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."
Lets drug test bloggers before they are allowed to post online. It should result in a marked decrease in idiotic headlines...
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
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.
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.
Ideally all forms of income earned income, interest and dividend income, capital gains, carried interest, partnership distributions, profits, gambling gains, IRA distributions all should be just treated the same way. Ordinary salaried folks have no ability to reclassify their income streams. They have limited ability to defer income. But the top 0.1% earners can create shell corporation after shell corporation, trusts etc. Each acting as a way to defer income, change its category etc.
One concession I would agree for capital gains is to let people adjust their cost basis for inflation. This will help people who buy and hold rather than short term investors. Reduce volatility and provide stability to the instruments.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
... if you're a capitalist. If you accept you live in a purely capitalist society, then someone "bad at capitalism" is as a natural extension of that a "bad societal actor", or more concisely, a "bad citizen". It isn't hard to see how someone who views the world through a lens of "money is the all important" that someone without money or who is bad at managing it would be a criminal. It's wrong but I've known people who believe the abolition of debtor's prison was one of the single biggest blows to modern capitalism. Think about that. It's nuts. That being said, making the rich take drug tests before receiving those tax breaks is about as likely as the rich actually paying their fair share of taxes.
Pure and utter drivel.
The basis of capitalism is not worship of money. The fact that some person you talked to favored debtor's prisons doesn't mean that everybody who believes in liberty worships money.
The basis of capitalism is that the free market is the most efficient and just way to distribute scarce resources.
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)
This is a lot of philosophy and not a lot of economics. Let's all "do the right thing", even if it means 17,000,000 starving children, because not "doing the right thing" and getting food to all 17,000,000 of those starving children would leave a bad taste in our mouths. Blood on your hands is better than the knowledge that you didn't get to stroke your ego.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
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 you are talking about not allowing a tax return for people that are actually footing the bill for the government...WOW....that is some interesting logic.
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=-
You see no difference between gifting someone something something and choosing not to take as much of a person's property from them?
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.
Another person who thinks taxes are the government "taking" your money. It's an exchange - in return, you get roads, security, stability, infrastructure, many public services, and a range of safety nets if/when you are no longer able to earn money.
And yes, you have a choice. You're free to opt out of this social contract at any time, by leaving the country. (Also by making your income low enough to avoid taxes, or high enough to avoid taxes.)
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
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.
They cost more than they save as already proven in Florida. Guess who owned shares in the drug company that got the testing contract in Florida? Rick Scott's wife.
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.
... if you're a capitalist. If you accept you live in a purely capitalist society, then someone "bad at capitalism" is as a natural extension of that a "bad societal actor", or more concisely, a "bad citizen". It isn't hard to see how someone who views the world through a lens of "money is the all important" that someone without money or who is bad at managing it would be a criminal. It's wrong but I've known people who believe the abolition of debtor's prison was one of the single biggest blows to modern capitalism. Think about that. It's nuts. That being said, making the rich take drug tests before receiving those tax breaks is about as likely as the rich actually paying their fair share of taxes.
Pure and utter drivel. The basis of capitalism is not worship of money. The fact that some person you talked to favored debtor's prisons doesn't mean that everybody who believes in liberty worships money. The basis of capitalism is that the free market is the most efficient and just way to distribute scarce resources.
The problem is, free markets don't really exist; they are all managed and regulated in some way. And the reason for that is that truly free markets lead to monopoly and rule by the wealthy, because the return on capital is higher than the return on labor. So the truth is that properly regulated markets are the most efficient way to distribute resources. But Capitalists don't like properly regulated markets, because that hinders their ability to maximize their profits. And, contrary to your assertion, profit is why Capitalists do what they do. If they weren't making money, they wouldn't be in business.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
Is this for real? The rich don't care about your SILLY little drug test, they are RICH, there are multiple multiple ways to evade drug testing, the rich have a lot more resources available... It's good that people are thinking about "equalizing" in a sense, but this idea is just stupid I'm sorry...
