Massachusetts passed a 4% millionaire's tax last year. Now every public school student is going to get free lunch
businessinsider.com
Students in Massachusetts will get free lunch and breakfast at school thanks to a new 4% tax put on people who earn more than $1 million.
We need different terms for people who HAVE a million dollars and people who MAKE a million per year. Lots of people will read this millionaire's tax and think it will apply to them when they are nearing retirement since they finally have a million dollars after saving all their life.
That's what the campaign to quash the bill did. That, and tried to convince people that they might have a single multi-million-dollar transaction in their life (like selling a large successful business) and have to pay an extra 4% on it.
Always a push to get the "temporarily embarassed millionaire" to support the reach. "Yeah, yanno. My little lawmowing operation that makes me $20,000 coild sell for over a million and then I'm fucked"
Ah, the Philip J. Fry mentality
"someday I might be rich, and then people like me better watch their step"
We have them. The first is referred to as "Wealth" or "Worth" and the other is referred to as "Income". Therefore what Mass instituted is called an Income Tax.
It's easier to sell a tax hike if you know exactly where it's going :)
Unless you're Waukesha, Wisconsin, where they specifically voted to stop giving kids handouts (i.e. free lunch). Because, you know, kids should work for their food or something instead of using their energy to learn.
probably the same people that say abortion is murdering kids...
I mean, cheap labor has to come from somewhere... Where do you find empoverished people to exploit if you don't force births?
If you add underage labour liberalisation to that, you get a bingo!
I'll raise you the most voted pre-candidate to president in my country, who said that people should be able to sell their own organs if they want to. (He plans to worsen things for workers in such a way that they would need to.)
Is this guy an ultraliberal moron or a pretend-conservative who says that but thinks abortion and prostitution should be illegal?
Strangely, both.
Of course it is. But you know, kids lives only really matter up until they are born. At that point the kids, their parents and their livelihoods and happiness...all that can fuck right off.
kids just don’t want to work anymore these days. they’re too busy with their avocados and ipad games. meanwhile the child unemployment rates are at historical highs. won’t someone think of the economy?
💀
Waukesha County is by far the most conservative in the state, and has been playing a massive role in destroying our state's democratic process for a few decades now.
Another fun fact about it is that they've been trying for years to glom onto the Lake Michigan watershed, which, geographically, it is not a part of. They want to straight up take our water, which they do not need, in exchange for nothing whatsoever of any real value.
Yeah it's a cesspool that way.
I live in the mke area and when looking for housing Waukesha was a tempting area because of how much more house you can get for the money, but I just don't think I can handle living there. Not to mention I want my kids going to schools in a community that gives a shit about kids and their education.
"It's about time these kids had some skin in the game!"
-Some Republican Somewhere I'm sure.
The descriptor "free" misleads - this is exactly the type of thing taxes were always meant to pay for.
This I have always hated the "FREE STUFF!" talking point and how the mainstream bought it.
I'm not talking about demanding some middle class guy be forced to buy me an Xbox, but rather I'm asking multiple billionaires start paying just a little more in taxes (instead of ya know.. constant rebates for "cReAtInG JoBs") so that little Timmy doesn't die of untreated pediatric cancer.
It's mad that children could some how not deserve or accumulate debt to eat. It's even more mad that its exactly what happens.
It's also mad that this is also the case for adults. When you turn 18, you shouldn't suddenly lose basic rights (like access to food and shelter), but that's exactly what most capitalists want to happen (and so that's how it works).
Goods with inelastic demand shouldn't be driven by the profit motive. Food, healthcare, housing, etc. We can let luxury goods stay within the private sector for now since people don't need them to survive, and come back to that conversation at a later date.
Free school meals should be a given since our taxes should go to what our elected officials have so thoughtfully decided where to apply them. What no one rarely brings up let alone tries to solve is the disgusting and unsafe food that the local, state and fed officials decide to make available. There's too much politics in cafeteria food. They should focus there budget in getting healthy food not the cheapest, uncles cousins or corporate friend contract.
Yes, we 100% should be using our school kitchens as kitchens, not just reheating premade "GFS Food."
GFS food would be an upgrade over what most are using.
... what are they using?
Aramark and Chartwells are two of the biggest companies, they are custom designing menus to fit the minimum requirements as cheaply as possible. They are getting food in the same tier as bargain frozen dinners or prison.
