cfo.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/Q4/Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) National School Lunch Program (NSLP) Payments Integrity Scorecard FY 2022 Q4.pdf From the information provided it appears you're referencing this: Show nested quote +Households may incorrectly self-report and administrative staff may miscalculate household's application information resulting in miscertification.
Which wouldn't be a problem at all if schools were just providing all children with meals. That is in fact one of the arguments for making it universal. You essentially define the problem away, but it still doesn't go back and answer if this is actually the best way of making sure those with problem accessing food can do so. And we still don't know if it would work. Is every family who can provide their own child with food going to stop doing so? is it really going to solve any potential issues regarding "stigma?" I think the answers to this problem are sufficiently unknown that we can move beyond saying things "X doesn't want poor kids to eat." Show nested quote +On July 30 2023 03:26 ChristianS wrote:
$17 billion (per year I assume?) seems really cheap for a federal program benefiting all American schoolchildren. That’s what, ~$5 per American per year? I get that right now it’s means-tested, so it’s not actually “all American schoolchildren,” but it still seems crazy to be looking at that as some massive inefficiency. First of all, that's just improper payments. I haven't done any reading on actual waste within the program, which would almost certainly increase. and 5-10% is a lot on it's own. And if you make it for everyone you are only making the problem worse, in a way. There will be taxpayer dollars going to things that they need not be spent on, and we don't even know how much it will be used by those that don't need it currently. So I think defining the problem away is insufficient. + Show Spoiler +On July 30 2023 03:46 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2023 03:26 ChristianS wrote:
$17 billion (per year I assume?) seems really cheap for a federal program benefiting all American schoolchildren. That’s what, ~$5 per American per year? I get that right now it’s means-tested, so it’s not actually “all American schoolchildren,” but it still seems crazy to be looking at that as some massive inefficiency. Its never about the actual $ amount. It about the perception of money being spend. because as you say, a lot of programs amount to nothing more then a rounding error. How does the saying go? "A billion here, a billion there, eventually you start talking about real money!" In fact I think it was a senator who make that quip. Experts at spending billions here and there.
Is it? From your quote:
n 2018, almost 30 million children participated in the National School Lunch Program and over 14 million participated in the School Breakfast Program, with cash payments totaling almost $17 billion.
Does “cash payments totaling almost $17 billion” not mean what I think it does?
|
Also, why is the part where you need to very, very, very carefully look at every single dollar to make sure not one is spent "improperly" always the program that helps poor people? Better not to spend 10$ helping people if one of those dollars is wasted!
But this sentiment never holds for the tax the companies don't pay through fraud (which could be gathered by funding the IRS), or the huge military budget, or the corona aid money stolen by companies and rich people, or the money the churches get for "charity", or the money those churches don't pay in taxes, or...
Spending money is always a problem which needs to be very carefully analyzed for waste when that money would help poor people, and never when it would end up in the coffers of rich people.
|
On July 30 2023 04:13 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2023 03:48 Introvert wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On July 30 2023 03:23 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2023 02:54 Introvert wrote:On July 30 2023 02:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2023 02:33 Introvert wrote:On July 30 2023 01:54 KwarK wrote:
The problem with the "pro life people are good people with a different ideology to you" theory is all the other political arguments they make.
Take free school lunches for example. When the exact same pro life voices are aggressively arguing that kids whose parents don't pay shouldn't get fed you have to wonder about the ethical framework that got them there. They're probably not getting taken care of properly at home either, given that school lunches ought to be high up on the list of priorities. So this is the most vulnerable and needy group of kids out there and the cost to the state of ensuring that all kids get a meal is negligible. If anything it's the most cost effective way of dealing with youth hunger, you already have all the kids in one place anyway and you already have food being cooked in that place. The cost of giving the kids the food is basically just the marginal cost on the extra platefuls which is nothing.
But these Christian moralists make the argument that feeding the hungry goes against everything Christianity stands for and that if we don't make the kids go hungry then how will we punish their parents for their irresponsibility.
It's that kind of thing that causes the "they're pro birth but they don't give a shit about the kids once they're out" argument. The starting point isn't "they're pro-life so they must be bad people". It's that they're obviously bad people due to the things they do and say. The fact that they're also pro-life isn't the cause, they're both caused by the same underlying problem with the ethical framework these people hold. You don't even understand the controversy around school lunches. The issue around universal school lunches centers on the "universal" part, not the "lunch" part. There are questions of federal involvement, as the NSLP is notoriously inefficient and makes hundreds of millions in improper payments already. The debate, for the most part, isn't around poor kids, it's actually around better off families getting the benefit of taxpayer funded meals for their kids for the purposes of fighting "stigma". There aren't many arguing against assistance to poor kids, though to be fair the number isn't zero. but it's small, especially when you filter out concerns about state and local programs vs. federal programs. I don't even have a super strong opinion on this matter, as I think you could make good arguments on either side, But food for *poor* kids is actually the least controversial part of the debate. On July 30 2023 02:37 micronesia wrote:
What's it called when you aren't against food for poor kids, but you're against free food for rich kids and inadvertently keep food out of the mouths of poor kids as a result? At the very least I think having a debate over dealing with stigma that may actually cause eligible children to forgo meals is a topic that can be debated in good faith rather than just throwing out that the other person doesn't want poor kids to eat. What are you referencing when you say: the NSLP is notoriously inefficient and makes hundreds of millions in improper payments already. ? I mean stuff like this https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-19-389The Department of Agriculture (USDA) has reported various actions aimed at lowering estimated improper payment error rates in the National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program (school meals programs). Examples include a new application prototype intended to reduce applicant errors and training for food service workers to reduce administrative errors. USDA uses a model based on a periodic study to estimate improper payments, and reported error rates will generally not reflect the effect of most actions until USDA's next study is released, likely in 2020. However, in fiscal year 2018, USDA redefined what it considers an improper payment. Specifically, meal claiming errors—for example, meals that are missing a required nutritional component but that are counted as reimbursable—are no longer considered improper payments, resulting in error rates for fiscal year 2018 that are not comparable to prior years.
USDA has not assessed fraud risks in the school meals programs, which hinders its ability to ensure that its key oversight practices—extensive processes designed for broad monitoring purposes—address areas at risk for fraud. The assess component of A Framework for Managing Fraud Risks in Federal Programs (Fraud Risk Framework) calls for managers to plan regular fraud risk assessments and to assess risks to determine a fraud risk profile. USDA officials stated that the agency considers fraud risks through efforts to assess overall program integrity risk in the programs, which include research projects and consideration of specific risks when allocating monitoring resources. However, GAO found that USDA's efforts to assess risk do not comprehensively consider fraud risks. As a result, these efforts are not aligned with the overarching concepts of planning and conducting fraud risk assessments in the Fraud Risk Framework. Establishing a process to plan and conduct regular fraud risk assessments that align with the leading practices in the Fraud Risk Framework—including those in the figure below—will help USDA design and implement an antifraud strategy, as well as evaluate and adapt its strategy to improve fraud risk management in the school meals programs.
n 2018, almost 30 million children participated in the National School Lunch Program and over 14 million participated in the School Breakfast Program, with cash payments totaling almost $17 billion. Historically, the school meals programs have reported high estimated improper payment error rates, which suggest that these programs may also be vulnerable to fraud.
GAO was asked to review improper payment error rates and potential fraud in the school meals programs. This report (1) describes steps USDA has reported taking since 2015 to lower improper payment error rates and (2) examines the extent to which USDA has assessed areas of risk for fraud in the school meals programs.
GAO reviewed the results of the most recent study USDA uses to estimate improper payments in the school meals programs, as well as the error rates and actions to reduce them reported in USDA's agency financial reports from fiscal years 2015 through 2018. Further, GAO analyzed guidance for key oversight practices and documentation regarding USDA's risk assessment processes. GAO examined these processes against the leading practices in the Fraud Risk Framework for assessing fraud risks. GAO also interviewed agency officials.
here's the USDA's summary from a recent quarter https://www.cfo.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/Q4/Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) National School Lunch Program (NSLP) Payments Integrity Scorecard FY 2022 Q4.pdf From the information provided it appears you're referencing this: Show nested quote +Households may incorrectly self-report and administrative staff may miscalculate household's application information resulting in miscertification.
Which wouldn't be a problem at all if schools were just providing all children with meals. That is in fact one of the arguments for making it universal. You essentially define the problem away, but it still doesn't go back and answer if this is actually the best way of making sure those with problem accessing food can do so. And we still don't know if it would work. Is every family who can provide their own child with food going to stop doing so? is it really going to solve any potential issues regarding "stigma?" I think the answers to this problem are sufficiently unknown that we can move beyond saying things "X doesn't want poor kids to eat." On July 30 2023 03:26 ChristianS wrote:
$17 billion (per year I assume?) seems really cheap for a federal program benefiting all American schoolchildren. That’s what, ~$5 per American per year? I get that right now it’s means-tested, so it’s not actually “all American schoolchildren,” but it still seems crazy to be looking at that as some massive inefficiency. First of all, that's just improper payments. I haven't done any reading on actual waste within the program, which would almost certainly increase. and 5-10% is a lot on it's own. And if you make it for everyone you are only making the problem worse, in a way. There will be taxpayer dollars going to things that they need not be spent on, and we don't even know how much it will be used by those that don't need it currently. So I think defining the problem away is insufficient. + Show Spoiler +On July 30 2023 03:46 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2023 03:26 ChristianS wrote:
$17 billion (per year I assume?) seems really cheap for a federal program benefiting all American schoolchildren. That’s what, ~$5 per American per year? I get that right now it’s means-tested, so it’s not actually “all American schoolchildren,” but it still seems crazy to be looking at that as some massive inefficiency. Its never about the actual $ amount. It about the perception of money being spend. because as you say, a lot of programs amount to nothing more then a rounding error. How does the saying go? "A billion here, a billion there, eventually you start talking about real money!" In fact I think it was a senator who make that quip. Experts at spending billions here and there. Is it? From your quote: Show nested quote + n 2018, almost 30 million children participated in the National School Lunch Program and over 14 million participated in the School Breakfast Program, with cash payments totaling almost $17 billion. Does “cash payments totaling almost $17 billion” not mean what I think it does?
I'm confused by your confusion. What are you objecting to? Before they changed how they calculated they have overpayments as ~10% of total dollars spent, over a billion dollars in 2017. In 2018, after changing their calculation method, it is still 6.5% or $800 million. Amusingly enough looking at the second link I provided you can see how their "overpayments" went to zero in 2020 because the program was made universal for that year with covid. it's not like money going to people who didn't need it suddenly ceased, but that's exactly how it would show up in the account books.