After all, this is America. If you can't use your wealth and power to break the rules with impunity, what's the point of being rich?
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
My pension fund has tobacco stocks. Does that make me beholden to tobacco companies? No. eff them.
When you make an allegation of corruption you need to back it up. Link to some source.
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
The bar for getting in the top 1% still usually leaves you in the W2 arena. I'll pay over 50% of my income this year in income taxes (not to mention all the other taxes). To not be a W2 employee (carried interest, etc), you are probably in the top 0.1% or top 0.01%.
50%? You must live in New York, but work in New Jersey and have a really bad accountant.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
Testing rich people getting tax breaks is more cost-effective.
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
No. a couple of states have done it. The main incident I know of is Florida where the Governor's Wife actually owned the drug testing company. It was basically a naked grab for money and it worked. They spent millions and recovered thousands.... meaning it was nothing but a net loss directly into the Governor's personal bank accounts.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
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=-
> 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"
Or by donating money to non-profits and such, i.e. a deduction. That way I can fund those social programs that actually make a difference at MY choice.
People are failing to understand that deductions are part of determining your taxes and are exactly that, deductions from your income. They are not part of your income, and are thus untaxable. It is not the government 'giving you anything back'. I imagine a lot of these people making these huge deductions are doing so through donations. Do you really want the non-profits to not get this money by forcing people who donate to them to get drug tested?
Take my own example (although not above these limits, obviously). I have a vacation home in a VERY small community. The government provided fire protection is 1.5 hours away (my tax dollars at work). We fund raised, made our own donations, and built our own VFD for covering the area. All of the money donated went into fire equipment and building the building (we built it ourselves). If the government had gotten involved, it would have cost 100x what it did. Isn't this the kind of behavior we want?
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.
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.
40+ years of Reaganomics--low capital gains and low top marginal tax rates--has only increased the disparity in wealth and income. There is no trickle-down. There is no rising tide that lifts all of the boats. Automation is steadily increasing the value of capital relative to labor. People who have little or no discretionary income from their labor cannot make capital investments, so there is no end to the rich getting richer while the poor and middle class muddle along.
Come on 'Dr. Evil'. You know you want the wood chipper for the junkies.
The problem with your plan is drug tests are easy to cheat on. You'd have to use hair tests (or some other drug test that actually works). Those cost $200 and results take days.
Instant answer drug tests are defeated by drinking lots of water.
The shelter workers know who is a junkie. They have the authority to send them packing. The junkies end up in the homeless camps with the crazies.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
When you make an allegation of corruption you need to back it up. Link to some source.
I'm not the OP (an AC), but for starters:
The Tampa Bay Times.
Forbes.
For those just tuning in, Rick Scott, Governor of the State of Florida, was previously the CEO of Columbia/HCA when it was found to have committed the largest Medicare fraud ever, up to that time ($1.7 Billion in 1997), leading to his resignation.
If you actually read the link you cited, what it says is that the United States taxes former citizens for the taxes that they owed before they renounced their citizenship.
In other words, saying "I renounce my citizenship" does not mean that your debt suddenly vanishes.
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.
Deductions aren't gifts... correct. They are money you never owed...incorrect. They are adjustments the government allows you to make to your taxable income based on certain qualifying conditions. One reason the tax code is so complicated is that many deductions have really arcane formulas for the qualifying conditions.
So the bottom line is that the government can apply any condition it wants for eligibility for a deduction, just as it can apply any condition it wants to be eligible for benefit. There is nothing unfair about it. The rules for the deductions have to be approved by congress. If they want a deduction to only apply to rat-catchers in cities with 50,000 population, that can be a rule.. . . Or a "clean living" requirement for certain deductions that says you only get them if you haven't been convicted of a felony and can pass a drug test.
Rather than make this a class war, a smart way to do it would just be to say you don't qualify for any itemized deductions regardless of income level if you don't pass the "clean living" standard. You can still take the standard deduction for yourself and dependents, and maybe the child tax credit, but that would be it.
