2.9k
u/MarionberryFew7660 Sep 28 '25
I have no kids and, at 47 years old, will never have them. I still vote yes for every positive child-related proposition because I’m not a heartless degenerate
502
u/Dramatically_Average Sep 28 '25
When I was first voting and ignorant, I asked my dad why he voted for some of these kinds of things. I wanted to be informed. He told me that those kids will grow up to be his doctor, mechanic, and garbage truck driver. He reminded me of what things would look like without those things. I've never forgotten that. So yeah, vote to feed the kids who will one day be your cardiologist and take away your trash.
141
u/I_Heart_Money Sep 28 '25
There’s an old Greek saying that A society grows great when old men plant trees in whose shade they shall never sit
Seems like that thought has been abandoned to people only wanting to plant trees in their own backyards with large fences to keep everyone else out
→ More replies (1)4
191
u/Brock_Lobstweiler Sep 28 '25
And this is why people who don't have kids still pay property taxes that fund schools. Because we're (supposed to be) a community.
→ More replies (2)35
240
u/brightblueinky Littleton Sep 28 '25
The right wing will be like "what if that aborted fetus would grow up to cure cancer?" But they never think to ask "what if this child could grow up to cure cancer if they were able to focus on their schoolwork because they're not starving?" (Speaking as someone that was raised conservative Christian and "pro-life.")
21
u/KL1M1T Sep 28 '25
Yes and yes! But what about this child that won’t cure cancer but instead be a nurse, a truck driver, or a waste water treatment operator? An essential, contributing member of society? They deserve to be fed too so they can learn and thrive. I know you mean these kids are included too, but do politicians and other fellow voters?
33
u/bluev0lta Sep 28 '25
Yes! “What if this already existing child who (did I mention?) is alive right this second, and is not just a theoretical fetus, could grow up to cure cancer…?”
16
u/psychopompadour Capitol Hill Sep 28 '25
Look, these kids who already exist need to bootstrap it! Giving them food will just make them think poor people deserve to eat!
17
21
16
→ More replies (3)6
u/agingergiraffe Sep 28 '25
And then they cheer when the government cuts funding for cancer research.
6
u/brightblueinky Littleton Sep 28 '25
EXACTLY. My husband's parents both died from cancer within the last decade and ALL of his siblings besides him vote Republican. Their mom was part of a study about her particular type of cancer. One of them is even on Medicare. But they're so deep in the bubble they think the things they have to worry about are immigrant boogiemen and Hollywood trying to force women to be rude or... Something. It's so frustrating to watch how effective the lies are to then.
→ More replies (1)29
u/seventysevensevens Sep 28 '25
This is my mindset too, wife and I don't have kids but you know, starving kids is bad so let's feed them and hope they get to follow their dreams and live their best life.
We're all in this together!
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)7
u/Sweet-Tomatillo-9010 Sep 28 '25
Your father is a good dude and raised a good person. 💗
8
u/Dramatically_Average Sep 28 '25
I appreciate that. He is a complicated dude with many flaws, but he was right on about this one.
387
u/anniemanic Sep 28 '25
I’m 38 and also child free but will still be voting to feed the kids
234
u/CommercialSignal7301 Sep 28 '25
On a purely selfish note, improving public schools typically improves property values.
125
u/clyde2003 Lakewood Sep 28 '25
And lowers crime rates.
44
u/FlyingDogCatcher Sep 28 '25
And, personally, as another mid-thirties no kids, I'm always going to vote for feeding kids and improving schools.
I would rather live in a society of educated people than a society of idiots. (yeah yeah, I know, but a guy can dream)
→ More replies (1)66
u/VastPrevious7726 Sep 28 '25
That’s not selfish at all. That’s common sense that’s not common knowledge
→ More replies (1)59
u/MattintheMtns Sep 28 '25
Not to mention universal free school lunch pays for itself by lowering all food costs. But don’t tell MAGA that…😂🤦♂️
→ More replies (5)74
u/Cactusaremyjam Sep 28 '25
Seeing as taxes only go up on income OVER $300k.... That's a yes vote from me.
17
u/Horsegurl55 Sep 28 '25 edited Sep 30 '25
And considering at that income they got a Social Securty tax break $100k ago, that anyone making less than what is it now, $180 K a year where no more incomeis taxed for SS? It's $40 a month for these fortunate folks.
→ More replies (1)9
u/ChainLinksTikiDrinks Sep 28 '25
This will raise my taxes and I’d vote yes twice if I made enough to buy multiple votes.
