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?
They aren't being drug tested for filing their taxes, only for applying for their tax breaks and tax credits. They could just take the standard deduction to avoid the whole thing.
subsidy / welfare == receipt of someone else's money
tax deduction == less of one's own money being taken
those things are different
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.
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.
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.
"If you didn't want to buy my antidote, you shouldn't have let me sneak up behind you, clonk you on the head, and inject you with poison."
Well...I suppose they could do something radical and say, try to educate/better themselves and get a fucking JOB and pay their own way, no?
Real unemployment (as measured by taking the inverse of the labor participation rate) is at levels not seen in this country since the great depression. Last year a net million jobs were created, yet the number of people seeking employment (unemployed or underemployed) did not change. The fact is that there are no jobs, especially for the barely educated. Your two year college degree might get you a job flipping burgers. A four year degree might get you a job managing the guy flipping burgers.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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 biggest problem with being poor that people often overlook is that it's very expensive being poor. Almost all their earnings goes to their subsistence which means having the money to get a higher education is almost impossible.
Do you really believe that poor people doesn't want better education and jobs? Your comment makes it sound like poor people are lazy slobs waiting for government handouts.
It's the same reasoning the super-rich uses when talking about "ordinary people" (ie. wage slaves), "ordinary people" are lazy slobs trying to get as much money as possible from them.
--- Reality doesn't care about your opinions, it happens anyway and if you are in the way you'll get squished.
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.
Well...I suppose they could do something radical and say, try to educate/better themselves and get a fucking JOB and pay their own way, no?
You could suppose that, but you'd be wrong. You think most poor people are poor because they just don't feel like getting a job? Beyond that, some people with jobs still have to go on public assistance because their job doesn't pay enough to live on. What do you think of raising the minimum wage?
Welfare, or SNAP, or whatever don't pay very much. It's not like these people are kicking back while the rest of us work. It's no fun to be poor, working or not.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
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.
Whether you agree with drug testing for welfare or not, there is a bid difference between testing for handouts, and testing for tax penalty avoidance. A complete lack of comprehension of said difference is the most disappointing thing about such a proposal.
While I think such a proposal will never be implemented, what is most disappointing to ME about this discussion is the lack of comprehension of justice and fairness in economic systems. Instead, everyone seems to be acting like there's some sort of strict demarcation between "my money" and "the rest of society," when in reality society is necessary for you to make your money, to profit from your skills, and to spend your money on goods that make you happy.
Your perspective fails the basic "Justice as Fairness" doctrine espoused in one of the greatest works of political philosophy and ethics from the 20th century, John Rawls's A Theory of Justice.
Rawls begins with the idea that we should design a moral economic and political system behind a "veil of ignorance," i.e., not knowing what value our personal skills and abilities may have to society. After all, you may have been born with innate skills that make you rich in one society, but in another you might be the stupidest or least talented person alive. It's only by imagining what's fair to that latter person that we should make decisions about how to structure things.
Rawls ultimately comes up with what to me seems to be a pretty darn insightful idea about fairness -- which is that obviously inequality benefits us all in a society. Smart people may get rich by inventing cool stuff, and by doing so, they bring up the standard of living of all of us. Thus, a just society needs to allow them an incentive (e.g., more money) to promote our collective well-being.
But, Rawls says, the point at which we stop that inequality is when the extra money for the rich stops benefitting the society as a whole. At some point rich people just get more and more wealth, but it doesn't actually help the poorest to improve their quality of life (and often begins to make the poorest WORSE off). And again going back to the veil of ignorance, if you didn't know what your talent would be before entering in a society (and you might have ended up on the bottom), you probably would say that's not fair for all. Collectively, we need to design the rules to benefit us all, because rich people don't exist in a vacuum.
So -- going to the present proposal, the question becomes: We've apparently decided that we want to drug-test the poor to ensure that society's resources will be used well. If we agree to that, why not tax the rich before giving them a tax break?
Rawls would say that the question should be rephrased in terms of social benefit -- no one has a "right" to be taxed according to a difference scheme. There's no "inalienable right" to have capital gains taxed at a lower rate than other income. So, we have to ask -- by allowing rich people to buy drugs with the money from their tax break, do we actually benefit society as a whole? If you woke up in a society and just happened to be the stupidest and most untalented person, would you think that was a fair thing to grant rich people to improve society as a whole? Or would it be wasting resources on a rich-people tax break that could be used to actually benefit other people?
Again, I don't think this is a practical proposal. But in terms of justice and fairness, I think you're asking the wrong questions. "My money" does not exist in a vacuum. You get to live your life through the benefits of the rest of society. You have no inalienable rights to whatever complex set of tax deductions you'd like.
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"?
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.
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=-
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.