←back to thread

64 points mrtesthah | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.024s | source
Show context
chasd00 ◴[] No.45813489[source]
Read the article and then you'll put away your pitchforks. A basic rule is snap recipients can't be treated differently than non-program members which seems reasonable.

"At issue is SNAP’s “Equal Treatment Rule,” which bars stores from either discriminating against people in the program or offering them favorable treatment. "

replies(7): >>45813511 #>>45813542 #>>45813597 #>>45813721 #>>45813753 #>>45814104 #>>45815963 #
pseudalopex ◴[] No.45813542[source]
Forbidding charging SNAP recipients more is reasonable. Why is it reasonable to forbid charging SNAP recipients less?
replies(7): >>45813637 #>>45813727 #>>45813842 #>>45813930 #>>45813946 #>>45814869 #>>45815301 #
throwaway378400 ◴[] No.45813637[source]
I was thinking the same thing, it feels neutral at best, but anything potentially bad about it is probably for non-program members.

If you give SNAP beneficiaries a discount that isn't gov subsidised, all things same everyone not in SNAP might theoretically pay more.

It sounds reasonable, but tinfoil time, unless they normally have people watching this, it feels like the USDA was told or anticipated this.

So much of this gives "Look what you made me do" vibes.

replies(2): >>45813931 #>>45814278 #
1. pseudalopex ◴[] No.45813931{3}[source]
> If you give SNAP beneficiaries a discount that isn't gov subsidised, all things same everyone not in SNAP might theoretically pay more.

SNAP increases demand for eligible goods. Increased demand increases prices.

People pay taxes to fund SNAP. Private discounts for SNAP recipients could reduce SNAP expenses theoretically.

replies(1): >>45814304 #
2. datavirtue ◴[] No.45814304[source]
Yep, soft drink companies and processed food merchants laugh all the way to the bank.