423
More than 1 million children lost access to food benefits after Trump bill passed
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 26 Jul 2026
423 points (99.5% liked)
News
39565 readers
2368 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Didn’t answer my question. Who is paying for it all? Who is making it? If you move do you get another free house?
The collective pays for it through tax collection. The people who already make it will still make it. If you wanted to move you would give up your current house and trade it for a different one.
Why can you not imagine a better, fairer society?
Do you even understand the scale of the extra taxation that would be needed to provide everyone with free food, clothing, and housing?
You’d be taxing everyone 95% of their income lol You’d also have to have hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of empty housing vacancies in every single city at all times to accommodate people moving.
Yes! It would be extremely difficult but that's the dream!
There's already millions of empty homes due to capitilism. 100% tax on any income above $100,000,000 would be a start lol
That would be a communism level nightmare that would do nothing but end up how communism always does - extreme poverty for all but the ruling elites, millions of deaths.
Also virtually no one has an income per year of over $100 mil, by design.
When you incentivise people not to work, unsurprisingly a massive percentage of the population will happily not work. This means income tax dries up, jobs disappear, productivity plummets, and the rich people whose companies produce everything just say fuck it because the government is trying to confiscate all their money, close their businesses, and move to an island. Then virtually all produce and products are gone, there’s no work, and as such there’s no tax revenue at all, and the entire population is dependent on the government getting that tax revenue.
So you see the issue?
Those things are happening right now under capitalism. No system is immune from corruption. That's why it's so important to stamp it out when you see it.
No one should earn over $100mil full stop. The design is flawed.
I don't really see the issue. With all our technological advancements, people shouldn't have to work as much as they do. I would love to see people have more time off. Yes some would sit around and do nothing, maybe they need the rest, but I think the majority would get bored and do something they actually wanted to do. In would be a net positive for society. Parents could spend more time with their kids.
I do understand how hard it would be to achieve. But I believe it's possible.
It’s not possible because again, it all depends on the government taking infinitely more tax revenue than they do now, while incentivising people to not work and not pay tax, meaning less tax revenue than before……while needing significantly more…..there’s no way in which you can get triple figure multiples more tax revenue by incentivising people to not pay tax.
The idea that earnings should be capped is ridiculous, and nothing but jealousy. Anyone earning that much a year is pretty much guaranteed to be providing tens/hundreds of thousands of job, hundreds of billions/trillions in revenue and taxes, and deserves every bit of that money. Those people generally took massive risks, financially/socially/relationship/lifestyle/etc wise, and it paid off.
The last thing anyone should be doing is disincentivising people from doing that.
That's just not true though.
I understand the importance of a CEO. It's a difficult job and requires dedication. But how can you honestly say they deserve to earn x1000 times more than someone who works just as hard but doesn't have the right connections.
Then there are shareholders. They use their wealth to aquire more wealth. Yes they make decisions about where the company should make investment but they also only care about one thing, portfolio growth. This leads to loopholes in tax laws, private equity gutting companies, attacks on workers rights and criminal cover ups.
No one earns a billion fairly. Just because you are well off doesn't mean you deserve to be. The notion that 'these people create jobs' is a cop out. These people need to be reigned in.
I've seen figures saying total billionaire worth is $21trillion. Divided equally, that would give every person on Earth $2500. I don't know about you but that would help me enourmously. And imagine the difference it would make to someone from Iraq or Sudan.
Obviously it wouldn't make sense to just hand it out like that. It's just an example to show how much wealth is owned by those who don't actually need it. They're not even doing anything useful with it and would still be unfathomably rich if they gave some away.
The decisions of a ceo affect the entire company. Every single thing about that company, from production to profit to employees jobs is affected by every decision they make. They can sink the entire company, or they can make everyone money and improve the company and hire more people, give raises/benefits/promotions/etc for example.
Their responsibility is legitimately worth 1000x those of some other employees. Now don’t get me wrong, lots of CEO pay packets are absurd - but it’s what shareholders and board members feel they are worth if they accomplish their targets.
The notion that no one earns a billion fairly is ridiculous. Jeff Bezos for example made the biggest, most advanced marketplace in the history of the world, that allows people to get almost anything they want delivered to their door within 48 hours. How did he not earn a billion dollars “fairly”? Elon musk made electric cars that can drive themselves. How did he not earn it “fairly”? He has made thousands of people millionaires.
We don’t get to police how people spend their money. If billionaires want to horde it and do a Scrooge mcduck every morning, that’s their right. What you should focus on instead of being jealous and angry is making billions yourself and giving it all away if that’s what you think should be done with that sort of money.
We have no right to tell others how to spend the money they earned.
We police how people spend their money all the time! Taxes! Laws. Life is full of resitrictions. Just because you have money it doesn't mean you're above the law.
By law you must also contribute to society through taxes. How is it fair that a handful of individuals can buy the presidency to reduce their tax contributions. How is it fair that their companies can lobby the government to bend/break the rules.
Musk and Bezos have done well. They had innovative ideas and expanded them incrdibly well. They deserve to live in luxury. They could give half their wealth away and still live in luxury.
I still want to live in a meritocracy where good ideas are rewarded. But the amount of power these individuals have is monstrous. Some of their wealth must be taken away.