Let's Drug Test The Rich Before Approving Tax Deductions, Says US Congresswoman (theguardian.com) 760
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."
Drug test bloggers (Score:5, Funny)
Lets drug test bloggers before they are allowed to post online. It should result in a marked decrease in idiotic headlines...
Re:Drug test bloggers (Score:5, Funny)
Lets drug test bloggers before they are allowed to post online. It should result in a marked decrease in idiotic headlines...
Better yet, let's drug test politicians. With all the kooky ideas they come up with, they must be on something!
Re:Drug test bloggers (Score:4, Insightful)
The rich aren't exempt from drug testing when applying for welfare (in those states that do). So already done. Our law being a noble institution.
The problem is conflating 'keeping some of your money' with 'the government tit'. If they wanted to do this to beltway bandits, I'd be all for it.
Re:Drug test bloggers (Score:4, Insightful)
Better Idea (Score:5, Insightful)
How about we start treating each other with some god damned respect and abolish the entire drug-testing paradigm?
Re:Better Idea (Score:5, Insightful)
How about I'll start treating you with respect when you earn your own money instead of taking mine?
How about I start treating you with respect when you get some compassion and start treating your fellow human being like human beings? Do you think poor people are poor simply because they don't feel like getting a job?
Re:Better Idea (Score:4, Informative)
That is exactly what they think. They know somebody who's cousin is like that. Therefore all poor people are lazy bums!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How about I start treating you with respect when you build your own roads, your own hospital, your own water and sewer pipes,
He did, via taxes.
Thats the rub.. he gets to complain. Those that are a drain on the system don't.
Re:Better Idea (Score:5, Interesting)
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:Better Idea (Score:5, Informative)
I work 12 hours days writing software
Given that productivity for activities like writing software peaks at 20 hours a week, plateaus until 40, and then decreases, you must be writing some really bad code.
Re: (Score:3)
Hint: if you're on Slashdot, you're ALREADY in the "1%", as far as the Planet goes.
This entire argument, is about a First World Problem. . .
Re: (Score:3)
Drug testing is a racket. You can't tell anything about the drug use rates of populations based on their drug tests...If they know the test is coming.
Keeping you money is not a tax benefit. It's part of the calculation of how much you owe. Comparing it to 'the tit' is silly.
Apples-Oranges (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Apples-Oranges (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Apples-Oranges (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Apples-Oranges (Score:4, Informative)
Are you one of those people that thinks that it's not your money, it's the government's.
It actually belongs to the Federal Reserve. It says so right on the bill. It is owed back to them, with interest.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Apples-Oranges (Score:5, Insightful)
subsidy / welfare == receipt of someone else's money
tax deduction == less of one's own money being taken
those things are different
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Drug testing for welfare benefit recipients = being forced to take a drug test to before getting a financial benefit.
Drug testing for people claiming over $150k in tax deductions = being forced to take a drug test before getting a financial benefit.
Those are far more similar than you seem to think they are.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're proceeding under a false assumption, namely that keeping more of the income you earn is a benefit, i.e. a cost to the government.
The underlying assumption is that all income is the property of government, and allowing you to keep a portion of it is generosity on the government's part. . . .
If you believe, as many of us do, that governments derive their power from the citizens, this follows.
If, on the other hand, you consider the citizen as a subject of the government, you will conclude differently. .
Re:Apples-Oranges (Score:5, Insightful)
The underlying assumption is that all income is the property of government, and allowing you to keep a portion of it is generosity on the government's part. .
No. The underlying assumption is, government is entitled to part of your income. Your ability to earn that income is the result of investment made by the government in law enforcement, property rights enforcement, maintaining civil courts. When you have a contract with someone, that party does not default because you have government standing by you with a big baseball bat to enforce it. It deserves a cut on the money you make on that contract.
Re:Apples-Oranges (Score:4, Insightful)
The government is not ENTITLED to part of my income. The government is entitled to nothing, absolutely nothing. What they can have is what we as a society have agreed to give up TO the government, through the proper legislative channels, to provide those services we as a society deem necessary.