We are the 198 proof..
This is a damn smoke screen.
You know who we need to be tested? The people who make the laws, like the Congresswoman herself, and all of her associates. Every dollar they make, EVERY FREAKIN DOLLAR, comes from taxpayers. Their special retirement system, paid by us. Their super special healthcare benefits? Paid for by John Q. Public. So, by the same logic, and even more so as they wield so much more power than a poor person looking for help, they owe us access to their internal biological processes so we can see what they are doing all of the time, right?
Before any government official ever tests another free citizen, let all of the lawmakers submit a sample. Oh, and no-go on giving them months to prepare either, like they do when one branch of government is investigating another branch of government. Its a surprise, bitches!
Playbook classic for our elected jackasses, use class warfare and incitement tactics to keep our eyes off the ball. We should be legalizing drugs for a number of reasons, not finding new and stupid ways to invade the privacy of our free citizens.
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
... or at least the "gain" should be indexed to either gold or silver (government's choice - but in advance of the period during which the so-called "gain" occurs).
The "capital gain" of the tax code is actually a PRICE gain measured in dollars. The value of the dollar is under the control of the government (via its proxy, the Federal Reserve), and is systematically lowered ("inflation"). So an asset whose value doesn't change at all nevertheless suffers a "gain" in price, which is taxed. (An asset whose actual value does rise still suffers an additional "gain" in price, and one whose value falls doesn't start to show a "loss" unless the loss in value is more than that of the dollar.)
This means that the government not only steals the value out of money held by printing more of it, for itself and its cronies, diluting the supply, but it also steals a portion of the value of any other property held by someone between its purchase and its sale. Thus the "capital gains" tax is an additional incentive to inflate the currency and rip off the general population for the benefit of the government officials, functionaries, and their cronies.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
A lot of serious academic research went on in the early 70's to prove that taxing the poor was wholly unproductive. See Dennis Moore's work, for a good, easy to digest example.
The poor pay taxes. They just don't pay income taxes. If they earn money, they pay FICA taxes. If they buy things, they pay sales taxes. If they rent, part of the rent goes to property taxes (my state allows property tax rebates to sufficiently poor renters).
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
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.
Please understand the difference in equality - we're talking about Government and it's role, and as long as Government is to treat you equally, without regard to race, gender, religion, socio-economic status, then we're on the right path. It's not to put up roadblocks to any group or show preference over another. If you want to succeed, Government is to make sure there are no roadblocks to you that do not exist for others.
And for many immigrants, that is the case. Overwhelmingly immigrants tend to outpace native minority groups! Perhaps it's Government trying to game the system for the outcomes rather than the starting line that society as a whole gets that is the problem.
If your parents worked hard and suceeded, yes you will benefit from that more than a person who's parents did not. But as long as you both have access to equal services from the Government, then it's working as it should. In life, no one is guaranteed to win and no one is promised not to lose. And you do not have to stay where you are - you can move up OR down.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
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.
In 2011, 7000 households with income over $1M paid no federal income tax whatsoever.
Tell me, how is it anything less than a gift to completely absolve these people from their tax burden? Seriously? Whether I give you $10 directly or allow you to avoid paying $10 that you would otherwise owe, the outcome is the same. And the rich are disproportionately benefiting from our current tax structure.
The fact of the matter is that we've increasingly got government regulation in favor of the rich. Inequality is skyrocketing in the country, class mobility is tanking. Every metric we've got shows that we're trending towards a two-class society of haves and have-nots. Stop being an apologist for the greed of the rich.
It's hard to imagine a group more oppressed in the early going than native Africans. Yet overwhelmingly, when they arrive in the US, they outperform African Americans. Why is that? Perhaps it's because they had family who instilled values, and because they have a social net that values education and success. Rather than mocks it and denigrates it. You want to remove that as well to make things "equal"? Then go ahead and eliminate all of society.