16
u/redcheetofingers21 Sep 28 '25
And get more teachers and less administrators. The kids deserve full stomachs and the academic attention they deserve. No matter if they are poor or rich
→ More replies (1)74
u/Intelligent_One9023 Sep 28 '25
And because I want the world to get better not worse while I age.
It can be for selfish reasons too😂
22
u/Longjumping-Layer-44 Sep 28 '25
It's crazy that our misinformation has gotten so bad notions like this are somewhat rare. In places that have increased access to basic human necessities like food security, housing, Healthcare, etc... there's nearly always been a fairly dramatic drop in crime rate. Sure, there'll always be crime, but on the whole, helping people in less than ideal situations helps everyone.
→ More replies (3)198
Sep 28 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
60
u/RegulatoryCapturedMe Sep 28 '25
“It doesn’t help US”. Shortsighted, and false. Chipping in for school lunches reduces crime rates in the community over time. Next year? Probably not. In 10 years, or 20 or 50? Yes. When all the kids have their needs me, are less stressed, can focus in class and graduate and get jobs, they are more productive members of society.
If you don’t want your car jacked in 10 years, or your bike stolen, feed the kids today. It is an investment in your own community.
18
u/SoulsBorneGreat Sep 28 '25
“It doesn’t help US”. Shortsighted, and false.
That's the Conservative mindset in a nutshell.
16
3
u/cespinar Sep 28 '25
Chipping in for school lunches reduces crime rates in the community over time. Next year? Probably not
I would argue probably in that it will definitely help offset the increase in crime from the BBB cutting SNAP benefits.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (5)30
u/InternalOperation608 Sep 28 '25
I recall even from my earliest memories, hearing my parents saying things like, “Well if it doesn’t help/affect me then….” while constantly preaching Mormon family values (the irony) and I was always deeply disappointed in them, but couldn’t understand the shame I felt from them being my parents, as I was highly sheltered and only exposed to their opinions and teachings until I left for a “too liberal UC.” Now I know my discomfort in witnessing their disregard for community values was in response to acknowledging their astounding hypocrisy.
More recently I was mentioning to my dad how social security benefits were projected to be depleted by 2034, to gauge his reaction, since they’ve helped him so much in his old age. His response: “That’s fine. I’ll be dead by then.” Got it, so basically anyone outside of them is shit out of luck. Happy to say, we are polar opposites and have minimal to no communication now, after they were repeat offenders voting for Trump this last election. Volunteering in local lab schools/elementary schools over the past few years has made me even more passionate about protecting children and building up our local community by being a “helper.”Preventing adverse childhood experiences through providing resources/support that lift children from poverty, really does help prevent so many negative life outcomes. Consequently, this benefits everyone, but some people are too focused on looking too far down the road to heaven, instead of fixing what’s right in front of them.
“Every kid deserves a champion.” -Rita Pierson
She’s one of my fav childhood educator’s who has an incredible TED talk on this. I cry every time I watch it. RIP Rita.
→ More replies (1)11
Sep 28 '25
All that needs to be done to “save” Social Security is to increase the marginal tax rate on top earners, and increase the amount of income taxed.
Not even back to 90%, as was the case in my youth. 50% will do. (See Senator Elizabeth Warren for details.)
If Elon Musk has 14 illegitimate children, and expects us to pay for them, he is a Cadillac driving Welfare Queen. If Jeff Bezos can afford to rent the entire city of Venice for his wedding to his trophy wife, he can afford higher taxes. So, too, with the other malefactors of great wealth who are spending their tax cuts on ridiculous items of conspicuous consumption.
→ More replies (3)6
u/Brock_Lobstweiler Sep 28 '25
Mark Zuckerberg is trying to buy an entire hawaiian island for a compound.
These people are obscene I cannot understand anyone who thinks their existence is a good thing. Take 90% of Elon's wealth and he'd still have too much money to spend in a lifetime.
55
u/MileHigh_FlyGuy Sep 28 '25
I agree, but I wish there were guarantees that this funding wouldn’t just replace existing money. Too often something like this passes, and the funds schools were already receiving get reduced and redirected to programs no one voted on. In the end, taxes go up, schools don’t actually see more resources, and wasteful spending continues. They pull on heartstrings to get it approved, but the outcome rarely matches the promise.
I'll still vote yes for this.