On July 30 2023 04:18 Simberto wrote:
Also, why is the part where you need to very, very, very carefully look at every single dollar to make sure not one is spent "improperly" always the program that helps poor people? Better not to spend 10$ helping people if one of those dollars is wasted!
But this sentiment never holds for the tax the companies don't pay through fraud (which could be gathered by funding the IRS), or the huge military budget, or the corona aid money stolen by companies and rich people, or the money the churches get for "charity", or the money those churches don't pay in taxes, or...
Spending money is always a problem which needs to be very carefully analyzed for waste when that money would help poor people, and never when it would end up in the coffers of rich people.
A couple things. One, I'm not in here calling for a shut down until an audit is done or something. We are talking about expanding a currently existing program. Are we supposed to worry about how the money is spent only after we spend it?
Second, the waste and fraud in the COVID program is actually a major issue to Republicans and they have been harping on it for a while. It's part of why they objected to the needless final massive spending bill dems rammed through after Biden was elected.
Three, taxing churches is a terrible idea, partially for the charity reasons I mentioned earlier. So everyone can be selective, obviously the natural inclination is to ignore problems with things we like or emphasizing it in things you want to change depending on your alignment (the welfare state or the military).
|
On July 30 2023 01:58 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Absence of data doesnt mean it isnt true. I cant find data on adoptions either - but I can see that a vast majority who adopt are married, and they also tend to be slightly older. Both these traits make them more likely to lean conservative. While I don't think conclusive data exists I'd be very surprised if there isn't at least a slight conservative bend for people who have adopted children. Mind you, not because I think they care more about kids (nor less), but because the profile that adopts leans conservative.
As far as charity goes, a quick googling linked me a metastudy claiming that there is overall a considerable difference in favor of conservatives. I dont think the explanation here either is 'cares more about prople who need charity', but rather a) people who can afford giving a lot to charity tend to be right of center and b) distrust in government's ability to help. I'm guessing among left leaning individuals an 'i happily pay my taxes and would even happily pay more, this is sufficient' attitude is more common.
Cities also tend to have higher taxes and fund more services (and also pay out to other areas of the country). So they're not just willing to pay more, they do pay more.
|
|
|
United States43458 Posts
On July 30 2023 04:29 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2023 04:13 ChristianS wrote:On July 30 2023 03:48 Introvert wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On July 30 2023 03:23 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2023 02:54 Introvert wrote:On July 30 2023 02:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2023 02:33 Introvert wrote:On July 30 2023 01:54 KwarK wrote:
The problem with the "pro life people are good people with a different ideology to you" theory is all the other political arguments they make.
Take free school lunches for example. When the exact same pro life voices are aggressively arguing that kids whose parents don't pay shouldn't get fed you have to wonder about the ethical framework that got them there. They're probably not getting taken care of properly at home either, given that school lunches ought to be high up on the list of priorities. So this is the most vulnerable and needy group of kids out there and the cost to the state of ensuring that all kids get a meal is negligible. If anything it's the most cost effective way of dealing with youth hunger, you already have all the kids in one place anyway and you already have food being cooked in that place. The cost of giving the kids the food is basically just the marginal cost on the extra platefuls which is nothing.
But these Christian moralists make the argument that feeding the hungry goes against everything Christianity stands for and that if we don't make the kids go hungry then how will we punish their parents for their irresponsibility.
It's that kind of thing that causes the "they're pro birth but they don't give a shit about the kids once they're out" argument. The starting point isn't "they're pro-life so they must be bad people". It's that they're obviously bad people due to the things they do and say. The fact that they're also pro-life isn't the cause, they're both caused by the same underlying problem with the ethical framework these people hold. You don't even understand the controversy around school lunches. The issue around universal school lunches centers on the "universal" part, not the "lunch" part. There are questions of federal involvement, as the NSLP is notoriously inefficient and makes hundreds of millions in improper payments already. The debate, for the most part, isn't around poor kids, it's actually around better off families getting the benefit of taxpayer funded meals for their kids for the purposes of fighting "stigma". There aren't many arguing against assistance to poor kids, though to be fair the number isn't zero. but it's small, especially when you filter out concerns about state and local programs vs. federal programs. I don't even have a super strong opinion on this matter, as I think you could make good arguments on either side, But food for *poor* kids is actually the least controversial part of the debate. On July 30 2023 02:37 micronesia wrote:
What's it called when you aren't against food for poor kids, but you're against free food for rich kids and inadvertently keep food out of the mouths of poor kids as a result? At the very least I think having a debate over dealing with stigma that may actually cause eligible children to forgo meals is a topic that can be debated in good faith rather than just throwing out that the other person doesn't want poor kids to eat. What are you referencing when you say: the NSLP is notoriously inefficient and makes hundreds of millions in improper payments already. ? I mean stuff like this https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-19-389The Department of Agriculture (USDA) has reported various actions aimed at lowering estimated improper payment error rates in the National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program (school meals programs). Examples include a new application prototype intended to reduce applicant errors and training for food service workers to reduce administrative errors. USDA uses a model based on a periodic study to estimate improper payments, and reported error rates will generally not reflect the effect of most actions until USDA's next study is released, likely in 2020. However, in fiscal year 2018, USDA redefined what it considers an improper payment. Specifically, meal claiming errors—for example, meals that are missing a required nutritional component but that are counted as reimbursable—are no longer considered improper payments, resulting in error rates for fiscal year 2018 that are not comparable to prior years.
USDA has not assessed fraud risks in the school meals programs, which hinders its ability to ensure that its key oversight practices—extensive processes designed for broad monitoring purposes—address areas at risk for fraud. The assess component of A Framework for Managing Fraud Risks in Federal Programs (Fraud Risk Framework) calls for managers to plan regular fraud risk assessments and to assess risks to determine a fraud risk profile. USDA officials stated that the agency considers fraud risks through efforts to assess overall program integrity risk in the programs, which include research projects and consideration of specific risks when allocating monitoring resources. However, GAO found that USDA's efforts to assess risk do not comprehensively consider fraud risks. As a result, these efforts are not aligned with the overarching concepts of planning and conducting fraud risk assessments in the Fraud Risk Framework. Establishing a process to plan and conduct regular fraud risk assessments that align with the leading practices in the Fraud Risk Framework—including those in the figure below—will help USDA design and implement an antifraud strategy, as well as evaluate and adapt its strategy to improve fraud risk management in the school meals programs.
n 2018, almost 30 million children participated in the National School Lunch Program and over 14 million participated in the School Breakfast Program, with cash payments totaling almost $17 billion. Historically, the school meals programs have reported high estimated improper payment error rates, which suggest that these programs may also be vulnerable to fraud.
GAO was asked to review improper payment error rates and potential fraud in the school meals programs. This report (1) describes steps USDA has reported taking since 2015 to lower improper payment error rates and (2) examines the extent to which USDA has assessed areas of risk for fraud in the school meals programs.
GAO reviewed the results of the most recent study USDA uses to estimate improper payments in the school meals programs, as well as the error rates and actions to reduce them reported in USDA's agency financial reports from fiscal years 2015 through 2018. Further, GAO analyzed guidance for key oversight practices and documentation regarding USDA's risk assessment processes. GAO examined these processes against the leading practices in the Fraud Risk Framework for assessing fraud risks. GAO also interviewed agency officials.
here's the USDA's summary from a recent quarter https://www.cfo.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/Q4/Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) National School Lunch Program (NSLP) Payments Integrity Scorecard FY 2022 Q4.pdf From the information provided it appears you're referencing this: Show nested quote +Households may incorrectly self-report and administrative staff may miscalculate household's application information resulting in miscertification.
Which wouldn't be a problem at all if schools were just providing all children with meals. That is in fact one of the arguments for making it universal. You essentially define the problem away, but it still doesn't go back and answer if this is actually the best way of making sure those with problem accessing food can do so. And we still don't know if it would work. Is every family who can provide their own child with food going to stop doing so? is it really going to solve any potential issues regarding "stigma?" I think the answers to this problem are sufficiently unknown that we can move beyond saying things "X doesn't want poor kids to eat." On July 30 2023 03:26 ChristianS wrote:
$17 billion (per year I assume?) seems really cheap for a federal program benefiting all American schoolchildren. That’s what, ~$5 per American per year? I get that right now it’s means-tested, so it’s not actually “all American schoolchildren,” but it still seems crazy to be looking at that as some massive inefficiency. First of all, that's just improper payments. I haven't done any reading on actual waste within the program, which would almost certainly increase. and 5-10% is a lot on it's own. And if you make it for everyone you are only making the problem worse, in a way. There will be taxpayer dollars going to things that they need not be spent on, and we don't even know how much it will be used by those that don't need it currently. So I think defining the problem away is insufficient. + Show Spoiler +On July 30 2023 03:46 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2023 03:26 ChristianS wrote:
$17 billion (per year I assume?) seems really cheap for a federal program benefiting all American schoolchildren. That’s what, ~$5 per American per year? I get that right now it’s means-tested, so it’s not actually “all American schoolchildren,” but it still seems crazy to be looking at that as some massive inefficiency. Its never about the actual $ amount. It about the perception of money being spend. because as you say, a lot of programs amount to nothing more then a rounding error. How does the saying go? "A billion here, a billion there, eventually you start talking about real money!" In fact I think it was a senator who make that quip. Experts at spending billions here and there. Is it? From your quote: n 2018, almost 30 million children participated in the National School Lunch Program and over 14 million participated in the School Breakfast Program, with cash payments totaling almost $17 billion. Does “cash payments totaling almost $17 billion” not mean what I think it does? I'm confused by your confusion. What are you objecting to? Before they changed how they calculated they have overpayments as ~10% of total dollars spent, over a billion dollars in 2017. In 2018, after changing their calculation method, it is still 6.5% or $800 million. Amusingly enough looking at the second link I provided you can see how their "overpayments" went to zero in 2020 because the program was made universal for that year with covid. it's not like money going to people who didn't need it suddenly ceased, but that's exactly how it would show up in the account books. Show nested quote +On July 30 2023 04:18 Simberto wrote:
Also, why is the part where you need to very, very, very carefully look at every single dollar to make sure not one is spent "improperly" always the program that helps poor people? Better not to spend 10$ helping people if one of those dollars is wasted!
But this sentiment never holds for the tax the companies don't pay through fraud (which could be gathered by funding the IRS), or the huge military budget, or the corona aid money stolen by companies and rich people, or the money the churches get for "charity", or the money those churches don't pay in taxes, or...