That's roughly where GFS lies...
Reason why #3648393847 why representative democracy simply does not work.
When making that argument, you'll want to add a few examples.
Otherwise people think you mean dictatorship.
Switzerland has a direct democracy and they are doing perfectly fine.
They're in many ways not the best example.
I would wager you have never been to Switzerland, or if you have, you never left the tourist traps to interact with the 'real Swiss'.
I only lived there one year, but I can tell you right now, they are not 'doing perfectly fine.'
Their pretty tourism industry hides some of the ugliest racism, faux-nationalism in the form of cantonal squabbling, sexism, anti-lgbt+, and a general dislike of anyone who does not conform exactly to their specific ways of living. Fuck Switzerland.
The vast majority (262 out of 351) of Massachusetts municipalities are direct democracy. A further 31 are near enough that it’s not hard to be elected if you run (my precinct has empty rep. slots every year).
Also in contrast to the rest of the US, there are no unincorporated areas ("county land") in Massachusetts. Counties aren't a useful demarcation here. Everything is a Town or a city.
The rest of the U.S. needs to switch to something similar.
I think you might be confusing representative democracy with capitalism.
Nah, I mean representative democracy. Trusting someone else to work in your best interests never works. The only one who has your best interests in mind is you, if that.
People rarely have their own best interests in mind. People are short-sighted, undereducated, impulsive, prone to groupthink, and overestimate their ability and control.
I think what is missing is control over the representatives. When you elect someone, you give them your power, you should be able to take it back when they abuse it.
In a representative democracy, transparency and control are key and when this is not enforced, people tend to think the system is broken and does not work. It would work if that is fixed
People shouldn't be giving their power away at all, but fair.
It's not a free lunch. It's just your taxes going to something you actually benefit from.
No shit. It literally says where the money that pays for it comes from right in the headline.
I think the point of the comment was that in the last few decades the rhetoric has been: "Taxes bad" "Government provides free bus passes to underprivileged people" Always divorcing taxes from their positive effects on society. Maybe they were trying to fight that by directly uniting the fact that the government is just a coordinator, collecting taxes and using it to buy lunches for kids.
"4% tax on millionaires pays for breakfasts and lunches for all school children" unlike the above example, is a sentence that reminds people that taxes are what provides these many positive social benefits they recieve, not "the government", not "for free", and that taxes aren't always "bad".
Or maybe I'm projecting!
Yeah but le redditor needs to show us how much smarts he is.
Of course it is free for the children.
Which I'm ok with
"Nothing is free. Free isn't actually a word!"
So you're implying that people regularly make $1,000,000 in annual income by working? Only about 150,000 people in the US make that much. It's their money.
Kids don't pay taxes. It's a free lunch.
This comment is just an extreme lack of understanding of any tax system there is, which is wild.
Something that is free for one person will necessarily cost money for another. But for the kids, it's free.
Imagine being this fucking pedantic. This place is legit reddit 2.0 and that's a bad thing.
This comment is just an extreme lack of understanding of millionaires
For the children and the families of the children, it is free
I can't believe you have the upvoted comment.
Most of everything is free for kids. What's your point?
That's great news! No kid should ever be hungry at school, especially when they really are legally forced to be there!
But that will teach them that free stuff is good which will make them communists who love big government!!1! I want children to hunt for their own food like in the good old days. Didn't catch anything? Too bad little Timmy, guess you won't eat tonight because we don't got no welfare state!
Also I believe in protecting the children and am pro-life.
/s
COVID response is wild because for like 2 years we had a robust expansion of both direct government aid and healthcare coverage and accessibility, and the poof most of it disappeared. Like we literally had free healthcare at point of service for one disease which is crazy.
Great to see that at least some states responding to the demand for these heightened services. We should be pointing towards the example of COVID aid to show what the government can do if the public pressure is there. If we did it once we can do it again!
Thanks for the article, learning aboutnthe positives.
On another note...
It is a start, but may be too late in the game for the blue administration for 2024.
I have also heard of other positive things being pushed, in my bubble of politics.
Might be due to all the military conflicts around the world and union strikes, that are also starting to ramp up in the US.
Great post on the positive news. Thanks again!
I think it's fair to wonder why policy changes like those are being pushed so late into the presidents term. Seems like primaries and elections drive policy more than anything else.