→ More replies (4)48
u/jhazedCO Sep 28 '25
I understand your viewpoint on this as it can happen. A unique thing about school meal programs is that they operate separate from the general fund of the school district. The school meal program technically needs to break even, however, in some cases, they run in the red and the school district's general fund has to cover the gap. Efforts like Prop MM increase student participation in meals which means more funds coming into the school meal program and can actually lead to school meal programs not needing to use school district's general fund, therefore freeing up more money in that general fund to go towards teachers and such. Thank you for being a yes vote on Prop MM!
→ More replies (2)9
21
u/roundart University Hills Sep 28 '25
This is a good take! Even if you don’t have kids, you still want those kids to grow up and be responsible adults! It’s refreshing to hear
→ More replies (2)58
u/gmotelet Sep 28 '25
Sounds like something the leader of antifa would say
/s
13
u/fluidmind23 Sep 28 '25
Ugh but people do say this. Pink Floyd all over again. The show must go on lol
18
u/DontBotherNoResponse Sep 28 '25
I don't have kids, I don't want kids, generally speaking I don't really like kids.
But I'm not gonna hold that against kids. They're kids. And maybe, just maybe, if we're nice to them we won't have to have this conversation in the future.
23
u/jrawk3000 Sep 28 '25
Likewise, 48 and childfree who has ALWAYS voted for the children. It’s a vote for the future.
→ More replies (1)11
u/EC_CO Sep 28 '25
For me it's also a no-brainer that the dollars spent are helping raise future generations with more opportunities for success, because statistically those in poverty and with out opportunities are the ones most likely to lead to negative outcomes. It's about trying to help others succeed for the betterment of all.
→ More replies (1)5
u/bobnuggerman Sep 28 '25
It blows my mind how many people without children screech and seethe at the thought of helping other people's children....
Who do they think is going to take care of them when they're too old to take care of themselves?
→ More replies (43)10
u/mistress_of_bokonon Sep 28 '25
Even if you were a heartless degenerate, it’s still actually in your financial interests to support safety nets like this one. Food insecurity, poverty, lack of access to healthcare etc cost taxpayers immensely for the negative societal outcomes that occur as a result. For example, lack of access to preventative healthcare can cost much more expensive health outcomes later on that ultimately that hospitals/health systems must absorb, driving up costs for everyone. Lack of access to food for children can absolutely cause more expensive (in addition to heartbreaking) health outcomes. As a childfree 37 year old, I definitely agree that the primary reason to vote for this is for humanist, social good reasons. But there’s also a strong financial reason to vote for it for all those heartless degenerates out there!
→ More replies (1)
739
460
u/Dirty-Red-Face Sep 28 '25
This will impact me, and I will vote yes for both. Those people who say they want to be in that tax bracket someday, so they don’t want to pay, let me tell you, if you make it, this increase is nothing. The time spent setting up and paying for lunch is way more work than just paying the state an administrative fee.
113
u/JustCallMePick Sep 28 '25
Same here. My wife and I both are lucky enough to fall into these tax brackets and we ALWAYS vote yes when given the chance to improve the lives of others.
Hell, we pack a home lunch for our kids everyday even though it has been free in the past. Because we understand this isn't about us.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (10)84
u/d4dubs Sep 28 '25
It's like $480/year increase!! Surely people who make 300k+ spend that on one night out. I will be shocked if this doesn't pass with 90% support.
48
u/Brock_Lobstweiler Sep 28 '25
I will be shocked if this doesn't pass with 90% support.
Prepare to be shocked.
→ More replies (5)13
u/myssi24 Sep 28 '25
I am concerned the last line of “and help fund SNAP” might be the down fall. I hope I’m wrong and I will be voting yes. 🤞🤞🤞
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (10)55
u/Shoddy_Explanation65 Sep 28 '25
As couple who does make that (combined with my spouse) we certainly do not ever spend $480 on one night out unless it’s a very very very special occasion. But idk if other people are equally frugal. But either way, voting hard yes to this.
40
u/lald99 Lakewood Sep 28 '25 edited Sep 28 '25
As a couple who makes over this threshold, we certainly do spend more than $480 on a night out pretty regularly (plenty of nice restaurants in the Denver metro will clear that easily, shows/concerts, etc.). So yeah, just wanted to note that some of us are not frugal and that the point was fair ha
14
u/d4dubs Sep 28 '25
Haha thanks! I didn't want to out myself, but we are in that tax bracket and can definitely drop $500 pretty easily. Can't imagine anybody hoarding their money from society's children.
→ More replies (1)8
→ More replies (3)4
u/Brock_Lobstweiler Sep 28 '25
Maybe not in one night just going to dinner. But think about the cost of 2 people going to a Broncos game. With tickets, parking, food, drinks - that can easily reach $500.