Spending money is always a problem which needs to be very carefully analyzed for waste when that money would help poor people, and never when it would end up in the coffers of rich people. A couple things. One, I'm not in here calling for a shut down until an audit is done or something. We are talking about expanding a currently existing program. Are we supposed to worry about how the money is spent only after we spend it? Second, the waste and fraud in the COVID program is actually a major issue to Republicans and they have been harping on it for a while. It's part of why they objected to the needless final massive spending bill dems rammed through after Biden was elected. Three, taxing churches is a terrible idea, partially for the charity reasons I mentioned earlier. So everyone can be selective, obviously the natural inclination is to ignore problems with things we like or emphasizing it in things you want to change depending on your alignment (the welfare state or the military).
The second issue doesn’t make much sense. It was their policy, why did they not object to it during the Trump presidency? Biden took office in 2021 after all the shutdowns and Covid relief were done. We had vaccines by then.
The third issue is a non issue, entities are only taxed on net income, not on inflows. If a church was spending all its inflows on operations and programs then there would be no tax owed because there would be no earnings. They would get a tax benefit for using congregants money for the intended purposes. It’s only churches that exist to rob their members or churches that build up huge investment portfolios that would end up having to pay taxes. And those would be incentivized by the tax system to be a little bit more Christian.
|
On July 30 2023 04:29 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2023 04:13 ChristianS wrote:On July 30 2023 03:48 Introvert wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On July 30 2023 03:23 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2023 02:54 Introvert wrote:On July 30 2023 02:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2023 02:33 Introvert wrote:On July 30 2023 01:54 KwarK wrote:
The problem with the "pro life people are good people with a different ideology to you" theory is all the other political arguments they make.
Take free school lunches for example. When the exact same pro life voices are aggressively arguing that kids whose parents don't pay shouldn't get fed you have to wonder about the ethical framework that got them there. They're probably not getting taken care of properly at home either, given that school lunches ought to be high up on the list of priorities. So this is the most vulnerable and needy group of kids out there and the cost to the state of ensuring that all kids get a meal is negligible. If anything it's the most cost effective way of dealing with youth hunger, you already have all the kids in one place anyway and you already have food being cooked in that place. The cost of giving the kids the food is basically just the marginal cost on the extra platefuls which is nothing.
But these Christian moralists make the argument that feeding the hungry goes against everything Christianity stands for and that if we don't make the kids go hungry then how will we punish their parents for their irresponsibility.
It's that kind of thing that causes the "they're pro birth but they don't give a shit about the kids once they're out" argument. The starting point isn't "they're pro-life so they must be bad people". It's that they're obviously bad people due to the things they do and say. The fact that they're also pro-life isn't the cause, they're both caused by the same underlying problem with the ethical framework these people hold. You don't even understand the controversy around school lunches. The issue around universal school lunches centers on the "universal" part, not the "lunch" part. There are questions of federal involvement, as the NSLP is notoriously inefficient and makes hundreds of millions in improper payments already. The debate, for the most part, isn't around poor kids, it's actually around better off families getting the benefit of taxpayer funded meals for their kids for the purposes of fighting "stigma". There aren't many arguing against assistance to poor kids, though to be fair the number isn't zero. but it's small, especially when you filter out concerns about state and local programs vs. federal programs. I don't even have a super strong opinion on this matter, as I think you could make good arguments on either side, But food for *poor* kids is actually the least controversial part of the debate. On July 30 2023 02:37 micronesia wrote:
What's it called when you aren't against food for poor kids, but you're against free food for rich kids and inadvertently keep food out of the mouths of poor kids as a result? At the very least I think having a debate over dealing with stigma that may actually cause eligible children to forgo meals is a topic that can be debated in good faith rather than just throwing out that the other person doesn't want poor kids to eat. What are you referencing when you say: the NSLP is notoriously inefficient and makes hundreds of millions in improper payments already. ? I mean stuff like this https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-19-389The Department of Agriculture (USDA) has reported various actions aimed at lowering estimated improper payment error rates in the National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program (school meals programs). Examples include a new application prototype intended to reduce applicant errors and training for food service workers to reduce administrative errors. USDA uses a model based on a periodic study to estimate improper payments, and reported error rates will generally not reflect the effect of most actions until USDA's next study is released, likely in 2020. However, in fiscal year 2018, USDA redefined what it considers an improper payment. Specifically, meal claiming errors—for example, meals that are missing a required nutritional component but that are counted as reimbursable—are no longer considered improper payments, resulting in error rates for fiscal year 2018 that are not comparable to prior years.
USDA has not assessed fraud risks in the school meals programs, which hinders its ability to ensure that its key oversight practices—extensive processes designed for broad monitoring purposes—address areas at risk for fraud. The assess component of A Framework for Managing Fraud Risks in Federal Programs (Fraud Risk Framework) calls for managers to plan regular fraud risk assessments and to assess risks to determine a fraud risk profile. USDA officials stated that the agency considers fraud risks through efforts to assess overall program integrity risk in the programs, which include research projects and consideration of specific risks when allocating monitoring resources. However, GAO found that USDA's efforts to assess risk do not comprehensively consider fraud risks. As a result, these efforts are not aligned with the overarching concepts of planning and conducting fraud risk assessments in the Fraud Risk Framework. Establishing a process to plan and conduct regular fraud risk assessments that align with the leading practices in the Fraud Risk Framework—including those in the figure below—will help USDA design and implement an antifraud strategy, as well as evaluate and adapt its strategy to improve fraud risk management in the school meals programs.
n 2018, almost 30 million children participated in the National School Lunch Program and over 14 million participated in the School Breakfast Program, with cash payments totaling almost $17 billion. Historically, the school meals programs have reported high estimated improper payment error rates, which suggest that these programs may also be vulnerable to fraud.
GAO was asked to review improper payment error rates and potential fraud in the school meals programs. This report (1) describes steps USDA has reported taking since 2015 to lower improper payment error rates and (2) examines the extent to which USDA has assessed areas of risk for fraud in the school meals programs.
GAO reviewed the results of the most recent study USDA uses to estimate improper payments in the school meals programs, as well as the error rates and actions to reduce them reported in USDA's agency financial reports from fiscal years 2015 through 2018. Further, GAO analyzed guidance for key oversight practices and documentation regarding USDA's risk assessment processes. GAO examined these processes against the leading practices in the Fraud Risk Framework for assessing fraud risks. GAO also interviewed agency officials.
here's the USDA's summary from a recent quarter https://www.cfo.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/Q4/Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) National School Lunch Program (NSLP) Payments Integrity Scorecard FY 2022 Q4.pdf From the information provided it appears you're referencing this: Show nested quote +Households may incorrectly self-report and administrative staff may miscalculate household's application information resulting in miscertification.
Which wouldn't be a problem at all if schools were just providing all children with meals. That is in fact one of the arguments for making it universal. You essentially define the problem away, but it still doesn't go back and answer if this is actually the best way of making sure those with problem accessing food can do so. And we still don't know if it would work. Is every family who can provide their own child with food going to stop doing so? is it really going to solve any potential issues regarding "stigma?" I think the answers to this problem are sufficiently unknown that we can move beyond saying things "X doesn't want poor kids to eat." On July 30 2023 03:26 ChristianS wrote:
$17 billion (per year I assume?) seems really cheap for a federal program benefiting all American schoolchildren. That’s what, ~$5 per American per year? I get that right now it’s means-tested, so it’s not actually “all American schoolchildren,” but it still seems crazy to be looking at that as some massive inefficiency. First of all, that's just improper payments. I haven't done any reading on actual waste within the program, which would almost certainly increase. and 5-10% is a lot on it's own. And if you make it for everyone you are only making the problem worse, in a way. There will be taxpayer dollars going to things that they need not be spent on, and we don't even know how much it will be used by those that don't need it currently. So I think defining the problem away is insufficient. + Show Spoiler +On July 30 2023 03:46 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2023 03:26 ChristianS wrote:
$17 billion (per year I assume?) seems really cheap for a federal program benefiting all American schoolchildren. That’s what, ~$5 per American per year? I get that right now it’s means-tested, so it’s not actually “all American schoolchildren,” but it still seems crazy to be looking at that as some massive inefficiency. Its never about the actual $ amount. It about the perception of money being spend. because as you say, a lot of programs amount to nothing more then a rounding error. How does the saying go? "A billion here, a billion there, eventually you start talking about real money!" In fact I think it was a senator who make that quip. Experts at spending billions here and there. Is it? From your quote: n 2018, almost 30 million children participated in the National School Lunch Program and over 14 million participated in the School Breakfast Program, with cash payments totaling almost $17 billion. Does “cash payments totaling almost $17 billion” not mean what I think it does? I'm confused by your confusion. What are you objecting to? Before they changed how they calculated they have overpayments as ~10% of total dollars spent, over a billion dollars in 2017. In 2018, after changing their calculation method, it is still 6.5% or $800 million. Amusingly enough looking at the second link I provided you can see how their "overpayments" went to zero in 2020 because the program was made universal for that year with covid. it's not like money going to people who didn't need it suddenly ceased, but that's exactly how it would show up in the account books. Show nested quote +On July 30 2023 04:18 Simberto wrote:
Also, why is the part where you need to very, very, very carefully look at every single dollar to make sure not one is spent "improperly" always the program that helps poor people? Better not to spend 10$ helping people if one of those dollars is wasted!
But this sentiment never holds for the tax the companies don't pay through fraud (which could be gathered by funding the IRS), or the huge military budget, or the corona aid money stolen by companies and rich people, or the money the churches get for "charity", or the money those churches don't pay in taxes, or...
Spending money is always a problem which needs to be very carefully analyzed for waste when that money would help poor people, and never when it would end up in the coffers of rich people. A couple things. One, I'm not in here calling for a shut down until an audit is done or something. We are talking about expanding a currently existing program. Are we supposed to worry about how the money is spent only after we spend it? Second, the waste and fraud in the COVID program is actually a major issue to Republicans and they have been harping on it for a while. It's part of why they objected to the needless final massive spending bill dems rammed through after Biden was elected. Three, taxing churches is a terrible idea, partially for the charity reasons I mentioned earlier. So everyone can be selective, obviously the natural inclination is to ignore problems with things we like or emphasizing it in things you want to change depending on your alignment (the welfare state or the military).
Okay, so we’re apparently giving 30 million kids School lunch for like $60 per kid per year and you’re worried that number is too *high*? I mean, that number makes me worry a bit about the quality of the food, but Jesus, man. For that cheap why the hell wouldn’t we give it to every kid? God knows parents have had it rough the last few years, let’s give them a little break. Apparently it costs basically nothing!
|
On July 30 2023 03:48 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2023 03:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2023 02:54 Introvert wrote:On July 30 2023 02:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2023 02:33 Introvert wrote:On July 30 2023 01:54 KwarK wrote:
The problem with the "pro life people are good people with a different ideology to you" theory is all the other political arguments they make.
