Slashdot Mirror
Let's Drug Test The Rich Before Approving Tax Deductions, Says US Congresswoman (theguardian.com)
Press2ToContinue writes from a report via The Guardian: "The [tax] benefits we give to poor people are so limited compared to what we give to the top 1% [of taxpayers]," Congresswoman Gwen Moore says. "It's a drop in the bucket." Many states implement drug-testing programs to qualify for benefit programs so that states feel they are not wasting the value they dole out. However, seven states who implemented drug testing for tax benefit program recipients spent $1 million on drug testing from the inception of their programs through 2014. But the average rate of drug use among those recipients has been far below the national average -- around 1% overall, compared with 9.4% in the general population -- meaning there's been little cost savings from the drug testing program. Why? "Probably because they can't afford it," says Moore. "We might really save some money by drug-testing folks on Wall Street, who might have a little cocaine before they get their deal done," she said, and proposes a bill requiring tests for returns with itemized deductions of more than $150,000. "We spend $81bn on everything -- everything -- that you could consider a poverty program," she explained. But just by taxing capital gains at a lower rate than other income, a bit of the tax code far more likely to benefit the rich than the poor, "that's a $93bn expenditure. Just capital gains," she added. Why not drug-test the rich to ensure they won't waste their tax benefits? She is "sick and tired of the criminalization of poverty." And, she added: "We're not going to get rid of the federal deficit by cutting poor people off Snap. But if we are going to drug-test people to reduce the deficit, let's start on the other end of the income spectrum."
How about we start treating each other with some god damned respect and abolish the entire drug-testing paradigm?
On the one hand, when you drug test poor people, you're testing them before giving them money that they did not earn. If they do not want to be tested, they don't need to apply for the money. On the other hand, under the Congresswoman's proposal to drug test rich people, rich people would be drug tested just for filing taxes, something that the government forces them to do. In other words, it's forced drug testing without cause or recourse and for no reason other than they are wealthy, which is a violation of their constitutional rights.
Personally, I'm not for drug testing anyone unless it's part of a criminal investigation or unless they are in a job where they are responsible for other people's safety.
I think the best place to start would be mandatory drug test for Congress.
If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
Obviously, the correct approach is "Don't drug test anyone outside of performance critical situations"; but this proposal seems like a reasonable way to point out one of the (numerous) ways we identify some people as presumptively scum until exhaustively proven otherwise; and others as presumptively guiltless until they really screw up(at which point the loss of standing caused by the case is punishment enough...)
Also worth considering that, even if you hate filthy poor people and criminals and such with a righteous passion; people nobody cares much about tend to be the beta testers for bad ideas that will eventually come to be imposed on the more 'respectable', usually starting with the ones that have less economic leverage. In this case, that's already mostly happened: mandatory drug testing of employees is pretty widespread, even in areas that aren't safety critical, and for metabolites that tell you nothing about the user's impairment on the job.
As a heuristic, you could do a lot worse when evaluating a law than asking "Would I approve if this law were applied to people I sympathize with?"
Drug test their children.
I can't think of anything more invasive.
You're applying to use other people's money. One of the conditions is you're not going to use that money for drugs or illegal activities. Or do you prefer to have your money wasted in such a manner?
The "benefits" are supposed to help people who need money for food, shelter, clothing or child support, not get their next fix.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Your missing the point of this, its to show those in power that they should be careful what they ask for. This is tongue in cheek and will never be implemented for the wealthy, but perhaps it gives them an idea on how the shoe fits on the other foot.
I do not approve to have my money wasted in such a manner to test everyone.
These programs cost more than they 'save' and are all around useless.
If that makes sense then as Congresswoman Gwen Moore says it makes a lot more sense to start at the top with the richest because you will get a much better return.
And after that you can work your way down from the richest, though it's not cost effective to go all the way to the poor.
I am not in support of this program, as it has shown to be cost negative in that we are spending more than we are saving, but there is one key difference here. Money that you itemize as deductions is NOT a gift from the government. They are not 'giving' you money by not taking as much. That is very, very broken logic and shows the sickness that lies in the government.
