11–20 of 64 posts
The USDA notice included the fact that retailers can get a waiver from Equal Treatment provisions, but (of course) the author failed to mention that tidbit. https://www.fns.usda.gov/form/snap-incentives
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. "
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. "
Forbidding charging SNAP recipients more is reasonable. Why is it reasonable to forbid charging SNAP recipients less?
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.
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. "
They are trying to starve people as a political tool.
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. "
Forbidding charging SNAP recipients more is reasonable. Why is it reasonable to forbid charging SNAP recipients less?
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. "
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. "
Forbidding charging SNAP recipients more is reasonable. Why is it reasonable to forbid charging SNAP recipients less?
Store A could advertise that it will provide a 10% discount to SNAP recipients. Now Stores B,C,D,etc.. have to match or beat to be competitive. This would ultimately introduce competitiveness into the market where it was meant to assist those less fortunate.
Relevant links: https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/ebt/retailer/retailer-notice/r... https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/fr-022124 > Coupons shall be accepted for eligible foods at the same prices and on the same terms and conditions applicable to cash purchases of the same foods at the same store except that tax shall not be charged on eligible foods purchased with coupons. Obviously lawyers are going to be involved in interpr…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Forbidding charging SNAP recipients more is reasonable. Why is it reasonable to forbid charging SNAP recipients less?
To be a fair program it should not cause an undue burden on the participating stores. Store A could advertise that it will provide a 10% discount to SNAP recipients. Now Stores B,C,D,etc.. have to match or beat to be competitive. This would ultimately introduce competitiveness into the market where it was meant to assist those less fortunate.
I suppose chains could work around this by just lowering prices in neighborhoods with a lot of people on SNAP, which would actually be even better IMO, because it means lower food prices for entire low income neighborhoods, possibly even pushing shoppers from other neighborhoods to shop in these places and bring more money into the community. I would drive to the other side of the tracks if all my groceries cost 10% less.
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. "
Forbidding charging SNAP recipients more is reasonable. Why is it reasonable to forbid charging SNAP recipients less?