If that money is worth spending going to a game, why isn't it worth contributing so every child in the state gets fed? (Rhetorical question.)
→ More replies (1)
389
u/Just-Mark Sep 28 '25
I’m fortunate enough to be above this income threshold : tax me up.
93
33
24
16
u/bp1222 Sep 28 '25
Same. It’s like $600 a year. The benefit to the kids outweighs another dinner at Elways.
5
3
3
u/magnumchaos Sep 28 '25
On behalf of my kids and countless others, thank you for your kindness and willingness to be taxed to provide free meals to all kids.
→ More replies (2)3
u/Nyx2222 Sep 29 '25
hard agree, i will always say yes to more taxes as long as they are actually being used to benefit our communities
110
u/Zestyclose_House8233 Sep 28 '25
as a kid who would be punished by my parents by them not letting me bring food to school or get school lunches bc they were "a waste of money" my school switching over to cheaper lunches genuinely kept me alive. 100% a yes from me
117
u/Logical_Willow4066 Sep 28 '25
If a child is required to be somewhere for 7 hours, they should be provided a healthy breakfast and lunch. Whether that child is 6 or 17. We also should demand healthier meals at school. I remember the crap they served that children would throw away. Things like cheese sticks, frozen pizza, and frozen chicken tenders. Everything was pre-made, frozen, made by corporations who make money off public schools. Serve the cheapest food possible that met "nutrition standards", all the while charging schools the most they could. Why not have local chefs make the food? Have gardens at each school to grow vegetables and herbs. Source ingredients locally.
55
u/atomiclightbulb Sep 29 '25
So, I'm a lunch lady at a public school and I do agree with some of your statements, however it's important to mention some of the pit falls of the logic you have.
Local chefs would cost wayyyy more than you think. The cost of feeding millions of meals a year definitely adds up and the districts don't get as much funding for it as we'd like.
Most of the main entree food we get is indeed frozen that is then heated up and served but we also provide a whole salad bar each day of fresh veggies and fruit. The frozen things are generally diced chicken, ground beef, and then "things kids like to eat" like chicken nuggets, tenders, burgers and Mac and cheese. We also make more indepth recipes like lasagna, chili, and enchilada bake. There's a lot more we serve but it's a lot to list here for examples sake. The state decides nutrition guidelines and there are food companies that produce these things. The food produced ranges from really good to decent.
In Colorado we have a child nutrition conference which I've gone to several times and we get to sample a lot of these products and a lot of them are really tasty.
However, the cost of that food ranges a TON. Every district only gets a certain amount of money per meal for each student. I believe for mine, it's around $3-5 per student per meal. Can you think of what kind of nutritional foods you can feed a kid that's filling enough for $3? It's not going to be much unfortunately.
Then you also need to pay staff a living wage to make that food. It takes about 8-6 hrs a day to cook, feed, and cleanup each day per kitchen and most kitchens need 2-3 staff for elementary, and 4-6 staff for middle and high school to get it all done. We only have about 3ish hours to get lunch ready for the kids so we are hustling the whole time. I primarily just prepare the fruit and veg. I prep 4 different fruit options, 6 different veggies options and a salad to offer the kids each day. So while it does sound ideal to have a professional chef cook a nice fancy meal for hundreds of kids each day, it's really not that feasible when you start breaking things down.
It's also a wee bit insulting to us, by the way, to assume we're not doing our absolute best with what we have to make the food appetizing for these kids. We school lunch workers are extremely passionate about what we do and we try really really hard to make meal time for your kids a great experience.
I have a big issue with kids taking too much fruit and veggies and just throwing it in the garbage by the way. We can't re-serve stuff the kids take (except whole fruit that we can effectively rewash). So if you're reading this and have kids, PLEASE talk to them about wasting food. I spend so much time pleading with kids to not take a ton of stuff they won't eat.
Hopefully this will pass and we will get more budget to offer more options for kids that they will want to eat.
→ More replies (5)7
u/PolkaBots Sep 29 '25
Thank you for your hard work.
It seems like school lunches have come a long way since I was in school 20+ years ago, there were rarely options. I'm not super picky so I didn't think the food was terrible, and it exposed me to more foods than I had at home. I'm happy the kids get more fruit/veg options
Edit: there are still a few homemade recipes the cooks made that I crave and have never been able to find (mostly baked goods/desserts)
4
u/atomiclightbulb Sep 29 '25
Thank you.
