Involvement in food production to some degree is involvement in your own freedom and independence from capitalist hegemony. To me it's the opposite of privilege. It's not a luxury and it's so so sad that people think of it in those terms.

Somehow along the way folks were instilled with the idea that growing their own food is hard, not efficient... even equated with being poor or some kind of peasant. And there's a very good reason for this - big industrialized agriculture doesn't work except at huge scales and it takes everyone buying cheetos and hot dogs for it to work. And somehow we got into this rut where you have to work 50 hours a week - paid a fraction of the real value of your labor - to afford the "value-added" food that is not nutritionally dense, tasty or grown sustainably.

The truth is that growing food is about as simple and basic as it gets IF you have the knowledge. It is even more viable if people work collectively to get some of those economies of scale.

So take 10 hours of that week and use it to produce valuable food for yourself and for your neighbors. 2-3 families working 10 hours a week each grows A LOT of food. You do not need a lot of land... indeed there is land out there available to be used for community gardens, for free.

Unlike a lot of folks, I'm not going to say this can't work in every situation because I believe it can. Further, I believe it's an existential necessity.

and who will till the soil, weed, fight pests, harvest, etc.

In the case of a home garden, the homeowners, just like it's expected for a homeowner to care for all the other plants on their property.

In the case of an allotment/community garden, community members would provide the labor. That's how they currently work.

I mean I get it. I'm a rich white person with a lot of leisure time and I own property where I can have a garden... but turns out not everyone has this stuff.

I'm confused what the problem is - just because you know some people that wouldn't benefit from a home garden subsidy, doesn't make it a bad idea, if it encourages more people to grow food at home. It's not a one-size-fits-all solution to be sure, but it is a solution that would work for some, with little to no downside that I can conceive of.

Also the whole "you need a lot of land if you want to garden" thing is kind of a myth. You can do a surprising amount in containers, with vertical systems, or even indoors with grow lights or hydroponics these days.

Edit to address your edit:

Gardening is great. But jerking myself off and generalizing and saying everyone else should be doing what i have the luxury to do... just makes me a smug self-righteous ass. People buy food from stores because it's convenient and fast.

I don't think anyone's saying "everyone should garden", just "more people should garden". The original suggestion we're discussing was to subsidize gardening, which would help reduce the barrier to entry and make it a more attractive option. Option being the keyword there - subsidizing something doesn't mean everyone has to do it, and it certainly isn't an attempt to belittle or shame anyone that can't or doesn't want to garden.