Take free school lunches for example. When the exact same pro life voices are aggressively arguing that kids whose parents don't pay shouldn't get fed you have to wonder about the ethical framework that got them there. They're probably not getting taken care of properly at home either, given that school lunches ought to be high up on the list of priorities. So this is the most vulnerable and needy group of kids out there and the cost to the state of ensuring that all kids get a meal is negligible. If anything it's the most cost effective way of dealing with youth hunger, you already have all the kids in one place anyway and you already have food being cooked in that place. The cost of giving the kids the food is basically just the marginal cost on the extra platefuls which is nothing.
But these Christian moralists make the argument that feeding the hungry goes against everything Christianity stands for and that if we don't make the kids go hungry then how will we punish their parents for their irresponsibility.
It's that kind of thing that causes the "they're pro birth but they don't give a shit about the kids once they're out" argument. The starting point isn't "they're pro-life so they must be bad people". It's that they're obviously bad people due to the things they do and say. The fact that they're also pro-life isn't the cause, they're both caused by the same underlying problem with the ethical framework these people hold. You don't even understand the controversy around school lunches. The issue around universal school lunches centers on the "universal" part, not the "lunch" part. There are questions of federal involvement, as the NSLP is notoriously inefficient and makes hundreds of millions in improper payments already. The debate, for the most part, isn't around poor kids, it's actually around better off families getting the benefit of taxpayer funded meals for their kids for the purposes of fighting "stigma". There aren't many arguing against assistance to poor kids, though to be fair the number isn't zero. but it's small, especially when you filter out concerns about state and local programs vs. federal programs. I don't even have a super strong opinion on this matter, as I think you could make good arguments on either side, But food for *poor* kids is actually the least controversial part of the debate. On July 30 2023 02:37 micronesia wrote:
What's it called when you aren't against food for poor kids, but you're against free food for rich kids and inadvertently keep food out of the mouths of poor kids as a result? At the very least I think having a debate over dealing with stigma that may actually cause eligible children to forgo meals is a topic that can be debated in good faith rather than just throwing out that the other person doesn't want poor kids to eat. What are you referencing when you say: the NSLP is notoriously inefficient and makes hundreds of millions in improper payments already. ? I mean stuff like this https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-19-389The Department of Agriculture (USDA) has reported various actions aimed at lowering estimated improper payment error rates in the National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program (school meals programs). Examples include a new application prototype intended to reduce applicant errors and training for food service workers to reduce administrative errors. USDA uses a model based on a periodic study to estimate improper payments, and reported error rates will generally not reflect the effect of most actions until USDA's next study is released, likely in 2020. However, in fiscal year 2018, USDA redefined what it considers an improper payment. Specifically, meal claiming errors—for example, meals that are missing a required nutritional component but that are counted as reimbursable—are no longer considered improper payments, resulting in error rates for fiscal year 2018 that are not comparable to prior years.
USDA has not assessed fraud risks in the school meals programs, which hinders its ability to ensure that its key oversight practices—extensive processes designed for broad monitoring purposes—address areas at risk for fraud. The assess component of A Framework for Managing Fraud Risks in Federal Programs (Fraud Risk Framework) calls for managers to plan regular fraud risk assessments and to assess risks to determine a fraud risk profile. USDA officials stated that the agency considers fraud risks through efforts to assess overall program integrity risk in the programs, which include research projects and consideration of specific risks when allocating monitoring resources. However, GAO found that USDA's efforts to assess risk do not comprehensively consider fraud risks. As a result, these efforts are not aligned with the overarching concepts of planning and conducting fraud risk assessments in the Fraud Risk Framework. Establishing a process to plan and conduct regular fraud risk assessments that align with the leading practices in the Fraud Risk Framework—including those in the figure below—will help USDA design and implement an antifraud strategy, as well as evaluate and adapt its strategy to improve fraud risk management in the school meals programs.
n 2018, almost 30 million children participated in the National School Lunch Program and over 14 million participated in the School Breakfast Program, with cash payments totaling almost $17 billion. Historically, the school meals programs have reported high estimated improper payment error rates, which suggest that these programs may also be vulnerable to fraud.
GAO was asked to review improper payment error rates and potential fraud in the school meals programs. This report (1) describes steps USDA has reported taking since 2015 to lower improper payment error rates and (2) examines the extent to which USDA has assessed areas of risk for fraud in the school meals programs.
GAO reviewed the results of the most recent study USDA uses to estimate improper payments in the school meals programs, as well as the error rates and actions to reduce them reported in USDA's agency financial reports from fiscal years 2015 through 2018. Further, GAO analyzed guidance for key oversight practices and documentation regarding USDA's risk assessment processes. GAO examined these processes against the leading practices in the Fraud Risk Framework for assessing fraud risks. GAO also interviewed agency officials.
here's the USDA's summary from a recent quarter https://www.cfo.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/Q4/Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) National School Lunch Program (NSLP) Payments Integrity Scorecard FY 2022 Q4.pdf From the information provided it appears you're referencing this: Households may incorrectly self-report and administrative staff may miscalculate household's application information resulting in miscertification.
Which wouldn't be a problem at all if schools were just providing all children with meals. That is in fact one of the arguments for making it universal. You essentially define the problem away, but it still doesn't go back and answer if this is actually the best way of making sure those with problem accessing food can do so. And we still don't know if it would work. Is every family who can provide their own child with food going to stop doing so? is it really going to solve any potential issues regarding "stigma?" I think the answers to this problem are sufficiently unknown that we can move beyond saying things "X doesn't want poor kids to eat."
Well we agree what we have certainly isn't the best. I'm not sure what you're suggesting you want, but I'm confident making sure every kid gets fed at school regardless of their parents' income is better than what we have.
I think we know every family who can provide their own child with food is not going to suddenly stop. Perhaps you could clarify your concern about that, because it sounds nonsensical on its face?
I don't know what stigma there would be if all the kids just get in line, get their lunch, and get marked down as doing so?
|
On July 30 2023 04:41 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2023 04:29 Introvert wrote:On July 30 2023 04:13 ChristianS wrote:On July 30 2023 03:48 Introvert wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On July 30 2023 03:23 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2023 02:54 Introvert wrote:On July 30 2023 02:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2023 02:33 Introvert wrote:On July 30 2023 01:54 KwarK wrote:
The problem with the "pro life people are good people with a different ideology to you" theory is all the other political arguments they make.
Take free school lunches for example. When the exact same pro life voices are aggressively arguing that kids whose parents don't pay shouldn't get fed you have to wonder about the ethical framework that got them there. They're probably not getting taken care of properly at home either, given that school lunches ought to be high up on the list of priorities. So this is the most vulnerable and needy group of kids out there and the cost to the state of ensuring that all kids get a meal is negligible. If anything it's the most cost effective way of dealing with youth hunger, you already have all the kids in one place anyway and you already have food being cooked in that place. The cost of giving the kids the food is basically just the marginal cost on the extra platefuls which is nothing.
But these Christian moralists make the argument that feeding the hungry goes against everything Christianity stands for and that if we don't make the kids go hungry then how will we punish their parents for their irresponsibility.
It's that kind of thing that causes the "they're pro birth but they don't give a shit about the kids once they're out" argument. The starting point isn't "they're pro-life so they must be bad people". It's that they're obviously bad people due to the things they do and say. The fact that they're also pro-life isn't the cause, they're both caused by the same underlying problem with the ethical framework these people hold. You don't even understand the controversy around school lunches. The issue around universal school lunches centers on the "universal" part, not the "lunch" part. There are questions of federal involvement, as the NSLP is notoriously inefficient and makes hundreds of millions in improper payments already. The debate, for the most part, isn't around poor kids, it's actually around better off families getting the benefit of taxpayer funded meals for their kids for the purposes of fighting "stigma". There aren't many arguing against assistance to poor kids, though to be fair the number isn't zero. but it's small, especially when you filter out concerns about state and local programs vs. federal programs. I don't even have a super strong opinion on this matter, as I think you could make good arguments on either side, But food for *poor* kids is actually the least controversial part of the debate. On July 30 2023 02:37 micronesia wrote:
What's it called when you aren't against food for poor kids, but you're against free food for rich kids and inadvertently keep food out of the mouths of poor kids as a result? At the very least I think having a debate over dealing with stigma that may actually cause eligible children to forgo meals is a topic that can be debated in good faith rather than just throwing out that the other person doesn't want poor kids to eat. What are you referencing when you say: the NSLP is notoriously inefficient and makes hundreds of millions in improper payments already. ? I mean stuff like this https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-19-389The Department of Agriculture (USDA) has reported various actions aimed at lowering estimated improper payment error rates in the National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program (school meals programs). Examples include a new application prototype intended to reduce applicant errors and training for food service workers to reduce administrative errors. USDA uses a model based on a periodic study to estimate improper payments, and reported error rates will generally not reflect the effect of most actions until USDA's next study is released, likely in 2020. However, in fiscal year 2018, USDA redefined what it considers an improper payment. Specifically, meal claiming errors—for example, meals that are missing a required nutritional component but that are counted as reimbursable—are no longer considered improper payments, resulting in error rates for fiscal year 2018 that are not comparable to prior years.
USDA has not assessed fraud risks in the school meals programs, which hinders its ability to ensure that its key oversight practices—extensive processes designed for broad monitoring purposes—address areas at risk for fraud. The assess component of A Framework for Managing Fraud Risks in Federal Programs (Fraud Risk Framework) calls for managers to plan regular fraud risk assessments and to assess risks to determine a fraud risk profile. USDA officials stated that the agency considers fraud risks through efforts to assess overall program integrity risk in the programs, which include research projects and consideration of specific risks when allocating monitoring resources. However, GAO found that USDA's efforts to assess risk do not comprehensively consider fraud risks. As a result, these efforts are not aligned with the overarching concepts of planning and conducting fraud risk assessments in the Fraud Risk Framework. Establishing a process to plan and conduct regular fraud risk assessments that align with the leading practices in the Fraud Risk Framework—including those in the figure below—will help USDA design and implement an antifraud strategy, as well as evaluate and adapt its strategy to improve fraud risk management in the school meals programs.
n 2018, almost 30 million children participated in the National School Lunch Program and over 14 million participated in the School Breakfast Program, with cash payments totaling almost $17 billion. Historically, the school meals programs have reported high estimated improper payment error rates, which suggest that these programs may also be vulnerable to fraud.
GAO was asked to review improper payment error rates and potential fraud in the school meals programs. This report (1) describes steps USDA has reported taking since 2015 to lower improper payment error rates and (2) examines the extent to which USDA has assessed areas of risk for fraud in the school meals programs.