He's been pretty busy. The Inflation Reduction Act, the Safer Communities Act, the CHIPS and Science Act, the American Rescue Plan (ARP) and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act is a decent list for the first 2 years in office. A lot isn't super progressive but it's unlikely the ideas you're hearing about now will pass in their most progressive form either. But you have to start pretty far left to get anything even moderately left of center.
And, I know our election cycle makes it seem super late, but we're like 5/8 of the way into his term. Just a bit over half way. In February it was pretty much half way.
Even smaller stuff like the Respect for Marriage Act. Small thing that got watered down by crazy religious stuff, but hey, it was a start, and bipartisan. We need more people working together.
For what it's worth, a lot of the stuff the president campaigned on actually got done, which was very impressive.
Also got Justice Jackson through too, who seems to be pretty well grounded.
Yes, you are right!
It is always the go-to for politicians, I see it workong less and less as more people get informed.
As a student who grew up attending Massachusetts public schools, this is fantastic news. Just wish that could have been me!
I used to bring a lot of boxed lunch in most days instead because school lunches were an unnecessary expense, but sometimes I'd buy school lunch if it was one I liked.
I don't know if this applies everywhere, but my school district at least had a needs-based free lunch (and breakfast) program for those from low income families, but honestly all students deserve to eat a healthy and nutritious meal during school, which I am sure also takes quite a bit of stress off of parents.
The trouble with needs based programs is that students who receive the free lunch then get shamed by other students for being poor. Thus the movement to give the lunch to everyone. The cost per student is fairly low compared to the other expenses of running a school. Plus there are savings resulting from getting rid of the bureaucracy that figures out who is needy enough to get a free lunch, getting rid of the payment collection operation, etc, that partly offset the cost of the additional free lunches.
It depends on how you manage it. We had a system where parents could pay up front for your lunches, and students using that system got their lunches the same way the needs-based students did - the lunch lady just checked their name off the list for the day. You could guess at who had which, probably, but there was no way to confirm it.
That being said, you're right about the bureaucracy and I'm all in favor of free lunches for all students regardless of their parents' income.
Then, idk, sell the lunch program on a semester-by-semester basis and offer subsidies for students who can't afford it? It isn't rocket science.
Ok, but why not just not? Just feed the damn kids and quit worrying that someone somewhere is getting something they could live without.
You're right that it isn't rocket science, but you are still making it more complicated than it needs to be.
The solution is like how the kids are now getting ot for free in that state because of the new tax.
Cool, but you know who isn’t getting a free lunch now? Those millionaires who worked so hard for that money. What have those kids done to earn theirs?
/s, to be clear. I wish these cool places to live (e.g, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Michigan) weren’t so fucking cold. Why can’t there be a nice liberal southern state?
There is. It is California and a 500sqft house cost $1000000000
Uhh, the cold isn't the problem. It's too expensive to live here and the real fix for housing (forced upzoning by the State) is a political nonstarter.
But I will gladly shovel snow versus face the heat, humidiity, snakes, bears, tornadoes, severe hurricanes, drought, wild fires, car oriented development, and whatever other nightmares the rest of the country has to offer. Just get a good coat, LL Bean boots, and a snowblower. It's not that bad.
But but that's socialism
Let's fucking goooo!!!! I love my home state ❤️. I wish they did this sooner.
Mass is doing so many things right. There's still a long way to go to get to European standards, but still doing a lot better than most states.
Same! We are lucky to be in one of the best states to live under the current political circumstances.
My home state too! Too bad I can’t afford to live there
Slightly off topic. A lot of public schools already get free meals thanks to federal education dollars. The school lunches are free in my area because of this, even though the (red) state won’t act.
The state has attempted to kill off those dollars in the past.
The GOP is dead set on continuing something called "school lunch debt." Let that phrase sink in for a moment.
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2023/05/03/1173535647/schools-ended-universal-free-lunch-now-meal-debt-is-soaring
https://www.npr.org/transcripts/1167163106
https://jacobin.com/2023/05/universal-free-school-meals-program-act-lunch-debt-opposition
[https://www.investmentnews.com/welcome-to-the-millionaires-tax-240997](An overview for those that don't know anything about this.)
Edit: fixed the link An overview for those that don't know anything about this.
