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."
I'm not sure about that. I think it would make things more equal, and in that sense it would be more fair. If we were to accept that any extension in testing were bad, and any reduction in testing were good, then it would follow that drug testing only black unemployed people would be better than drug testing all unemployed people, but I think (hope) it's obvious that this would actually be worse.
I'm all for this.
But why stop at drug testing?
If you want to be on certain committees, you have to pass a test of some sort, so we can get rid of the thundering idiots who think science is of the devil, yet sit on one of the science-based committees. Or if you want to be on one of the finance committees, you have to at least show basic understanding of economics.
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
On top of that there are so many problems deciding on any action with regard to drug testing. Testing for cocaine is pretty ineffective. Testing and rejecting a federal return for smoking pot where states claim its legal. False positives from numerous sources such as poppy seed buns. The list goes on and on and on. Maybe society should pull the stick out of thier collective asses and realize the war on drugs is a massive net loss for society.
Where do you get this "criminalization" of the poor from exactly? Nobody is being prosecuted and thrown in jail for being poor. People are just saying that if you are getting something for free (money in this case) that it won't be used to encourage illegal behavior.
People who PAY taxes WORK for the money they pay TO the government.
People who TAKE welfare money DID NOTHING of economic value TO EARN it.
How is that equal?
Are they a drain on the system when the system expects people to need its assistance and is geared up directly to do that? Or what about when Wall Street needs bailing out again - was that not being a drain on the system?
If you have to use vague terms like "drain on the system" to summarise your argument, your argument just might be bollocks.
No, they're talking about drug testing so the rich folk can pay less tax. Don't want to do it or fail, then pony up your full tax amount like everyone else and fuck off.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
> Because at base, it is a non-sequitar, one of those war on drugs nothing is too extreme for our holy cause actions.
Its not non-sequitor when the person you are arguing against couldn't pass a drug test himself. A lot of wealthy high income people would never pass a drug test and they know it.
In a way, I kind of like it. That should be the threat. Maybe they will finally defang the drug war if it starts being used against them. I bet you dollars to donuts if you started threatening to drug test enough congressmen and business owners, the controlled substances act will be repealed within a few weeks.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
But then you only paid a tiny fraction as well, so why should we respect your opinion either?
With such an assumption, under your own system of reasoning, your own system of reasoning can't be considered reasonable by anyone because you've made it impossible for anyone to be worthy of respect.
There was a question on some forum (perhaps AskReddit) for formerly poor people about what surprised them the most after they became better off.
One poster claimed that he was surprised people with more money actually do drugs for recreation. Everyone where he grew up that used drugs did it to soothe the pain. Everyone knew it. Everyone also knew the price. And those that chose this way were not judged too much.
Stop worrying about the risks of nuclear power and start worrying about the risks of not using nuclear power.
If taxes are, as you basically argue, a use tax/service fee - then let's structure it as such. The US Federal Government is spending about $4 trillion this year for the 320 million of us present. So let's go ahead and send every man, woman, and child a bill for $12,500. That's their fee for the service provided.
Many on the left want to use taxes not to pay for the goods and services received, but to redistribute wealth to "make it equal". THAT is the fundamental difference between Conservatism and Liberalism in the US: Conservatives want to see equality of opportunity - everyone starts the race at the same line. Liberalism seeks equality of results - we all cross the finish line at the same time. And for the liberal politicians, they see the tax code as a way to enforce their belief. All the while exempting themselves from such levels (for example, President Obama pays about 20% in taxes even though the typical 1%er like he is pays much more. Heck, he pays a lower rate than the top 5% even though he's towards the very top end of that group).
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
That's a fairly common assumption, but I'm also not sure that one is actually true, depending on how you define substance abuse. In terms of legality, there are lots of otherwise perfectly normal people who use illegal drugs and don't really suffer any ill effects. Again, IIRC, the rate of illegal drug use among the rich is higher than among the poor, probably because the poor can't afford it.
Defining substance abuse more reasonably, in terms of dependence or use that causes negative effects, alcoholism is very common in all socioeconomic classes, and prescription drug abuse is extremely widespread among the wealthier classes.
You can certainly become a heroin addict and end up in an alley somewhere, but that seems to be a relatively rare outcome. Much more common is to get drunk regularly and beat your family, or become addicted to prescription painkillers.