GAO reviewed the results of the most recent study USDA uses to estimate improper payments in the school meals programs, as well as the error rates and actions to reduce them reported in USDA's agency financial reports from fiscal years 2015 through 2018. Further, GAO analyzed guidance for key oversight practices and documentation regarding USDA's risk assessment processes. GAO examined these processes against the leading practices in the Fraud Risk Framework for assessing fraud risks. GAO also interviewed agency officials.
here's the USDA's summary from a recent quarter https://www.cfo.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/Q4/Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) National School Lunch Program (NSLP) Payments Integrity Scorecard FY 2022 Q4.pdf From the information provided it appears you're referencing this: Show nested quote +Households may incorrectly self-report and administrative staff may miscalculate household's application information resulting in miscertification.
Which wouldn't be a problem at all if schools were just providing all children with meals. That is in fact one of the arguments for making it universal. You essentially define the problem away, but it still doesn't go back and answer if this is actually the best way of making sure those with problem accessing food can do so. And we still don't know if it would work. Is every family who can provide their own child with food going to stop doing so? is it really going to solve any potential issues regarding "stigma?" I think the answers to this problem are sufficiently unknown that we can move beyond saying things "X doesn't want poor kids to eat." On July 30 2023 03:26 ChristianS wrote:
$17 billion (per year I assume?) seems really cheap for a federal program benefiting all American schoolchildren. That’s what, ~$5 per American per year? I get that right now it’s means-tested, so it’s not actually “all American schoolchildren,” but it still seems crazy to be looking at that as some massive inefficiency. First of all, that's just improper payments. I haven't done any reading on actual waste within the program, which would almost certainly increase. and 5-10% is a lot on it's own. And if you make it for everyone you are only making the problem worse, in a way. There will be taxpayer dollars going to things that they need not be spent on, and we don't even know how much it will be used by those that don't need it currently. So I think defining the problem away is insufficient. + Show Spoiler +On July 30 2023 03:46 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2023 03:26 ChristianS wrote:
$17 billion (per year I assume?) seems really cheap for a federal program benefiting all American schoolchildren. That’s what, ~$5 per American per year? I get that right now it’s means-tested, so it’s not actually “all American schoolchildren,” but it still seems crazy to be looking at that as some massive inefficiency. Its never about the actual $ amount. It about the perception of money being spend. because as you say, a lot of programs amount to nothing more then a rounding error. How does the saying go? "A billion here, a billion there, eventually you start talking about real money!" In fact I think it was a senator who make that quip. Experts at spending billions here and there. Is it? From your quote: n 2018, almost 30 million children participated in the National School Lunch Program and over 14 million participated in the School Breakfast Program, with cash payments totaling almost $17 billion. Does “cash payments totaling almost $17 billion” not mean what I think it does? I'm confused by your confusion. What are you objecting to? Before they changed how they calculated they have overpayments as ~10% of total dollars spent, over a billion dollars in 2017. In 2018, after changing their calculation method, it is still 6.5% or $800 million. Amusingly enough looking at the second link I provided you can see how their "overpayments" went to zero in 2020 because the program was made universal for that year with covid. it's not like money going to people who didn't need it suddenly ceased, but that's exactly how it would show up in the account books. On July 30 2023 04:18 Simberto wrote:
Also, why is the part where you need to very, very, very carefully look at every single dollar to make sure not one is spent "improperly" always the program that helps poor people? Better not to spend 10$ helping people if one of those dollars is wasted!
But this sentiment never holds for the tax the companies don't pay through fraud (which could be gathered by funding the IRS), or the huge military budget, or the corona aid money stolen by companies and rich people, or the money the churches get for "charity", or the money those churches don't pay in taxes, or...
Spending money is always a problem which needs to be very carefully analyzed for waste when that money would help poor people, and never when it would end up in the coffers of rich people. A couple things. One, I'm not in here calling for a shut down until an audit is done or something. We are talking about expanding a currently existing program. Are we supposed to worry about how the money is spent only after we spend it? Second, the waste and fraud in the COVID program is actually a major issue to Republicans and they have been harping on it for a while. It's part of why they objected to the needless final massive spending bill dems rammed through after Biden was elected. Three, taxing churches is a terrible idea, partially for the charity reasons I mentioned earlier. So everyone can be selective, obviously the natural inclination is to ignore problems with things we like or emphasizing it in things you want to change depending on your alignment (the welfare state or the military). The second issue doesn’t make much sense. It was their policy, why did they not object to it during the Trump presidency? Biden took office in 2021 after all the shutdowns and Covid relief were done. We had vaccines by then. The third issue is a non issue, entities are only taxed on net income, not on inflows. If a church was spending all its inflows on operations and programs then there would be no tax owed because there would be no earnings. They would get a tax benefit for using congregants money for the intended purposes. It’s only churches that exist to rob their members or churches that build up huge investment portfolios that would end up having to pay taxes. And those would be incentivized by the tax system to be a little bit more Christian.
if you recall Democrats passed "The American Rescue plan" with no Republicans votes in 2021, and it was almost 2 trillion dollars. As has been discussed to death, some of amount of fraud and waste was considered "acceptable" for the emergencies bills because it was an emergency. but the ARP itself was unnecessary.
The low "profitability" of churches is actually a good reasons for not taxing them. It a) can be a burden on the church, and b) puts the government's nose in the tent. Things like audits and regulation that would face stiff first amendment challenges are just the beginning. The idea of the "department of religious affairs" in the IRS is...not good. Also, you would have to tax other entities we currently don't tax.
It is apparently hard to believe but most churches are not, in fact, run by Joel Osteen. but just like with other taxes, the Joel Osteens of the world would be best equipped to deal with the new rules at the expense of small churches. Also, money given to churches is a GIFT. It's given freely for a non-economic return. Tithes are not payments for services to be taxed. They are gifts. We should treat them as such. Soo the list of reasons to not do this is long.
The obsession with taxing churches appears entirely vendetta driven (because it is).
But either way it will never happen. How many elections have Democrats won because black churches are essential huge GOTV operations? There is no way on planet earth Democrats are going to poke a stick on the eye of their most loyal constituency. The online left seems to believe that it's white protectant churches that are basically GOP subsidiaries and that's why they whine about taxing them, but those churches got NOTHING on the overt politicking in black churches in America.
|
United States43458 Posts
Lol
As an accountant I have to appreciate the “it looks and sounds and smells like a payment for services but actually it’s technically a gift because we say so” attempt.
That’s been tried a million times in a million different ways and it never works. Most recently by onlyfans streamers. “No, they’re gifting me money, they’re not getting anything specific in return and that makes it a gift”.
It’s the oldest truck in the book. It’s never worked before and it wouldn’t work for churches either. Non accountants insisting revenue is gifts and therefore non taxable online is basically a meme though. The other side of the meme is non accountants online insisting that you have to pay taxes on things that genuinely are gifts if it’s over the reporting threshold. You don’t.
|
On July 30 2023 04:51 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2023 03:48 Introvert wrote:On July 30 2023 03:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2023 02:54 Introvert wrote:On July 30 2023 02:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2023 02:33 Introvert wrote:On July 30 2023 01:54 KwarK wrote:
The problem with the "pro life people are good people with a different ideology to you" theory is all the other political arguments they make.
Take free school lunches for example. When the exact same pro life voices are aggressively arguing that kids whose parents don't pay shouldn't get fed you have to wonder about the ethical framework that got them there. They're probably not getting taken care of properly at home either, given that school lunches ought to be high up on the list of priorities. So this is the most vulnerable and needy group of kids out there and the cost to the state of ensuring that all kids get a meal is negligible. If anything it's the most cost effective way of dealing with youth hunger, you already have all the kids in one place anyway and you already have food being cooked in that place. The cost of giving the kids the food is basically just the marginal cost on the extra platefuls which is nothing.
But these Christian moralists make the argument that feeding the hungry goes against everything Christianity stands for and that if we don't make the kids go hungry then how will we punish their parents for their irresponsibility.
It's that kind of thing that causes the "they're pro birth but they don't give a shit about the kids once they're out" argument. The starting point isn't "they're pro-life so they must be bad people". It's that they're obviously bad people due to the things they do and say. The fact that they're also pro-life isn't the cause, they're both caused by the same underlying problem with the ethical framework these people hold. You don't even understand the controversy around school lunches. The issue around universal school lunches centers on the "universal" part, not the "lunch" part. There are questions of federal involvement, as the NSLP is notoriously inefficient and makes hundreds of millions in improper payments already. The debate, for the most part, isn't around poor kids, it's actually around better off families getting the benefit of taxpayer funded meals for their kids for the purposes of fighting "stigma". There aren't many arguing against assistance to poor kids, though to be fair the number isn't zero. but it's small, especially when you filter out concerns about state and local programs vs. federal programs. I don't even have a super strong opinion on this matter, as I think you could make good arguments on either side, But food for *poor* kids is actually the least controversial part of the debate. On July 30 2023 02:37 micronesia wrote:
What's it called when you aren't against food for poor kids, but you're against free food for rich kids and inadvertently keep food out of the mouths of poor kids as a result? At the very least I think having a debate over dealing with stigma that may actually cause eligible children to forgo meals is a topic that can be debated in good faith rather than just throwing out that the other person doesn't want poor kids to eat. What are you referencing when you say: the NSLP is notoriously inefficient and makes hundreds of millions in improper payments already. ? I mean stuff like this https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-19-389The Department of Agriculture (USDA) has reported various actions aimed at lowering estimated improper payment error rates in the National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program (school meals programs). Examples include a new application prototype intended to reduce applicant errors and training for food service workers to reduce administrative errors. USDA uses a model based on a periodic study to estimate improper payments, and reported error rates will generally not reflect the effect of most actions until USDA's next study is released, likely in 2020. However, in fiscal year 2018, USDA redefined what it considers an improper payment. Specifically, meal claiming errors—for example, meals that are missing a required nutritional component but that are counted as reimbursable—are no longer considered improper payments, resulting in error rates for fiscal year 2018 that are not comparable to prior years.
USDA has not assessed fraud risks in the school meals programs, which hinders its ability to ensure that its key oversight practices—extensive processes designed for broad monitoring purposes—address areas at risk for fraud. The assess component of A Framework for Managing Fraud Risks in Federal Programs (Fraud Risk Framework) calls for managers to plan regular fraud risk assessments and to assess risks to determine a fraud risk profile. USDA officials stated that the agency considers fraud risks through efforts to assess overall program integrity risk in the programs, which include research projects and consideration of specific risks when allocating monitoring resources. However, GAO found that USDA's efforts to assess risk do not comprehensively consider fraud risks. As a result, these efforts are not aligned with the overarching concepts of planning and conducting fraud risk assessments in the Fraud Risk Framework. Establishing a process to plan and conduct regular fraud risk assessments that align with the leading practices in the Fraud Risk Framework—including those in the figure below—will help USDA design and implement an antifraud strategy, as well as evaluate and adapt its strategy to improve fraud risk management in the school meals programs.
n 2018, almost 30 million children participated in the National School Lunch Program and over 14 million participated in the School Breakfast Program, with cash payments totaling almost $17 billion. Historically, the school meals programs have reported high estimated improper payment error rates, which suggest that these programs may also be vulnerable to fraud.
