(Maybe Even World Hunger!)
Everybody Loves Snacks
Let’s talk about hunger. Almost all of us have known a time when we craved a snack, but didn’t have enough cash on hand. You might drive past a fast food place, for instance, and go, “oh yeah! –Wait, I can’t get that right now.” No big deal, right? 🍟
Now, imagine that happening all the time.
In 2024, that was the case for 13.7% of American households. That means on any random day, on any random street with 10 houses? At least one house has hungry kids–who cannot get a snack. Or dinner.
In America. In 2024.
In fact, by the USDA’s research, 18.3 million U.S. households were “food insecure” at some time that year.1 So what’s the situation today? Well, the USDA isn’t publishing updated records. But given the rising prices, stagnant income, and swelling inflation since . . . personally, I’d bet it isn’t getting better.
Tax the Rich, Not the Rest.
Now, this isn’t a call for donations. It doesn’t need to beg, because the solution sits before us all. It’s been there the whole time, but the vast majority of our reps (regardless of party) simply choose to avoid it.
—> Tax the super-rich to cover budgetary gaps. 💸💸💸
Not enough money to bomb Iran? Tax the rich.
Not enough money to feed hungry babies? Tax the rich.
Not enough money for a new flippin’ ballroom? TAX THE RICH!
You see where I’m going with this?
I’m not talking about taxing the “rich” as in, “anyone making $200,000+.” I’m talking about the whoa “super-rich,” as in, “hey, I bought a media site for funsies!” Yes, that kind of rich!
Why is it always the people’s burden when they spend all our money? Why do we always pay the bill?
Specific Solutions
Solution #1: Wealth Tax
Okay. So, right now Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Ro Khanna are discussing imposing a “wealth tax” to do this. It has its merits, but it will probably die in committee (as most bills do).2
The idea is to impose a new, specific tax for the richest of the rich to fund health programs and/or food programs, plus a $3,000 incentive for all families making under $150,000.
I like this idea. But Conservatives will give it the death of a thousand bureaucratic cuts. Probably some Liberals, too. I won’t help them along, by making remarks.
I will say this: Senator Sanders (), Representative Khanna (), if you hand out financial incentives, you must make them ineligible to affect existing SNAP, SSI, and Medicaid. Because if you give $3,000 to someone receiving public assistance, those very programs will count that as income, then happily snatch that $3,000 away from their own assistance. Leaving the recipients without groceries as a result.
Ask me how I know.
No one gets ahead, in the SNAP-SSI Rodeo.
Solution #2: Raise the Social Security Cap
This solution might have less friction than a wealth tax. When anyone gets a paycheck, the government currently takes 6.2% out to fund their future retirement. We are in a mess right now because the amount we took out in the past does not equate to the amount that we’re paying now.
…It doesn’t help that Congress has “borrowed” (I use the word loosely) from the program multiple times in the past. Thus draining our nation of essential resources for its aging population. But don’t let me digress.
The solution for this is absolutely not to raise the percentage everyone pays. But to raise the cap.
Right now, if you make $184,500 a year, you pay $11,439 (6.2%) Social Security taxes on it. And that’s our cap, by law. That’s the max.
So if you make $200,000 a year? You pay $11,439.
If you make $30 million a year? You pay $11,439.
If you’re a flippin’ trillionaire? Yeah. You pay $11,439.
If we raised that cap a little bit, we would have an awful lot more money in Social Security. That would offer so much more leeway for retired people and SSI recipients.
That way nitwits would not have to be screaming about “entitlements” for someone who’s paid into the program their entire life, and just wants to buy a cabin near a lake. Right?
Right.
Solution #3: Close the Loopholes
The last solution in my opinion is just plain common sense. If you want people to pay their fair share of taxes… close the loopholes that make it possible.
Tax shelters. Offshore accounts. Phantom businesses. Funneling money between corporations. Questionable trusts. “Business” expenses like yachts and private jets. Ridiculous donations.
Yes, rich people. I see you. We all see you.
Why are these shenanigans still allowed in America? Well, an ordinary person like myself would be tempted to say: it’s because the rich buy elections. And in so doing, they buy our representatives, who fail to pass meaningful tax reform.
But surely there’s a better excuse than that, right?
… Right.
Back to the Snacks
So there you go: three ideas to bring more snacks into the hands of hungry people. Maybe a wealth tax, a bump to the Social Security cap, or thinning out some tax shelters might do the job. But to get there, we have to motivate our representatives.
Why do we live in a country where 1 in 10 houses has hungry kids?
I dunno. Why not write your local representative and ask.
Contact Your Elected Officials
You must be logged in to post a comment.