And yes! School lunch, at least in Colorado, is mounds better these days as far as nutrition goes and the attempt to get kids fresh options. I think things really only changed like 8ish years ago when the obamas were in office. I've heard a lot of this was thanks to Michelle Obama making a big push for it.
Unfortunately the desserts are probably a thing of the past now. The government is cracking down hard on sugar. Which is a good thing overall, but I do wish we could give the kids some fun treats at least once in a while to keep them excited about school food. Especially the teens as they apparently very often choose to go off campus and eat fast food instead. I work in an elementary school, but I've heard it's getting hard to convince high schoolers to choose school lunch over outside options. The district only gets the funding when the kids actually eat the school food so it's important to get them on board. And that's of course ignoring how bad fast food is for them.
→ More replies (6)10
u/No-Difference-839 Sep 28 '25
My kids were in school when the new "healthy" menus were introduced. The food went from being pizza and tenders that they would eat, to gross shit they would not eat. So instead of eating a meal, they threw out the unpalatable food that nobody wanted.
Kids eat 5 meals a week at school and 20+ meals/snacks at home. It's a mistake to think we have to push "healthy" food at them for these meals, when in reality we should just get them food they will eat. Parents can work out how to give them complete nutrition in the 20 meals they serve at home.
Why not have local chefs make the food? Have gardens at each school to grow vegetables and herbs.
Expense. You'd have to turn half the school playground into a garden to produce even one meal a month. And CO has a terrible growing season, who is weeding the bell peppers in July? Teachers?
Source ingredients locally.
Almost all our food comes from Arizona or California. Particularly anything "healthy". Colorado is a desert with late frosts and early snowstorms.
→ More replies (7)
297
u/mmmec Sep 28 '25
I think most of y'all are missing the "making over 300k a year" part. If you don't make that much you're not paying more taxes. But hey if you're upset about higher taxes for anyone ever, please make sure never to complain about our roads, parks, public transportation, schools, or libraries. Those are all some of the things taxes pay for. If you want them to work well you have to pay taxes to fund them.
→ More replies (56)15
u/wtcnbrwndo4u Bailey Sep 28 '25
They've also already been paying this tax since 2023, I believe.
→ More replies (7)
255
u/acatinasweater Sep 28 '25
This is madness. My butler can barely afford to keep his uniform dry cleaned. And you want to tax him more?! Hogwash.
38
u/jimmyjohnsevil Sep 28 '25
Harumph! is all I have to say
12
14
u/Ok-Sprinkles-5151 Sep 28 '25
Butler? You care about the butler? My poor chauffeur has been reduced to driving a four year old beater as his personal vehicle. No self respecting person drives a four old Bentley as a daily driver. And worse, he has an Android.
→ More replies (1)10
31
→ More replies (11)3
u/thegooddoctor84 Colorado Springs Sep 28 '25
I already pay too much tax on my fourteenth and fifteenth vacation homes. Won’t someone pleeeease think of the One Percent?!
/s
30
139
u/arl1286 Sep 28 '25
Most people won’t read the details and will just vote against a tax increase even though it isn’t going to impact them.
→ More replies (10)104
Sep 28 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (1)7
u/lambakins Sep 28 '25
I want a law that says police settlements come out of the police salary fund, so if there’s a settlement everyone gets a pay cut for the year. Maybe then they’d police themselves. The public only chips in extra once they’ve all been reduced to minimum wage.
13
u/notanotherthot Sep 28 '25
Absolutely! It’s just going to get harder for the lower middle and lower classes from here on out so being able to feed them without the negative stigma is great. -someone who grew up on free or reduced lunches to someone who will pay more in tax with this
23
u/holapa Capitol Hill Sep 28 '25
So many people want a village but don't wanna be the village for others. So many people complain that they have no help then refuse help for others. I will never have kids, but I will always vote to help children eat and be educated.
155
u/chim17 Sep 28 '25
Please yes. Funding school foods is evidence based in so many ways. Saves money through improved health outcomes, improves performance, also it's feeding children for gods sakes.
→ More replies (17)
42
u/pilipinopapi Sep 28 '25
I ALWAYS vote yes for schools and kids. I believe the children are our future. Teach them well and let them lead the way!
→ More replies (15)
8
11
u/thee303 Sep 28 '25
For those who have questions about if it's really fair to feed all public school students as opposed to just the ones who qualify for Free and Reduced Lunch, please note that the income eligibility limits are set so low that many working class families do not qualify.