GAO was asked to review improper payment error rates and potential fraud in the school meals programs. This report (1) describes steps USDA has reported taking since 2015 to lower improper payment error rates and (2) examines the extent to which USDA has assessed areas of risk for fraud in the school meals programs.
GAO reviewed the results of the most recent study USDA uses to estimate improper payments in the school meals programs, as well as the error rates and actions to reduce them reported in USDA's agency financial reports from fiscal years 2015 through 2018. Further, GAO analyzed guidance for key oversight practices and documentation regarding USDA's risk assessment processes. GAO examined these processes against the leading practices in the Fraud Risk Framework for assessing fraud risks. GAO also interviewed agency officials.
here's the USDA's summary from a recent quarter https://www.cfo.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/Q4/Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) National School Lunch Program (NSLP) Payments Integrity Scorecard FY 2022 Q4.pdf From the information provided it appears you're referencing this: Households may incorrectly self-report and administrative staff may miscalculate household's application information resulting in miscertification.
Which wouldn't be a problem at all if schools were just providing all children with meals. That is in fact one of the arguments for making it universal. You essentially define the problem away, but it still doesn't go back and answer if this is actually the best way of making sure those with problem accessing food can do so. And we still don't know if it would work. Is every family who can provide their own child with food going to stop doing so? is it really going to solve any potential issues regarding "stigma?" I think the answers to this problem are sufficiently unknown that we can move beyond saying things "X doesn't want poor kids to eat." Well we agree what we have certainly isn't the best. I'm not sure what you're suggesting you want, but I'm confident making sure every kid gets fed at school regardless of their parents' income is better than what we have. I think we know every family who can provide their own child with food is not going to suddenly stop. Perhaps you could clarify your concern about that, because it sounds nonsensical on its face?I don't know what stigma there would be if all the kids just get in line, get their lunch, and get marked down as doing so?
I'm saying we don't (or at least I don't) know how much money is going to go to buy food for kids who won't eat it, basically. To bring in and address ChristianS's point, presumably the amount of money spent without effect will jump sharply, as most of the kids who might need such a program already have access to it. Making it universal must make it less efficient and more wasteful. The question is if that's the best solution and is the federal government the best entity to fix it.
I don't have a concrete suggestion, like I said this isn't an issue I'm up in arms about. But if I were in Congress I would certainly vote against a universal expansion without considering other options or taking the time figure out if the proposed solution will actually solve the problem.
|
On July 30 2023 05:12 KwarK wrote:
Lol
As an accountant I have to appreciate the “it looks and sounds and smells like a payment for services but actually it’s technically a gift because we say so” attempt.
That’s been tried a million times in a million different ways and it never works. Most recently by onlyfans streamers. “No, they’re gifting me money, they’re not getting anything specific in return and that makes it a gift”.
It’s never worked before and it wouldn’t work for churches either.
I not sure what you mean by "wouldn't" work. I'm talking about the system as it exists now. I'm not saying that's what they would tell the government were we to tax them, I'm saying that's one reason why we shouldn't in the first place. The point of onlyfans is $$, the point of the church is not. And pastors, btw, do pay taxes on their income. it's just the church itself we are talking about.
|
On July 30 2023 05:04 Introvert wrote:
The obsession with taxing churches appears entirely vendetta driven (because it is).
But either way it will never happen. How many elections have Democrats won because black churches are essential huge GOTV operations? There is no way on planet earth Democrats are going to poke a stick on the eye of their most loyal constituency. The online left seems to believe that it's white protectant churches that are basically GOP subsidiaries and that's why they whine about taxing them, but those churches got NOTHING on the overt politicking in black churches in America.
See, i know this is hard to understand. But not everything is about Democrats vs Republicans. Some people actually have principles and views on things beyond "But will it hurt the other side?"
For example, i am an atheist. I don't see why the state should sponsor theist brainwashing facilities. I think society would be better with less superstitious nonsense. Note that i don't think people should not have the right to believe their superstitious nonsense, they absolutely should. But the state should not sponsor them, and them not paying taxes is basically the same as giving them free money.
I also don't view churches as a net positive on society, and i think anything positive a church could do, a non-religious organization could do better.
|
|
|
On July 30 2023 05:50 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2023 05:16 Introvert wrote:On July 30 2023 04:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2023 03:48 Introvert wrote:On July 30 2023 03:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2023 02:54 Introvert wrote:On July 30 2023 02:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2023 02:33 Introvert wrote:On July 30 2023 01:54 KwarK wrote:
The problem with the "pro life people are good people with a different ideology to you" theory is all the other political arguments they make.
Take free school lunches for example. When the exact same pro life voices are aggressively arguing that kids whose parents don't pay shouldn't get fed you have to wonder about the ethical framework that got them there. They're probably not getting taken care of properly at home either, given that school lunches ought to be high up on the list of priorities. So this is the most vulnerable and needy group of kids out there and the cost to the state of ensuring that all kids get a meal is negligible. If anything it's the most cost effective way of dealing with youth hunger, you already have all the kids in one place anyway and you already have food being cooked in that place. The cost of giving the kids the food is basically just the marginal cost on the extra platefuls which is nothing.
But these Christian moralists make the argument that feeding the hungry goes against everything Christianity stands for and that if we don't make the kids go hungry then how will we punish their parents for their irresponsibility.
It's that kind of thing that causes the "they're pro birth but they don't give a shit about the kids once they're out" argument. The starting point isn't "they're pro-life so they must be bad people". It's that they're obviously bad people due to the things they do and say. The fact that they're also pro-life isn't the cause, they're both caused by the same underlying problem with the ethical framework these people hold. You don't even understand the controversy around school lunches. The issue around universal school lunches centers on the "universal" part, not the "lunch" part. There are questions of federal involvement, as the NSLP is notoriously inefficient and makes hundreds of millions in improper payments already. The debate, for the most part, isn't around poor kids, it's actually around better off families getting the benefit of taxpayer funded meals for their kids for the purposes of fighting "stigma". There aren't many arguing against assistance to poor kids, though to be fair the number isn't zero. but it's small, especially when you filter out concerns about state and local programs vs. federal programs. I don't even have a super strong opinion on this matter, as I think you could make good arguments on either side, But food for *poor* kids is actually the least controversial part of the debate. On July 30 2023 02:37 micronesia wrote:
What's it called when you aren't against food for poor kids, but you're against free food for rich kids and inadvertently keep food out of the mouths of poor kids as a result? At the very least I think having a debate over dealing with stigma that may actually cause eligible children to forgo meals is a topic that can be debated in good faith rather than just throwing out that the other person doesn't want poor kids to eat. What are you referencing when you say: the NSLP is notoriously inefficient and makes hundreds of millions in improper payments already. ? I mean stuff like this https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-19-389The Department of Agriculture (USDA) has reported various actions aimed at lowering estimated improper payment error rates in the National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program (school meals programs). Examples include a new application prototype intended to reduce applicant errors and training for food service workers to reduce administrative errors. USDA uses a model based on a periodic study to estimate improper payments, and reported error rates will generally not reflect the effect of most actions until USDA's next study is released, likely in 2020. However, in fiscal year 2018, USDA redefined what it considers an improper payment. Specifically, meal claiming errors—for example, meals that are missing a required nutritional component but that are counted as reimbursable—are no longer considered improper payments, resulting in error rates for fiscal year 2018 that are not comparable to prior years.
USDA has not assessed fraud risks in the school meals programs, which hinders its ability to ensure that its key oversight practices—extensive processes designed for broad monitoring purposes—address areas at risk for fraud. The assess component of A Framework for Managing Fraud Risks in Federal Programs (Fraud Risk Framework) calls for managers to plan regular fraud risk assessments and to assess risks to determine a fraud risk profile. USDA officials stated that the agency considers fraud risks through efforts to assess overall program integrity risk in the programs, which include research projects and consideration of specific risks when allocating monitoring resources. However, GAO found that USDA's efforts to assess risk do not comprehensively consider fraud risks. As a result, these efforts are not aligned with the overarching concepts of planning and conducting fraud risk assessments in the Fraud Risk Framework. Establishing a process to plan and conduct regular fraud risk assessments that align with the leading practices in the Fraud Risk Framework—including those in the figure below—will help USDA design and implement an antifraud strategy, as well as evaluate and adapt its strategy to improve fraud risk management in the school meals programs.
n 2018, almost 30 million children participated in the National School Lunch Program and over 14 million participated in the School Breakfast Program, with cash payments totaling almost $17 billion. Historically, the school meals programs have reported high estimated improper payment error rates, which suggest that these programs may also be vulnerable to fraud.
GAO was asked to review improper payment error rates and potential fraud in the school meals programs. This report (1) describes steps USDA has reported taking since 2015 to lower improper payment error rates and (2) examines the extent to which USDA has assessed areas of risk for fraud in the school meals programs.
GAO reviewed the results of the most recent study USDA uses to estimate improper payments in the school meals programs, as well as the error rates and actions to reduce them reported in USDA's agency financial reports from fiscal years 2015 through 2018. Further, GAO analyzed guidance for key oversight practices and documentation regarding USDA's risk assessment processes. GAO examined these processes against the leading practices in the Fraud Risk Framework for assessing fraud risks. GAO also interviewed agency officials.
here's the USDA's summary from a recent quarter https://www.cfo.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/Q4/Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) National School Lunch Program (NSLP) Payments Integrity Scorecard FY 2022 Q4.pdf From the information provided it appears you're referencing this: Households may incorrectly self-report and administrative staff may miscalculate household's application information resulting in miscertification.