Heads up, it's supposed to be [text] then (link)
Thank you, that explains a lot.
It's like the us is always 20 years behind the rest of the world when it comes to things that actually matter.
I don't know who said it. But one of my favorite lines about america goes: "America will always do the right thing. After it has tried everything else"
Common sense rules in these blue areas.
Indiana did free meals, then announced kids had to get approved nicknames like Florida...
What are approved nicknames? That's usually not how nicknames work.
I read an article about it recently. If a student asks to be called by a name other than the one they were registered with (for example, Benjamin asks to be called Ben or William asks to be called Sir Buttface) the school is supposed to inform the parents and get approval. A "side" effect of this is outing trans kids to their parents.
Thanks for explaining. Does sound like the only effect this law has.
The other (minor but possibly cumulative) effect is that it annoys every parent whose child doesn't go by their birth name. Enough little cuts like that and the GOP loses plenty of voters.
That’s a weird nickname.
Kids get named Montana, Washington, and Indiana. "Florida" could be an ironic nickname for any of those.
Just to clarify for other here. Indiana does not do universal free lunch like Massachusetts. You have to apply for it.
Honestly, as a Hoosier, surprised they even went for the free meals.
Colorado did something similar last year as well.
https://www.npr.org/2022/11/09/1134832752/colorado-free-school-lunch-results-measure-midterms
Good. Now slap a 0 to the end of that 4, and then double it.
Made me curious what the total tax rate would be in Mass. Apparently it has a flat 5% income tax, plus 4% millionaires tax, plus federal rate for income over about 578k is 37%, so altogether it’s 46% for income over a mil in Mass.
Definitely think it should be higher for such wildly high income. Also disappointed to see for being a relatively progressive state Mass has a flat rather than progressive income tax.
Higher, nothing. There should be a rate above which it's taxed at 100%. No one needs to be as rich as Musk or Zuckerberg or Bezos.
And yet you guys wonder why millionaires move to Texas. You increase the taxes above a certain number and they'll take all their wealth, consumption and their taxes to another state.
Taxes should be sustainable. High taxes on rich people aren't sustainable because they'll leave taking whatever taxes they pay and whatever consumption they do which contributes to the economy.
The wealth that they hoard? The consumption they import? Let me guess, they're also "job creators."
Who pays your salary?
A corporation. Not a rich individual.
Who do you think created these corporations? Rich people with aim to make more money.
Capitalism pays your salary. Without capitalism and with theft of wealth via unfair taxation, your job won't exist.
Rich people do not need to exist for corporations to exist. Also, you think wage theft doesn't happen under capitalism?
https://inthesetimes.com/article/wage-theft-union-labor-biden-iupat
All right! Go capitalism!
And no millioneir will keep his money in a state where those are the tax rates. If you make it too high you literally get nothing.
Awww. Too bad for them. What will we do without millionaires hoarding their wealth?!
No, he's saying they will keep it. Just in a way that mass gets literally nothing
So either they will get a lot of money or things won't be any different except millionaires won't be there hoarding wealth?
I'm not seeing a downside yet.
I think they mean the millionaires will find other ways to hoard it to avoid tax levels they won't stomach. Fair? No. Reality? Probably.
People make the same argument about not returning to the tax rates of the 1950s. I say let's try it and find out.
I ... honestly would be up for this approach. When do you run for office, sir?
It would take massive and severe state action to deprive the rich of that wealth, and that money would still not find its way into the hands of the poor because the state, and corrupt bureaucrats within it, would take it for themselves.
The poor themselves would have to band together, organize, steal back all the resources from the rich, and distribute it amongst themselves fairly. And that won't work without a deeply organized plan everyone in the group already agrees to, and even then it might not because the sociopaths and evil people among the poor -- which comprises of a lot of them, sorry-not-sorry but it's true -- will just hoard all of those resources, creating a new ruling class.
Stuff like a ruling class is just the human condition because humanity is inherently evil. The non-evil humans will have to accept that reality is like this, figure out who is trustworthy and who is not, band together the like-minded, isolate themselves and pray a sociopath or evil person never infiltrates their ranks, figure out how to suss them out, and kill them.
Until humanity itself evolves to be more docile, it'll never change.
As your income increases, your ability to reduce taxable income also increases. The goal of the state is basically to target the lazy.
In other words, “Don’t provide children with free meals.”