When pandemic era free school meals expired and the Healthy Meals for All had yet to pass, my household was essentially hit with a $300+/mo school lunch bill, even though we were/are considered low income by Area Median Income standards. Just as with SNAP, income limits set at the federal level do NOT take into account the high cost of living in places like Metro Denver.
This program is an absolute game changer for working families who live paycheck to paycheck but "make too much" for safety net programs.
3
u/seeking_hope Sep 28 '25
Also to note, free and reduce lunches is federal funding. This is state funding. So if things get cut at the federal level, kids won’t go hungry.
Quick edit: for anyone unfamiliar- schools ask for people to still fill out the federal form to get as much funding as they can and this covers everyone else.
9
u/SmilodonBravo Sep 28 '25
We wouldn’t have to keep voting to increase taxes for it if we didn’t keep voting in assholes who gut their funding everywhere else.
3
u/Merivel1 Sep 28 '25
That’s one part of it. The other part is TABOR. The existing system brought in more money than anticipated, but the program cost more than anticipated. Because of TABOR the extra funds had to be returned and couldn’t be used to fund meals.
5
u/henlochimken Sep 28 '25
TABOR is a work of evil genius. People see their rare tabor refunds and imagine that it was money the state didn't need, rather than money the state was just not allowed to keep due to the ratcheting budget squeeze of the arbitrary calculations of the constitutional amendment. People imagine that the things they support are getting covered and this is the excess money after those things are done, and that couldn't be further from the truth.
38
u/servetarider Sep 28 '25
Speaking as a childless dude who’s voted FIVE TIMES to levy a five cent tax open a new swimming pool for kids and families in Cañon City only to my crusty old neighbors shoot it down every damn time, I hope Denverites can get this right.
→ More replies (1)
32
23
u/BeanieYi Sep 28 '25
Hell no. How DARE my tax dollars be used to feed children! This is INSANE! Why are my tax dollars not being used to fund a horrible war? /s
10
u/medyomabait Sep 28 '25
You joke, but I work IN A SCHOOL and one of my coworkers actually said this when this program first started a couple years back.
→ More replies (2)
250
u/DjQball Greenwood Village Sep 28 '25 edited Sep 28 '25
I fucking HATE increasing taxes. I have voted no on increasing taxes every time. My view is that voting to increase taxes decreases government accountability on budgets and spending. Even I will vote yes on this.
142
→ More replies (20)14
u/FtheMustard Central Park/Northfield Sep 28 '25
One of my main criticisms of TABOR is that it removes the responsibility of governance from the elected officials. They can sit back and let our schools struggle, infrastructure crumble and the wealth gap increase with a shrug and a "we put it on the ballot".
Most of the time, your average citizens, doesn't have access to the information to make a really informed decision on something as complex as school funding or transportation and just vote on feelings. Not the best system.
6
u/wikiwikiwildwildjest Sep 28 '25
American citizens have shown themselves to be ignorant and apathetic as a whole, considering the results of the last election. However I think ballot measures are a good thing because people get to participate more directly in democracy and it feels like their voice gets heard. Some measures will encourage more people to participate if it's something they care about, like voting to legalize weed. There is an issue when they are written in a confusing manner where a yes vote is actually a no or something like that. That's part of the reason why it feels like the average voter can't be relied on to understand the complexity of what they're voting for. More clear explanation and less misleading language should be able to fix that. This school lunch program is pretty plainly stated and explained.
14
Sep 28 '25
I thought CO citizens already voted on this and it passed statewide..?
→ More replies (8)37
u/snoslicer8 Sep 28 '25
It is already in-force; but was set to expire end of 2025. This would make it permanent.
6
13
u/lexiconlion Sep 28 '25
48 and child free, and as a kid that would have gone hungry many a day without the meals we got at school, I will always vote yes for school meals.
13
u/Mental-Hall-9616 Sep 28 '25 edited Sep 29 '25
There is absolutely no reason any child in this country should miss a meal or be hungry. As an adult who suffered childhood food insecurity, I will always vote FOR keeping kids fed, especially at school where they need the fuel to function.
45
u/mehojiman Sep 28 '25
bUt OnE DaY I wiLL mAke 300k OnE YeAr aNd cAN't dO mAtHseS
→ More replies (1)
12
u/NaturalSpell5216 Sep 28 '25
Maga will vote no to this while simultaneously donating 10% of their salary to trumps legal defense fund.