Which wouldn't be a problem at all if schools were just providing all children with meals. That is in fact one of the arguments for making it universal. You essentially define the problem away, but it still doesn't go back and answer if this is actually the best way of making sure those with problem accessing food can do so. And we still don't know if it would work. Is every family who can provide their own child with food going to stop doing so? is it really going to solve any potential issues regarding "stigma?" I think the answers to this problem are sufficiently unknown that we can move beyond saying things "X doesn't want poor kids to eat." Well we agree what we have certainly isn't the best. I'm not sure what you're suggesting you want, but I'm confident making sure every kid gets fed at school regardless of their parents' income is better than what we have. I think we know every family who can provide their own child with food is not going to suddenly stop. Perhaps you could clarify your concern about that, because it sounds nonsensical on its face?I don't know what stigma there would be if all the kids just get in line, get their lunch, and get marked down as doing so? I'm saying we don't (or at least I don't) know how much money is going to go to buy food for kids who won't eat it, basically. To bring in and address ChristianS's point, presumably the amount of money spent without effect will jump sharply, as most of the kids who might need such a program already have access to it. Making it universal must make it less efficient and more wasteful. The question is if that's the best solution and is the federal government the best entity to fix it. I don't have a concrete suggestion, like I said this isn't an issue I'm up in arms about. But if I were in Congress I would certainly vote against a universal expansion without considering other options or taking the time figure out if the proposed solution will actually solve the problem. We have universal breakfast programs here. They are no expensive and not abused. There also is not much waste, first a lot of the food is not perishable but also you quickly figure out how many kids are taking it. You do not buy enough for all every day. If something is close to going bad it goes to the food banks. Maybe people worried or complained about it before but now if anything people are talking about expanding it. Making sure children have enough food is a no brainer. Good purchased in bulk is cheap and corps love to donate because it is something that basically everyone thinks is a positive.
As a teacher, i'd also like to add that making sure that children are fed does more than just keep children from being hungry. It also enables children to actually learn stuff in school, increasing their chances of a good future (and if you are not into altruism, their value to society). Because, as it turns out, it is (un)surprisingly hard to concentrate on learning stuff in school if you are hungry. Hierarchy of needs and all that.
|
United States43458 Posts
On July 30 2023 05:04 Introvert wrote:
The low "profitability" of churches is actually a good reasons for not taxing them. It a) can be a burden on the church, and b) puts the government's nose in the tent. Things like audits and regulation that would face stiff first amendment challenges are just the beginning. The idea of the "department of religious affairs" in the IRS is...not good. Also, you would have to tax other entities we currently don't tax.
It is apparently hard to believe but most churches are not, in fact, run by Joel Osteen. but just like with other taxes, the Joel Osteens of the world would be best equipped to deal with the new rules at the expense of small churches. Also, money given to churches is a GIFT. It's given freely for a non-economic return. Tithes are not payments for services to be taxed. They are gifts. We should treat them as such. Soo the list of reasons to not do this is long.
The obsession with taxing churches appears entirely vendetta driven (because it is).
But either way it will never happen. How many elections have Democrats won because black churches are essential huge GOTV operations? There is no way on planet earth Democrats are going to poke a stick on the eye of their most loyal constituency. The online left seems to believe that it's white protectant churches that are basically GOP subsidiaries and that's why they whine about taxing them, but those churches got NOTHING on the overt politicking in black churches in America.
Got a few things more I wanted to address here but couldn't be bothered to write out on my phone so I waited until I was home.
Firstly, I'm a CPA and during my time in public accounting I performed some reviews (little brother of an audit, less assurance) for churches. I have professionally evaluated the church's compliance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and so I kinda had to know what those were. I've been in industry for a few years but I'm still more of an expert on this than the average layperson.
Secondly, churches already keep books (and on those books tithes etc. are correctly reported as revenue). Every entity needs to keep some sort of books and churches are no different. The churches I worked on were relatively small and the bookkeepers were just members of the congregation with an accounting background volunteering but it still happens. The idea that submitting a form to the IRS stating the net profit would be an additional burden is absurd. Even the smallest church has a quickbooks for entering tithes and recording checks in.
Thirdly, the government's nose is already in the tent. And in everyone's tent. There's no part of America in which the Federal government doesn't exist. All organizations are by default subject to the IRS. Churches submit paperwork to let the IRS know that they are exempt under the IRS's own rules. They don't have some special rank that means that they outrank the tax code, they exist within the tax code as exempt organizations.
Fourthly, yes, you might have to tax some other entities at the same time (though not necessarily, it depends on how you wrote the legislation). Not necessarily a bad thing if they're raking in huge amounts of income. I wouldn't be hugely against taxing the net profits of, for example, Harvard's trust fund. If they want lower taxes they can spend more on program expenses like scholarships. But it's not necessarily true in any case, it would depend how you wrote it.
Fifthly, large churches would be the least capable of getting out of taxes simply because they're the ones making the money. Any legislation written for this purpose would almost certainly include a pretty hefty exemption for PR purposes so that the average village church would still be exempt. And secondly, just because you're big and can pay fancy accountants doesn't make you above the law. If you're making hundreds of millions of dollars each year, as the Mormon church is, no amount of creative accounting can turn that into a loss. The best way of reducing the tax burden would be to increase program expenses like charitable operations and their accountants would tell them the same thing. Additionally the argument that taxes on large entities making billions are really an attack on small entities is a shameless copy and paste from the argument that large corporations make every time anyone tries to make them pay taxes. It's the thing they tell useful idiots. We can't tax Disney because if we did then really that's an attack on your mom's small business or whatever.
Sixth, the "acktually it was a gift" defence has never worked and will never work. Churches don't even try it, everyone except internet nonaccountants are on the same page here.
Seventh, it's not vendetta driven. It's that there are organizations that are very openly flaunting their abuse of the privileges given to genuine churches while operating as investment funds, real estate holding companies, and political action groups. The ones that aren't are fine and any legislation written would presumably be perfectly capable of distinguishing between the two. Anytime anyone criticizes A that happens to be a member of group B it's very easy to immediately default to the victim playbook and say "you just hate B". It's a reflexive and moronic response that refuses to acknowledge that there is any difference between specifically A and the group B, refuses to listen to or address any of the reasons for singling A out, and attempts to shut down any argument through a blanket assertion of bigotry. It's conservative 101 and you're probably not even aware that you're doing it. But you are doing it and it's pathetic.
|
Northern Ireland26225 Posts
On July 30 2023 05:46 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2023 05:04 Introvert wrote:
The obsession with taxing churches appears entirely vendetta driven (because it is).
But either way it will never happen. How many elections have Democrats won because black churches are essential huge GOTV operations? There is no way on planet earth Democrats are going to poke a stick on the eye of their most loyal constituency. The online left seems to believe that it's white protectant churches that are basically GOP subsidiaries and that's why they whine about taxing them, but those churches got NOTHING on the overt politicking in black churches in America. See, i know this is hard to understand. But not everything is about Democrats vs Republicans. Some people actually have principles and views on things beyond "But will it hurt the other side?" For example, i am an atheist. I don't see why the state should sponsor theist brainwashing facilities. I think society would be better with less superstitious nonsense. Note that i don't think people should not have the right to believe their superstitious nonsense, they absolutely should. But the state should not sponsor them, and them not paying taxes is basically the same as giving them free money. I also don't view churches as a net positive on society, and i think anything positive a church could do, a non-religious organization could do better.
To a point, it’s quite hard to replicate what a church can do in a secular sense, having volunteered with numerous atheistic orgs
We just can’t replicate that compulsion to save one’s soul, that dragging everyone out from the babes to the grandparents, and believe me we do try
Provided the Churches aren’t run by charlatans they do have a role as a wider community hub that basically nothing else currently can replicate
|
On July 30 2023 05:16 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2023 04:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2023 03:48 Introvert wrote:On July 30 2023 03:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2023 02:54 Introvert wrote:On July 30 2023 02:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2023 02:33 Introvert wrote:On July 30 2023 01:54 KwarK wrote:
The problem with the "pro life people are good people with a different ideology to you" theory is all the other political arguments they make.
Take free school lunches for example. When the exact same pro life voices are aggressively arguing that kids whose parents don't pay shouldn't get fed you have to wonder about the ethical framework that got them there. They're probably not getting taken care of properly at home either, given that school lunches ought to be high up on the list of priorities. So this is the most vulnerable and needy group of kids out there and the cost to the state of ensuring that all kids get a meal is negligible. If anything it's the most cost effective way of dealing with youth hunger, you already have all the kids in one place anyway and you already have food being cooked in that place. The cost of giving the kids the food is basically just the marginal cost on the extra platefuls which is nothing.
But these Christian moralists make the argument that feeding the hungry goes against everything Christianity stands for and that if we don't make the kids go hungry then how will we punish their parents for their irresponsibility.
It's that kind of thing that causes the "they're pro birth but they don't give a shit about the kids once they're out" argument. The starting point isn't "they're pro-life so they must be bad people". It's that they're obviously bad people due to the things they do and say. The fact that they're also pro-life isn't the cause, they're both caused by the same underlying problem with the ethical framework these people hold. You don't even understand the controversy around school lunches. The issue around universal school lunches centers on the "universal" part, not the "lunch" part. There are questions of federal involvement, as the NSLP is notoriously inefficient and makes hundreds of millions in improper payments already. The debate, for the most part, isn't around poor kids, it's actually around better off families getting the benefit of taxpayer funded meals for their kids for the purposes of fighting "stigma". There aren't many arguing against assistance to poor kids, though to be fair the number isn't zero. but it's small, especially when you filter out concerns about state and local programs vs. federal programs. I don't even have a super strong opinion on this matter, as I think you could make good arguments on either side, But food for *poor* kids is actually the least controversial part of the debate. On July 30 2023 02:37 micronesia wrote:
What's it called when you aren't against food for poor kids, but you're against free food for rich kids and inadvertently keep food out of the mouths of poor kids as a result? At the very least I think having a debate over dealing with stigma that may actually cause eligible children to forgo meals is a topic that can be debated in good faith rather than just throwing out that the other person doesn't want poor kids to eat. What are you referencing when you say: the NSLP is notoriously inefficient and makes hundreds of millions in improper payments already. ? I mean stuff like this https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-19-389The Department of Agriculture (USDA) has reported various actions aimed at lowering estimated improper payment error rates in the National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program (school meals programs). Examples include a new application prototype intended to reduce applicant errors and training for food service workers to reduce administrative errors. USDA uses a model based on a periodic study to estimate improper payments, and reported error rates will generally not reflect the effect of most actions until USDA's next study is released, likely in 2020. However, in fiscal year 2018, USDA redefined what it considers an improper payment. Specifically, meal claiming errors—for example, meals that are missing a required nutritional component but that are counted as reimbursable—are no longer considered improper payments, resulting in error rates for fiscal year 2018 that are not comparable to prior years.
USDA has not assessed fraud risks in the school meals programs, which hinders its ability to ensure that its key oversight practices—extensive processes designed for broad monitoring purposes—address areas at risk for fraud. The assess component of A Framework for Managing Fraud Risks in Federal Programs (Fraud Risk Framework) calls for managers to plan regular fraud risk assessments and to assess risks to determine a fraud risk profile. USDA officials stated that the agency considers fraud risks through efforts to assess overall program integrity risk in the programs, which include research projects and consideration of specific risks when allocating monitoring resources. However, GAO found that USDA's efforts to assess risk do not comprehensively consider fraud risks. As a result, these efforts are not aligned with the overarching concepts of planning and conducting fraud risk assessments in the Fraud Risk Framework. Establishing a process to plan and conduct regular fraud risk assessments that align with the leading practices in the Fraud Risk Framework—including those in the figure below—will help USDA design and implement an antifraud strategy, as well as evaluate and adapt its strategy to improve fraud risk management in the school meals programs.
n 2018, almost 30 million children participated in the National School Lunch Program and over 14 million participated in the School Breakfast Program, with cash payments totaling almost $17 billion. Historically, the school meals programs have reported high estimated improper payment error rates, which suggest that these programs may also be vulnerable to fraud.