As far as the Bushes and Kennedys go, it seems the later generations are failing - miserably so! Heck, Jeb just blew through $100 million in a failed attempt to become President. He's not going to succeed where his father or brother did. The family name and backing and influence didn't help him - a perfect example to counter your position. Likewise the latest generation of Kennedys; they have little influence and are quickly being relegated to the back-row of politics (and soon to be out altogether).
Perhaps the reason the earlier generations succeeded was they heeded the political advice (good or bad) of the man who created their "dynasty", and listened to his counsel. Later generations took it for granted they'd have power and money and success - and they're slowly losing them all.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
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.
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.
Well, let's examine that thought for a moment in concrete detail, rather than in abstract. Let's take the mortgage interest deduction. In principle it helps middle-class people and above, but in practice if you make around the median household income and own a house it's worth about $500 to you on average -- not chicken feed, but less than 1/10 the amount people who make $250K and above get to deduct on average.
Is there any reason for the government owes it to people to reduce their taxes because they own and use something? Let's imagine the mortgage interest deduction didn't exist. Let's say instead the government decided to cut you a check for $5500 for owning a million-dollar home. Wouldn't that be a gift? Think like an accountant for a moment. An accountant keeps substance (which is what really counts) and form (which is what triggers various tax rules) strictly separate, in order to maximize for you what really matters -- the substance. Substantially there is no difference between having $5500 of tax forgiven, and having the government hand you a $5500 check; or rather the tax deduction is actually better because you'd have to pay tax on the $5500 next year.
But, you say, home ownership has public utility. People are being encouraged to live in a way that makes them better citizens, which benefits everyone.
Exactly. Which brings me to your second point:
Money received in these programs is purely a gift from the government.
This is true, but no more true than the mortgage interest deduction is a gift from the government. People who can't or don't choose to burden themselves with a home subsidize that deduction. But the programs exist for their social utility. They exist for the same reason: to encourage socially benign behavior -- or at least discourage malign behavior.
People who don't have substantial savings and can't make a living by legal means -- even in the short term -- have no choice but to turn to illegal means. For example in Victorian London there was approximately one prostitute for every twelve men, despite the fact that prostitution was (a) illegal and (b) extremely hazardous. If that doesn't sound to bad to you, consider that men in similar extremes turned to robbery and housebreaking. And children... Oliver Twist wasn't a fantasy, there actually were thieves dens in which children were trained to pick pockets and shoplift. Mugging was rife, and even if you weren't mugged you'd be besieged by peddlars, panhandlers and con artists.
So social welfare may be a "gift" to the poor, but it's not pure charity. There is enlightened self-interest as well. That was the whole motivation for Roosevelt's New Deal -- that and staving off the advance of Communism.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
I got a different impression on the intent of the congresswoman. Her 'suggestion' was merely trying to raise a point that drug testing the poor is stupid because results have shown that drug use among that group is far below the national average. It's a program (championed by Republicans) that is costing the government more money.
To me, I can feel the sarcasm simply by reading her statements...
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
It was meant to illustrate how we incorrectly assign the poor as being more criminal
No.... That's not right at all. I understand their rates of criminality are similar to the rest of the population for the poor.
The idea is to Get the drug abusers out of those programs.
It doesn't really matter if there are fewer abusers.... If someone can afford the drugs, and they still need to be on that program, then they are misallocating their funds.
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.
There's no way to tell without examining exactly why those households paid no tax on their income.
Was it because their income was all from tax-free municipal bonds? They are, in a sense, getting taxed, because those bonds have a lower yield than taxable bonds. Plus, it's an incentive to provide cities with money at lower interest rates.
Was it because they gave their entire >$1M income that year to a bunch of homeless shelters?
Details are important.
You know? As a libertarian myself, it always amuses me how people rush to argue over the relatively few things central government accomplished for people that we can all agree are useful and often used by the vast majority of citizens.