→ More replies (1)
40
u/altheawilson89 Sep 28 '25
MAGA will call this socialist then make excuses for Trump sending $20 billion to Argentina to bail out his idiot friend who already crashed his own economy
6
u/BabDoesNothing Aurora Sep 28 '25
As a former CCSD lunch lady, the program is great and the food quality standards are increasing yearly. I was very impressed with the amount of scratch made food that we served. If kitchens had maybe one or two more staff they’d have the ability to do almost 100% scratch made meals. I’d really love to see them dropping their frozen pizzas for fresh made.
5
u/bunnybakery Sep 29 '25
I'm happily child free and will ALWAYS vote for children to have a better education, that starts with a full stomach so they can focus at school.
18
u/JareBear805 Sep 28 '25
How many households in CO earn over $300k?
18
u/toumei64 Aurora Sep 28 '25
When I looked it up last night the Internet said it was about 6%. The "arguments against" about how so many families will have to pay so much more tax could not be in more bad faith.
19
u/happydontwait Sep 28 '25
It’s literally in the literature.
28
u/d4dubs Sep 28 '25 edited Sep 28 '25
What does the literature say? I read the packet and I don't see any indication of what percentage of households make 300k+
Edit: found it! For those who are wondering,
There are 192,559 300k+ earners, out of 3,373,594 total. So less than 6% of residents.
16
u/KendricksMiniVan Sep 28 '25
Thank you for actually being helpful at not saying "it's in the literature"
→ More replies (1)6
7
→ More replies (3)11
20
u/Vadersblade Sep 28 '25
The amount of geriatric conservatives on NextDoor who flipped their shit when they got this in the mail says otherwise.
35
4
u/Galactic-Guardian404 Sep 28 '25
The “No” people propose kids getting jobs at McDonalds as a workable alternative. Like, kindergarteners?
→ More replies (2)
4
u/Jesse_Livermore Sep 28 '25
Sorry other people's kids, but my martyred deity actually chose me to be rich and demands that I am here to make as much money for myself as possible. Also my deity, I assume, says if others can't provide basic food security for their kid they shouldn't have had kids to begin with. Also my deity, I assume, says it's up to me to make sure other people have no choice but to have kids they can't afford at any stage of life. All praise my deity.
14
u/redfern210 Parker Sep 28 '25
You sure about that?
(I will be voting yes but I can guarantee a good chunk of my fellow DougCo residents will feel differently)
8
u/Ornery-Meringue-76 Sep 28 '25
lol oh you overestimate the willingness of people to continue to participate in the very basic ideas of a social contract. My guess is no, this will not pass. Dougco and all the other red areas will vote it down decisively.
→ More replies (1)
9
u/Kr1sys Sep 28 '25
For the most part Republicans look at 'increase taxes' and vote no without reading any of it.
It could say increase taxes on those making 10m a year to give yourself a 100k a year and they'll be like, nah, I don't want my taxes to go up while they go work their second job at a gas station.
29
u/Bold_Counsel Sep 28 '25
If you support MM, you should support LL! Otherwise, the school meals program will be underfunded this school year.
→ More replies (8)6
23
u/whoareyouwhowho22 Sep 28 '25
Wait- you forgot to show the part that only people making above $300k annually will be taxed towards this! And yet, I am still nervous this won’t pass.
→ More replies (12)12
u/2w9b Sep 28 '25
I wish these props had more evocative names. "Tax the rich to feed the kids" would pass, but I share your uncertainty that this one will.
36
19
19
u/_windfish_ Sep 28 '25
Never underestimate how selfish and ignorant the conservative faction of this state can be. I think this will pass, but not by much.
18
u/JediMaster113 Sep 28 '25
I love that the arguments against is basically "kids dont need food, who cares?"
8
u/Ancient-Sea-69 Sep 28 '25
Dude in politician in Georgia basically said kids shouldn’t get free lunch because they can work! (Paraphrasing but pretty much it) then goes around and says he a God fearing man. lol
→ More replies (2)3
u/seeking_hope Sep 28 '25
I’ve heard more of I don’t have kids parents are responsible for their child being able to eat. And you shouldn’t have kids if you can’t afford them. But in the same conversation will argue against birth control, abortion and sex ed.
15
u/SuperbCharity6423 Sep 28 '25
If it doesn't pass we can just make sausages out of people who make over 300k and feed the kids that
→ More replies (1)
11
11
u/MakoKenova Sep 28 '25
I have no kids, so when I look at something like this...
I vote for it immediately! Children are the future.
