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."

Comments

Re:Congress

[Kierthos]

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.

Re:Better Idea

[dave420]

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.

Re:WTF?

[TheCarp]

> 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.

"People actually do drugs for fun?"

[XNormal]

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.