When I think of all the boneheaded things government has done with my money (anything from grants for studying cow flatulence to billions of dollars the Pentagon managed to just make vanish into thin air right around the time we were distracted by 9-11) -- concerns over the expenditures for emergency services and a national highway system are at the bottom of my list.
I guess you need to zero in on those, though, if you want to make sure libertarians look like idiots for pointing out how wasteful government spending can be?
I'd definitely like to see mandatory drug testing ended, across the board. (For that matter, the same goes for those sobriety checkpoints.) You shouldn't be presumed guilty until proven innocent, period. When it comes to most private sector jobs that drug test? Regardless of any philosophical reasons against it, the practice is quite likely just a waste of money overall. I've worked at jobs where drug testing was required as a condition of employment PLUS at random intervals afterwards. Those tests aren't all that cheap, and the labs doing the testing aren't infallible either. So a positive result means you have to do a second test to verify the result. By then, a lot of people are crafty enough to know ways to cheat the tests. And who's to say a company didn't get rid of a really good employee over one of them? Just because someone likes to get high once in a while doesn't prove they can't do a great job at whatever you hired them for. How about we fire people for doing those drugs or drinking on company time and stop worrying about digging up evidence about what they may do on their personal time?
"So with your EBT card you have to buy fast food [dailycaller.com] and not good, nutritious staples at the grocery store?"
False dichotomy and begging the question. You do not have to buy fast food and you do not get enough funds to purchase good nutritious foods at the grocery store. The lowest cost options at grocery stores are of comparable nutritional value to the the worst fast food options. Assuming you can get an EBT card and food stamps at all.
"You don't get subsidized or free healthcare [wikipedia.org]?"
Medicare mostly only happens for the dependent children of single mothers. Of course, then you have to find someone who will take it. Generally this will be the poorest healthcare available which means even if completely covered your child will be in poorer health than a wealthy counterpart and therefore have more physical ailments in life giving them a disadvantage in the workplace.
Generally no. My mother did go to college, got an associates degree in cosmetology making her the first college grad in our branch of the family. This enabled her to make so little that she qualified for subsidized housing. Qualifying for subsidized housing meant that she sometimes qualified for medicaid that covered just me and other times did not qualify at all. Every few months she had to apply for assistance when the electric bill got high enough but doing so meant she had to pay half the difference in higher rent that month, got less in food stamps, and didn't qualify for medical coverage that quarter. Any increase in her income or checking/savings balance decreased benefits. In fact having anything in a savings account would decrease benefits every month you still had it.
As for subsidized.. subsidies don't help you much when you have nothing, the remainder is still too much. It's the big joke of obamacare. You give health insurance to millions... who can't afford deductibles, co-pays, or premiums and therefore still can't get healthcare. It's nothing but a way to funnel money from the middle class to insurance companies.
"There are not scholarships exclusively for low income families [collegescholarships.org] that will pay towards top-notch schools?"
The existence of scholarships for low income families does equal all low income families with children that want to afford top-notch schools being able to do so. Paying towards is also not paying for.
Even without refutation none of your points demonstrates equal opportunity between the classes. Having some kind of possibility for the poor does not mean there is no advantage for the wealthy. As soon as you can explain how George W. Bush with his C and B average had no easier a time getting into an Ivy league school than a poor child from a no name family you can make that case but I think we both know that even with a perfect academic record and high scores the odds are against that poor child getting in let alone finding the funds to pay for it. Where there is opportunity at all for the poor it comes only through extreme achieve combined with even more luck... the wealthy face no such barrier and the only justification is a fallacious argument that their "success" aka deep pockets is proof of their merit.
Check out the economic success of 1st generation African immigrants relative to native African Americans.
I don't think that's a useful comparison because the former group is self-selected, not a random sampling. It stands to reason that the people with the most drive and ambition are more likely to emigrate, and those are the type of people who do well in American society. You can compare a self-selected group of overachievers with a random sample and expect to get a meaningful result.
Enigma