GAO was asked to review improper payment error rates and potential fraud in the school meals programs. This report (1) describes steps USDA has reported taking since 2015 to lower improper payment error rates and (2) examines the extent to which USDA has assessed areas of risk for fraud in the school meals programs.
GAO reviewed the results of the most recent study USDA uses to estimate improper payments in the school meals programs, as well as the error rates and actions to reduce them reported in USDA's agency financial reports from fiscal years 2015 through 2018. Further, GAO analyzed guidance for key oversight practices and documentation regarding USDA's risk assessment processes. GAO examined these processes against the leading practices in the Fraud Risk Framework for assessing fraud risks. GAO also interviewed agency officials.
here's the USDA's summary from a recent quarter https://www.cfo.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/Q4/Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) National School Lunch Program (NSLP) Payments Integrity Scorecard FY 2022 Q4.pdf From the information provided it appears you're referencing this: Households may incorrectly self-report and administrative staff may miscalculate household's application information resulting in miscertification.
Which wouldn't be a problem at all if schools were just providing all children with meals. That is in fact one of the arguments for making it universal. You essentially define the problem away, but it still doesn't go back and answer if this is actually the best way of making sure those with problem accessing food can do so. And we still don't know if it would work. Is every family who can provide their own child with food going to stop doing so? is it really going to solve any potential issues regarding "stigma?" I think the answers to this problem are sufficiently unknown that we can move beyond saying things "X doesn't want poor kids to eat." Well we agree what we have certainly isn't the best. I'm not sure what you're suggesting you want, but I'm confident making sure every kid gets fed at school regardless of their parents' income is better than what we have. I think we know every family who can provide their own child with food is not going to suddenly stop. Perhaps you could clarify your concern about that, because it sounds nonsensical on its face?I don't know what stigma there would be if all the kids just get in line, get their lunch, and get marked down as doing so? I'm saying we don't (or at least I don't) know how much money is going to go to buy food for kids who won't eat it, basically. To bring in and address ChristianS's point, presumably the amount of money spent without effect will jump sharply, as most of the kids who might need such a program already have access to it. Making it universal must make it less efficient and more wasteful. The question is if that's the best solution and is the federal government the best entity to fix it. I don't have a concrete suggestion, like I said this isn't an issue I'm up in arms about. But if I were in Congress I would certainly vote against a universal expansion without considering other options or taking the time figure out if the proposed solution will actually solve the problem.
I see, thanks for the clarification. I have to admit it still strikes me as a relatively simple issue to address through logistics analysis. Though I also recognize feeding 45+ million kids 5 days a week is already is no small task schools are managing to the best of their ability under the existing system.
While I'm certainly open to ideas for "the best solution", which you acknowledge you don't have, I think it's reasonable to accept a (non-reformist) "better" which I'd argue we could have in a universal school meal policy. At least until we find something even better than that or some Platonic ideal solution. Though I'd wager "the best solution" changes over time as material conditions change.
So the question is not and most certainly should not be "is this the best solution?" and even if it was, the answer being "no" doesn't mean it isn't an improvement we should make.
The relationships between education, state, and federal governments is complex and would likely be different under my preferences so the question about whether it should be implemented by the federal government is ambiguous. Generally some level of the aggregation and analysis of data to identify efficiencies would pragmatically fall to the federal level. But I also support taking into consideration more localized circumstances and maintaining local autonomy with the general guiding questions being "are the kids getting fed reasonably efficiently, and how can we improve it?".
|
On July 30 2023 06:56 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2023 05:04 Introvert wrote:
The low "profitability" of churches is actually a good reasons for not taxing them. It a) can be a burden on the church, and b) puts the government's nose in the tent. Things like audits and regulation that would face stiff first amendment challenges are just the beginning. The idea of the "department of religious affairs" in the IRS is...not good. Also, you would have to tax other entities we currently don't tax.
It is apparently hard to believe but most churches are not, in fact, run by Joel Osteen. but just like with other taxes, the Joel Osteens of the world would be best equipped to deal with the new rules at the expense of small churches. Also, money given to churches is a GIFT. It's given freely for a non-economic return. Tithes are not payments for services to be taxed. They are gifts. We should treat them as such. Soo the list of reasons to not do this is long.
The obsession with taxing churches appears entirely vendetta driven (because it is).
But either way it will never happen. How many elections have Democrats won because black churches are essential huge GOTV operations? There is no way on planet earth Democrats are going to poke a stick on the eye of their most loyal constituency. The online left seems to believe that it's white protectant churches that are basically GOP subsidiaries and that's why they whine about taxing them, but those churches got NOTHING on the overt politicking in black churches in America. Got a few things more I wanted to address here but couldn't be bothered to write out on my phone so I waited until I was home. Firstly, I'm a CPA and during my time in public accounting I performed some reviews (little brother of an audit, less assurance) for churches. I have professionally evaluated the church's compliance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and so I kinda had to know what those were. I've been in industry for a few years but I'm still more of an expert on this than the average layperson. Secondly, churches already keep books (and on those books tithes etc. are correctly reported as revenue). Every entity needs to keep some sort of books and churches are no different. The churches I worked on were relatively small and the bookkeepers were just members of the congregation with an accounting background volunteering but it still happens. The idea that submitting a form to the IRS stating the net profit would be an additional burden is absurd. Even the smallest church has a quickbooks for entering tithes and recording checks in. Thirdly, the government's nose is already in the tent. And in everyone's tent. There's no part of America in which the Federal government doesn't exist. All organizations are by default subject to the IRS. Churches submit paperwork to let the IRS know that they are exempt under the IRS's own rules. They don't have some special rank that means that they outrank the tax code, they exist within the tax code as exempt organizations. Fourthly, yes, you might have to tax some other entities at the same time (though not necessarily, it depends on how you wrote the legislation). Not necessarily a bad thing if they're raking in huge amounts of income. I wouldn't be hugely against taxing the net profits of, for example, Harvard's trust fund. If they want lower taxes they can spend more on program expenses like scholarships. But it's not necessarily true in any case, it would depend how you wrote it. Fifthly, large churches would be the least capable of getting out of taxes simply because they're the ones making the money. Any legislation written for this purpose would almost certainly include a pretty hefty exemption for PR purposes so that the average village church would still be exempt. And secondly, just because you're big and can pay fancy accountants doesn't make you above the law. If you're making hundreds of millions of dollars each year, as the Mormon church is, no amount of creative accounting can turn that into a loss. The best way of reducing the tax burden would be to increase program expenses like charitable operations and their accountants would tell them the same thing. Additionally the argument that taxes on large entities making billions are really an attack on small entities is a shameless copy and paste from the argument that large corporations make every time anyone tries to make them pay taxes. It's the thing they tell useful idiots. We can't tax Disney because if we did then really that's an attack on your mom's small business or whatever. Sixth, the "acktually it was a gift" defence has never worked and will never work. Churches don't even try it, everyone except internet nonaccountants are on the same page here. Seventh, it's not vendetta driven. It's that there are organizations that are very openly flaunting their abuse of the privileges given to genuine churches while operating as investment funds, real estate holding companies, and political action groups. The ones that aren't are fine and any legislation written would presumably be perfectly capable of distinguishing between the two. Anytime anyone criticizes A that happens to be a member of group B it's very easy to immediately default to the victim playbook and say "you just hate B". It's a reflexive and moronic response that refuses to acknowledge that there is any difference between specifically A and the group B, refuses to listen to or address any of the reasons for singling A out, and attempts to shut down any argument through a blanket assertion of bigotry. It's conservative 101 and you're probably not even aware that you're doing it. But you are doing it and it's pathetic.
I appreciate the further response.
Yes, I know churches are small and much of work is done by congregant volunteers, that was actually going to be one my points were you to respond. You may think the additional paperwork work is minimal, and in terms of my objections, and the objections of most, that's not the most salient concern except to say that anything extra is an invitation for interference. Second, there are number of allowances made for churches in tax law and if you think "taxing churches" is going to amount to simply a statement of net revenue I think that's absurd. That's not what I meant by "nose in the tent."
I think this dovetails with some of your other points that basically says "small churches would be ok." Which of course begs the question of why we are doing this in the first place? For a little bit of tax revenue we are going to set a precedent of more federal and state involvement in the activities of churches and exempt charities? You are focusing on what I guess we would call umbrella organizations. The LDS church is not one monolithic entity, the one in my town isn't the same as the central organization you are talking about taxing. And even then focusing on something like the LDS church is odd. The vast majority of churches are small, almost entirely independent entities, as you apparently well know. Problem is, even the large LDS organization that does have a lot of money is still a religious organization and it's not clear the government would do any better with it or that they should be deciding what is and isn't too big. I just think you are talking about something different at a much larger scale and bypassing any concerns by saying "oh the paperwork won't be that bad." it's not about the paperwork, entirely.
it's not the exact same scenario but I think to how the rules of COVID were so different for churches compared to other entities. Both in CA and elsewhere, they were deemed as less essential than even a bar. These are the types of judgements legislators will make and as time goes they will proliferate through the legislated tax law and the IRS regs. Sorry, I don't trust the people who will be writing these rules as much as you do. And I don't think the revenue is worth it. As the Supreme Court once said, "the power to tax involves the power to destroy." Trust me, I probably think just as badly of Scientology as you do, but we have different judgements on the wisdom of going after them.
As to your last comment, I've read it here in this thread and heard it elsewhere. Most people aren't complaining about the LDS or Catholic church's hoards, although that does exist. Most of the people who want these laws passed consider churches pass-throughs for fraudulent and/or pernicious activity. Though I will admit it's funny to read that comment from someone who is always very quick to label people he disagrees with as bad, bigots, or morons.
Final comment, I will try to say this different because apparently I'm not doing it very well. The "it's a gift" defense is not intended as a legal defense. it's a societal perspective we have honored in our legal system. If you really think that a church is similar to an onlyfans page then I can't help you. All sorts of exemptions for churches in this country have existed for centuries, because most people understood the danger of getting government more involved in church activities and church life. We should understand churchgoing not as a un-needed luxury service but as a core component of American life that exists alongside our legal regime.
|
|
|
|
|
|
56897
177
9
EPT