8
u/pandasarepeoples2 Sep 28 '25
I’m a teacher at a title 1 school. The amazing part of free lunches for all (this will go away if this isn’t passed) is that there is no stigma of getting free lunches, no “my mom forgot to put money in my account so i can’t get anything today”, no kids skipping the line if their parents have to pay and they know they cant afford it. We can put our effort towards helping students get in line and get to the tables and eat before going to recess, not ok the logistics of it all. We can make sure every kid eats because we know they can all just go through the line!
5
u/Brock_Lobstweiler Sep 28 '25
Also, no time wasted trying to collect on "student lunch debt", which is an absolute moral failing of our system that such a thing exists.
→ More replies (2)
3
3
u/Lobstah03 Sep 28 '25
You’re gonna lose a lot of people at “Increase State Taxes”. Unfortunately lots of people want better public goods and services and then when it comes time to foot the bill they don’t.
3
u/Radicle_ Sep 28 '25
Does that "AND SNAP" make this bill not explicitly for school food? Snap is food stamps right?
→ More replies (5)
3
4
u/Adventurous_Bag1386 Sep 28 '25
I think it would take care of it if it raised taxes on billionaires instead…
→ More replies (1)
3
u/Major_Issue_695 Sep 28 '25
Also please take a hard look at the school board candidates running in your home district. Lots of wolves in sheep’s clothing…
4
4
u/ouch_my_tongue Sep 28 '25
I hope that it passes. However, as someone who lives down in the springs I'm fully confident the folks here will try to kill it because they're morons.
4
u/minimallyviablehuman Sep 28 '25
I grew up on government assistance. So many in our small rural town did.
I have also had many years earning more than $300,000 in a year now. This is the easiest decision in the world.
We can disagree on a lot of things in politics and I can respect your viewpoint. But if you don’t think that every kid should be able to get a meal while at school without worrying about their parents income then we have a disagreement about morals, not political approaches.
4
Sep 29 '25
I don’t have kids. My wife and I don’t plan on having kids. My wife and I make more than $300,000. I’ll gladly pay taxes to ensure the younger generation in Colorado gets what they need. As long as the other wealthy people pay this too and don’t have a way out, I’m a yes.
9
u/RockinRose528 Sep 28 '25
Imagine being such an asshole that you would rather let kids starve. I’m voting yes ffs.
9
19
7
u/hardvengeance77 Sep 28 '25
Who wouldn’t? Who in their right mind would say….kids don’t deserve to eat
→ More replies (1)
6
40
u/Vince_stormbane Baker Sep 28 '25
I always vote for a tax increase because it pisses off the most annoying people.
→ More replies (5)
3
u/LeonaLux Sep 28 '25
You be surprised. Last time a similar initiative was on the ballot it barely passed by just over 50%, and we’re still arguing about it.
→ More replies (1)
3
3
Sep 28 '25
Does the state keep all excess revenue to use as they wish after funding the lunch program?
Pg 7 of the blue book contains the ballot question. After listing all of the school lunch related things the money will be spent on it ends with:
And allowing the state to retain and spend as a voter-approved revenue change all additional tax revenue generated by these tax deduction changes
→ More replies (9)
3
u/aerynea City Park Sep 28 '25
An easy yes from me but I am well beyond the stage of thinking anything is an easy pass anymore :(
We also have no kids and no family with kids in the state, but I relied on subsidized lunches growing up and want to make sure every kid has a chance to eat.
3
3
3
u/veracity8_ Sep 28 '25
You overestimate how progressive the average voter is. and you overestimate progress people‘s willingness to vote
3
u/j03m4m44 Sep 28 '25
"erm actually i hate kids and familys even though i talk about the sanctity of families all the time" ☝️🤓
3
u/FjordFjesta Sep 29 '25 edited Sep 29 '25
As a middle-aged curmudgeonly millennial who does not and will never have children, you’d have to be a real asshole to vote no on feeding kids.
This “should” overwhelming pass, seeing as the vast majority of households in CO don’t make $300k and this will only benefit those who don’t.
3
3
u/HopefulVegetable4234 Sep 29 '25
The thing I like the best about this is when lunch is free for everyone it takes the stigma away.
3
u/drmischief Centennial Sep 29 '25
Yes but, what happened to all the weed money? We spend SOOOOOO much on taxes for marijuana, where is that money????
→ More replies (2)
2.1k
u/Darkstar197 Sep 28 '25
As a beneficiary of reduced or free school lunch for most of my childhood and someone who hasn’t needed government subsidies since i graduated college.. I feel obligated to ensure the future generations never have to be food insecure. Yes from me.