I'm pretty sure at an 80% rate the millionaires would just spend the rate moving, out of state or out of country depending on how far reaching it was.
And nothing of value was lost...
Like, oh no, what would a state do without their money hoarding exploiters that alredy contribute less than the bare minimum???
And worse - if everyone decided to make these laws, where will the poor millionaires escape to then???
Oh, won't someone think of the millionaires!!!11
Except the taxable income you wanted to tax?
You mean the money that we already aren't getting?
I don't want to tax, I want to eat.
Oh look, someone else who doesn't understand how progressive tax brackets work. Their effective tax rate wouldn't be 80%, only income above a certain (very high) number would be taxed at 80%.
That’s exactly how that would go.
Then we’d be rid of them at least
And my kid will still refuse to eat it.... We had free lunches here during the pandemic.
How did you do the custom font on your username? It looks awesome!!!!
emojis, doesn't look as good on iOS because half of them are tiny so it just looks like cOkANe
Lol, Thanks!
Not to discourage continued bleeding of the rich, but I wonder if this is the right way to go about it. Theoretically, we should already have a lot of laws on the books that slam millionaires for their advantageous position. But, their budget also allows for accountants that shift and hide that money, sometimes on a questionable basis of legality.
Could one prong on this assault be to increase the IRS' operating budget, so that they're able to track down and stop more of these tax haven shenanigans?
Don't let perfect be the enemy of good enough. This is working, let it work. If they start avoiding it the rules can be changed.
Exactly. When I supported this, there was that wince of "this won't get the people it really needs to hit"... but it does enough.
And tbh, I know some wealthy fucking people who legitimately don't cross the line. $1M/yr is a lot of bloody money. That means if I found a way to "only" make $900,000/yr, I'm immune to this tax.
Also, anyone hiring for $900,000/yr?
Right? I hear this all the time about inheritance tax. Im more than willing to pay inheritance tax, meaning I’m getting like $3.5 Million to start.
It's not bleeding anyone. My father was an airline flag carrier captain in Europe. He made what he called "an obscene paycheck". When taxes came around, he would say: look at what they are taking from me, I must be making a ton!
And that’s still only employee money. Very very high paid employee money, but ultimately still labor.
You wouldn’t believe what you can pull down if you live off other people’s labor.
And most likely he was paying more then than someone earning the same amount does today. We're not even close to scrapping our way back out of society being profoundly imbalanced towards the wealthy.
Well you could simply start by plugging up a few questionable tax loopholes.
Whether or not the reason the IRS can't collect the tax revenue to be able to provide certain services is because of them not having enough money, I don't know.
But if you're issue is with certain laws on taxation, it would makes more sense to deal with those first.
EDIT: To mention something else that's important to all of this, there's something called the Laffer Curve. The simple explanation is that there's a happy medium between the percentage of income tax and the amount of tax revenue gained. Too much or too little income taxation and you end up with less tax revenue. You can see this in a few times during US history where the income tax wasn't as high, but the tax revenue was great. So to further determine where we should go with income tax you could look at the past few years of projected and actual tax revenue, as well as spending to service government debt among other government spending.
I'm not an economist nor an accountant, but this is likely what you'd have to do to figure out the balance between taxation and government spending in order to have money for certain social services. However, no one wants to do that and another big problem is the government doesn't like being told it needs to manage it's spending better.
4% of WHAT is taxed?
Yeah, most millionaires have no profit and they're in the red. We need even more taxes on small aircrafts that are used for private charter, more taxes on purchasing and operating helicopters, taxes on the kerosene not used in military scope.
Taxes on luxury cars that only the billionaire's afford. Every car over 150.000 USD should have a 100% tax to feed the homeless and the kids
Per the article, it's an income tax on any income over a million dollars, so it's essentially an additional state income tax bracket. So, if an entity makes exactly 1 million this year then they won't pay any extra, but if they make 2 million, then they pay 4 percent on that additional 1 mill (40k), over whatever else they would owe before the additional tax.
Like all income tax, there are ways to avoid it or reduce your burden, but not every person/company goes to those lengths.
I personally think a wealth tax is fairer for society, but it's pretty hard to implement and of course has a ton of very wealthy opposition.