Money received in these programs is purely a gift from the government. You have not paid in and are receiving cash, so yes, there are going to be some stipulations there about what you can do with it and what you must be doing. Ideally this would be targeted at training and helping you get out of poverty, not drug testing.
It is ridiculous to consider the logic here that the government is being so nice to you by taking less of your money.....
Adults have the right to consume any substances they choose so long as they do not hurt others while doing so.
So let me get this straight....you want to drug test the people who are actually providing the money?
Seriously, this class envy has to stop.
It's not about envy. It's about pushing back on the criminalization of poverty, and the myth that the poor are poor because of their personal failings while the rich are rich because of their personal virtues. Rich people would never stand for being drug tested to take advantage of a government program, and rightly so. The only reason the poor have to do put up with it is because of their lack of political power.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
The [tax] benefits we give to poor people are so limited compared to what we give to the top 1% [of taxpayers]
I think someone should read up on the "Earned Income Tax Credit". There was no point in reading anything after the first sentence, this person is obviously a totally clueless idiot.
The poor benefit handsomely from our, I would say overly progressive, tax system. Its the middle class that gets the squeeze. The very wealth have access to tax avoidance strategies and investment vehicles that get favorable tax treatment. The poor get outright handouts at tax time and mostly end up paying no federal taxes at all. Meanwhile the middle class foots almost the entire bill, and gets basically only the mortgage interest deduction and child credits as a consolation prize.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
This was clearly a tongue in cheek comment by the senator to prove a point.
It was meant to illustrate how we incorrectly assign the poor as being more criminal, and how the social safety cost far less than the low capital gains tax.
Side note: you want to keep capital gains low because it encourages companies to re-invest in themselves and the economy, but I have always thought it should be taxed as salary when people pull it out for personal use.
So what resources are the "poor" denied that the "rich" have access to? I sure hope you aren't talking about tax breaks because if the "poor" had money, they sure could make use of them.
Assumption of guilt.
The poor have to do drug tests to get their tax benefits.
The rich do not have to do drug tests to get their tax benefits.
How is that treating people equally?
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
Wrong. No tax liability has been determined yet; deductions are part of the process. Pre-payments, withholding, etc are only estimates and getting part of those back is not a "gift". The final tax is what you owe the gov't.
Nutrition, influence, healthcare, top end education, connections. A social environment teaching behavior, mannerisms, and past experiences that are familiar to others it is helpful to establish connections with.
The people who benefit from most of the labor in this country by extracting it's wealth are not the ones who perform that labor and produce that wealth. They use their wealth and influence to give themselves and their families every benefit possible including maximizing that benefit by minimizing the number of others who can get those benefits.
You clearly don't understand the purpose of deductions.
Deductions typically fall into 2 categories:
- structuring the basic tax code, other than percentage brackets (e.g. standard deductions, removing a double tax)
- providing incentives for behavior that benefits society (e.g. use of clean energy, philanthropy, increasing economic activity in certain ways)
If you owe the government taxes, then you've already taken deductions. They aren't gifts; they are money you never owed. If you keep any tax money that you owe the government, it's called tax fraud.
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
Some people seem to think it's acceptable to force a drug test on taxpayers *to get their own money back*, and attempt to equate that with drug testing those who take others money.
It may be entirely appropriate to drug test person A as a condition of receiving B, but not appropriate to test person C before receiving D.
The Congresscritter in question seems to think if one test is OK, then any test anywhere anytime is OK.
It's a bit like saying if the police are ever within their rights to ticket a parked car, then maybe they should just ticket every parked car they see so that it's all fair and equal.
Drug tests are low grade group IQ tests.
If nobody in your social group can figure out how to cheat on a drug test, you hang with drooling morons.
Which isn't to say there aren't reasonably effective drug tests. But those are expensive and most testers don't really want an effective test. Couldn't stay staffed.
