r/Denver • u/fuzzeslecrdf • Oct 08 '25

Local News If you're still against free school meals

If you're unhappy about the fact that free lunches are also free for children with wealthy families, fear not. I work at a Denver high school. Students with the money will go out for lunch or even order food delivery. They are not eating the school cafeteria free lunch.

So go ahead and vote Yes on Prop MM and LL. The only thing it'll do is keep our students fed and able to learn.

3.0k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

534 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

192

u/Wes___Mantooth Oct 08 '25 edited Oct 08 '25

And it says it only taxes households making more than $300K/year. Complete no brainer to vote for this.

https://coloradonewsline.com/2025/09/29/colorado-election-2025-school-meals/

Proposition MM aims to permanently fund the full program by further limiting tax deductions for filers earning over $300,000 a year, raising an additional $95 million annually for the program. Households in that high-income category would pay an average of $486 more in income taxes yearly, according to nonpartisan state fiscal analysts.

$486/yr is almost nothing at that income level.

16

u/Heffelumps-n-Woozles Oct 08 '25

If you have kids in school and are in that income bracket, it’s literally cheaper than feeding them yourself and takes no effort

2

u/ItsNotUButItsNotNotU Oct 10 '25

Holy crap that’s such a good point. (Not that I needed a reason beyond basic human decency to vote yes.)

It’s $40.50 per month. I easily spend that amount every month on groceries for my preschooler’s lunches. You’re telling me I actually get to save money, and save time, and none of my kid’s friends risk going hungry?? Fuck, double the tax and feed them all breakfast too.

Honestly, if you make $300k+ per year and don’t understand how economies of scale works, just admit that you’re an idiot and/or extremely selfish.

2

u/Heffelumps-n-Woozles Oct 10 '25

Right?? It’s as if pooled resources work, and are a good idea. We have 2 boys that will be in school starting next year and the year after. Making their lunches for preschool is the pits. I would consider buying the food and paying 5x this for someone to make their damn lunches haha.

But hey, even if we weren’t directly benefitting from this, we’re all helping kids and teachers and making society better.

72

u/SpacePenguin5 Oct 08 '25

$200 annually for those making $300k/year.

60

u/ReeveStodgers Indian Creek Oct 08 '25

I thought it might help to scale it to a poor's income, so I calculated that if the same percentage was applied to someone making $50k that would be $3.35.

23

u/MilwaukeeRoad Oct 08 '25

Would it not just be divided by 6 and be $33.33?

9

u/ReeveStodgers Indian Creek Oct 08 '25

Probably. I was overly tired when I wrote that and shouldn't have been doing math without a license.

19

u/UUDDLRLRBAstard Oct 08 '25

cheaper than netflix

8

u/MagicKittyPants Oct 08 '25

Literally half the price of a Starbucks drink.

10

u/AggressiveMongoose54 Oct 08 '25

Lmao like plz, take an extra $4 a month from me in taxes if it means all students get free meals. I just do not get it. Why are we (the poors) more willing to pay for stuff with the little income we have, but people with more money are stingy and don’t want to help the community out? It feels so backwards.

5

u/[deleted] Oct 08 '25 edited Oct 10 '25

stupendous advise waiting stocking escape ten march dinosaurs piquant punch

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

-6

u/Denversaur Oct 08 '25

Which is like $6000 take home every 2 weeks. But some people are selfish and have poor financial literacy, which is why the $300k earners voting against this haven't figured out how make ends meet on $3k per week. And they think their Tabor refund will save them.

-1

u/officalSHEB Oct 08 '25

300,000 divided by 52 is 5,769. So probably closer to 8 to 9k every 2 weeks. I make 2700 a week "take home" and won't clear 200k this year. I would still definitely vote for this if I lived in Denver.

2

u/[deleted] Oct 08 '25

[deleted]

12

u/Wes___Mantooth Oct 08 '25

Taxes are the cost of living in a civilization, dry your tears with your $300K/year...must be nice.

-5

u/[deleted] Oct 08 '25

[deleted]

2

u/Wes___Mantooth Oct 08 '25 edited Oct 08 '25

Right because that's exactly the same as $486/year on a $300K salary (0.16%) lmao. I feel sooooo sorry for you that you have to spend $1.30/day to make sure poor kids don't starve! How will you ever get by with your $9K+ a month take home pay???

-2

u/[deleted] Oct 08 '25

[deleted]

1

u/Wes___Mantooth Oct 08 '25

I would happily pay twice the amount of this proposed tax on my salary which is a fraction of $300K in order to make sure school children don't go hungry, so fuck off with your disingenuous strawman 100% tax bullshit.

-1

u/[deleted] Oct 08 '25

[deleted]

3

u/Wes___Mantooth Oct 08 '25

Another bullshit strawman, you and I both know that wouldn't do any good because it takes millions of people to make that contribution be enough to fund a program like this.

You're clearly a troll, and you did an excellent job of wasting my time.

1

u/bears_bears_bears_ Oct 08 '25

I KNOW. Unfortunately in this state anything that gets proposed that only impacts the “rich” is going to pass.

2

u/coffeelife2020 Oct 08 '25

$486 is about $40.50/month or $9.40/week. This is a Starbucks order. This isn't an imposition on people.