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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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
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"
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.