It's simply rent seeking, test corps lobby for workers comp rates based on testing. All corps test some groups for rates, all workers know how to cheat, all testers know workers are cheating. Every 20 years they update the cheap test and workers learn new ways. Until they learn new ways they substitute clean/synthetic pee for a year or two. Some politicians get carried away and forget it was about taxing business to benefit connected people and start to send state money down pit.
The congrsscritter with the 'suggestion' needs go up against the wall. She thinks letting you keep some of your money is the same as the tit. Fuck her. If you haven't already done so, move as much economic activity as possible underground.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Testing rich people getting tax breaks is more cost-effective.
The rich aren't exempt from drug testing when applying for welfare (in those states that do). So already done. Our law being a noble institution.
The problem is conflating 'keeping some of your money' with 'the government tit'. If they wanted to do this to beltway bandits, I'd be all for it.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
And in five years the person on welfare today may have gotten a job and be paying taxes, while the person paying taxes today may have been laid off and is on welfare. That is why the welfare system exists, because no one is guaranteed employment for their entire life and the alternative - resorting to crime to survive - is worse.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
Your missing the point of this, its to show those in power that they should be careful what they ask for. This is tongue in cheek and will never be implemented for the wealthy, but perhaps it gives them an idea on how the shoe fits on the other foot.
On the other hand, it also shows a communication disconnect for those fighting against drug tests for welfare programs. The reason for the drug tests is so the people giving their money (taxpayers) have confidence the money is being spent appropriately. There really is no reason to "see how the shoe fits" because wealthy people are very used to following the demands of people they ask for money (investors). I am confident the financial due diligence checks for large investments is more invasive than a drug test. I would have chosen a drug test over producing the necessary paperwork for my recent home refinance, even though I would have passed both tests with ease.
The wealthy already understand that in almost all cases someone asking for money is not the one who sets the rules for how the money is given. They don't need this tongue in cheek proposal to learn that. They instead need to be taught why such a drug test would not be helpful in combating poverty in the first place, and this clown show doesn't help with that at all.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
Assumption of guilt.
The poor have to do drug tests to get their tax benefits. The rich do not have to do drug tests to get their tax benefits.
How is that treating people equally?
Your supposition is flawed; the poor HAVE no tax benefits because they do not PAY any taxes. In fact, we give the poor tax refunds that were never paid for in the first place.
Failed supposition, failed conclusion.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Oh come on. It's explicitly obvious her point was drug tests on any recipients of government funds (benefits or text deductions) are silly and expensive.
If that was true, conservatives would be in favor of a 100% estate tax, right? Because that makes sure that everybody is starting off with the same opportunity. Oh, and we need to make sure that there's equality of voting "opportunity", so surely you oppose private funding of political campaigns?
The natural state of capitalism is that wealth is redistributed towards the rich. Don't believe me? Take two identical twins, the only difference is that at 18 one of them gets $100k put into an index fund. It's simple math that the person with the head start will always, always come out ahead thanks to the magic of compounding interest. Unless you have some serious luck in the case of the poor one, or serious screwups in the case of the rich one, the poor person will remain poor and the rich person will remain rich.
So, the point is, if you really support equality of opportunity, as you claim, you ought to be in favor of things that minimize the inherently unbalanced flow of wealth in a capitalist market, since that makes opportunity among market participants less and less equal as time goes on. Things like highly progressive marginal tax rates, 90% or so at the top bracket (like in Eisenhower's day) and aggressive regulation and government action against anti-competitive monopolies (like another great Republican, Teddy Roosevelt pushed for).
Conservatives of today are a mockery of historical conservative values. Ever since Reagan, all conservatives have really stood for is protecting the de facto nobility of the U.S. Inequality is increasing, both of opportunity and outcome. Wake up.
"In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread." Anatole France
I'm not sure that's actually correct. Poor people get caught more often, but IIRC there's research showing that the rich are more likely to break the law. Also, the rich have more resources so their crimes have the potential to have a much bigger impact.
the person filing the "deductions" is essentially spending government funds
That argument only works if you consider all money to be the government's by default, of which they generously allow a portion for individuals to have.