The most reasonable way I've seen so far is to assume that your wealth passively creates x% of extra income for you, and then tax that amount as income. That also simplifies the tax system, since you only need enter your assets, and not what exacts trades and profits you made.
I can make it simpler yet and close the Billionaire Income Loophole, where their "income" is taking out loans against value of their investments by simply taxing those loans. No need to value something, they've already done it when they took out the loan. If you borrowed 10 Million against a portfolio of 50 Million then you should be taxed on the 10 Million. That's the value you assigned and the benefit you received.
This would also catch the "Buy, Borrow, Die" / Step-Up scheme that the ultra-wealthy use.
I was curious about the budgeting implications because enacting a increase to revenue doesn't necessarily mean increased spending would be covered. For any one to lazy to go off site, but also interested:
"$1 billion of the state's record $56.2 billion fiscal budget for 2024 came from the state's new 4% tax on millionaires."
"State lawmakers agreed to put $523 million of revenue from the new tax toward education and put $477 million aside for transportation."
Didn't find the cost there but on one of their sources:
"A portion of that money will go toward the $172 million needed to provide free school meals, the State House News Service reported."
So out of a billion extra dollars, they didn't even spend 20% on the kids (it's too early for me to do the calculation out of the total budget, but it'd be pitiful).
Which is great, but using them as a headline all things considered seems manipulative and like they're burying the lead.
Good for the kids, don't get me wrong, but somewhere along the way a lot more of that money has been spent on other things, and most likely is lining the pockets of the already rich and powerful.
So yeah, it's a great example of what a tiny hike in taxing the rich can do, but it not only doesn't come close to being enough, it also feels like another scam where good publicity hides a whole manner of sins going on behind the scenes.
Sorry if my quoting gave off the wrong impression. I believe it meant that of the total 1 billion dollars 523 million will be spent on education. Of the 523 million to be spent on education 172 million will be used to pay for lunches. The remaining 351 million I would assume is being used for other educational expenses like new equipment or for salaries.
Perhaps there is miss management of the funds but I don't think that it fair to conclude the 351 million has been misappropriated just based on this information.
I mean all we know so far is that half of the new tax is going to education (and 172mil of that has already gone towards an excellent cause) and half is going to transportation. Of course skimming off the top is incredibly common, but I think it’s far too early to call the amount misspent.
If they could line the pockets of the MBTA, that would be great thanks.
why spend more on something than you need to? plenty of others besides kids who could use the services the additional money will pay for.
but muh freedumb
First they came for the millionaires, and I did not speak out - because it's only 4 fucking percent and they're still not going to lose any sleep over their bills or if they'll ever retire.
This is fantastic news!
The SCOTUS will overturn this within 2 years.
I don't think they can. States are allowed to tax their citizens and the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction.
Why are you so confident that they'll still care about jurisdiction 2 years from now? The SCOTUS does not respect or obey the law or the constitution.
We've been watching them ignore more and more of the rules and precedents that the court has always held to. They're becoming more and more confident in their ability to do whatever the fuck they want, because, as it turns out, in the real world, the SCOTUS is accountable to no one except maybe the mob violence that we are going to see when things continue to not improve.
First off, I absolutely will not defend the current Supreme Court. I disagree with them significantly.
However, their opinion in this matter has only slightly more importance then yours or mine, and only because they are recognized legal scholars (or at least they are supposed to be) and we are not. The US Constitution does not grant them any power to judge a State's constitution, so long as it does not infringe on a right of the US constitution. It wouldn't even be possible to petition the Supreme Court on this issue because no lower court would hear it.
Will simply drive more rich people out of the state.
As the kids get free food now, some rich people must be left in the state. Maybe the ones with an actual heart?
Looking at this from a community perspective, rich people that don't contribute to the community is kind of worthless anyway.
They always say that and they never leave
A lot of bluster and blubbering about what would happen if so and so law passed. Never works. They're still making plenty and once they're done whining they stay put
Have to love when people say anything is "free"
Good point! These kids should starve if their parents don't work hard enough. Those millions and billionaires worked hard for their money!
You mean to tell me that people who work in the US dont get enough money to buy food? Lol, you have not been outisde of the US have you?
I'd ask if you understood how cost of living works; but clearly you don't.
They don't need more tax they just need to stop squandering it. My town has turned into idiots first sim city playthrough.
You should run for office
The food still looks pretty garbage compare to Japan!