#Matt Bruenig has a great article called the case for free school lunch

[goodhorse413]

D) The welfare state should be viewed in conjunction with the tax system which funds it. The driving motivation behind people who say things like "well why should even rich kids deserve free lunch?" is that of progressivity, the principle that the welfare state should distribute wealth away from those who have a lot, and towards those who have little. Viewed in full context, there is no benefit towards splitting the progressivity of the welfare state into two pieces. Why go to all the trouble to prevent rich people from receiving 100 dollars, when you could just simply tax them 100 dollars more? The final distributional result is the same, but the latter system requires far less bureaucracy, and is far less likely to incorrectly exclude those who should be included. Let the tax system be progressive, and the transfer system be flat. Misguided attempts to outsource the progressivity to the transfer system often result in hidden regressive taxes, like the fact that disabled people effectively pay a tax to get married.