Oh, yeah. And the legislature, duly elected by the people, have enacted a tax code, and the president duly elected by the people has signed it and the courts, duly appointed by the president with the advice and consent of the duly elected legislature have ruled the tax as constitutional.
What you think as what the government entitled to or not is totally irrelevant. Go ahead, stand on a soap box and exercise you first amendment rights. But, I will exercise my first amendment rights to ridicule you and make fun of you and tell everyone and his brother, "look here, a total idiot mouthing off!".
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
You seem to be thinking that the government can't have tax breaks that are conditional on something. There are tax breaks that are conditional on putting a child through school, for example. Why can't deductions over a certain amount call for drug testing? We're not making anyone submit to testing, only those who want extra deductions on their taxes.
Re: (Score:3)
Frankly, if the majority of citizens voted in their own best interest, we'd have neither Her Thighness or the Shaved Chimpanzee with a Brain Slug and a Bad Toupee as the prospective nominees.
The current system seems to discourage people of actual ability to seek office, at almost any level. . . .
Re:Apples-Oranges (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Apples-Oranges (Score:5, Insightful)
Only if you reject the concept, that taxes are your due share in being part of a society you profit from.
There is also a difference between possession and ownership: You earn a certain amount of money and possess it. The taxes are your dues, the rest is what you own.
Re:Apples-Oranges (Score:4, Informative)
Money that was made using infrastructure paid for by taxpayers. Money that was often made by pushing costs onto taxpayers.
Re: (Score:3)
You provide me with a chunk of wood that cost $1. I carve it into a statue value
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Apples-Oranges (Score:4, Insightful)
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 it is a completely different thing, why do you support wealthy people's having addictions?
I suspect in large part, this might be a point the congresscritter is trying to make.
And in the end, as we've been told for years, the wealthy are the job creators, and the shakers and movers. They are the engines of commerce, and giving them the well deserved tax breaks is all part of that system, so they can create more jobs and lead the USA to greater things.
You want addicts running the engines of the economy? If you ask me, a bunch of addicted job creators are much more of a threat to the country than some welfare queen or Walmart worker addicted to vicodin.
Re: (Score:3)
Someone is doing the drugs and we've been testing the poor people and found far less than the national average. It must be the wealthy doing the drugs. Since they are such magical engines of commerce and all that we should obviously seek to be lik
Re:Apples-Oranges (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [wikipedia.org].
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.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think you or Rawls quite understood what money is.
Once upon a time, people had to live on their own. They had to grow and harvest their own crops, hunt their own meat, tan and sew their own clothes, build their own shelters, make their own tools, treat their own injuries, etc. This was hugely inefficient because of the massive number of skills you needed to learn, and the rapid multi-ta
Re: (Score:3)
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.
You mean like people in charge of large banks and financial institutions?
Re:Apples-Oranges (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm from the UK, and I have to say that each time a US tax-orientated discussion comes up here on Slashdot or elsewhere, especially around US based "filing dates", I get the distinct impression that it doesn't matter how rich you are or how much your tax return is going to be, you *all* scrutinize your returns for as many deductions as you can possibly squeeze out of the system, with many of you suggesting to others to seek professional help to squeeze even more.
But that's just a foreigners impression gained from what US tax payers discuss online...
Re:Apples-Oranges (Score:4, Informative)
I'm from the UK, and I have to say that each time a US tax-orientated discussion comes up here on Slashdot or elsewhere, especially around US based "filing dates", I get the distinct impression that it doesn't matter how rich you are or how much your tax return is going to be, you *all* scrutinize your returns for as many deductions as you can possibly squeeze out of the system, with many of you suggesting to others to seek professional help to squeeze even more.
But that's just a foreigners impression gained from what US tax payers discuss online...
Yeah, that's about right. There is an aspect to the American character that leads people to feel that if they haven't squeezed out every last drop, even if they have to be an asshole to do it, they are suckers leaving money on the table. There is a certain amount of "I've got mine, fuck you" going on here.
Re: (Score:3)
There is a certain amount of "I've got mine, fuck you" going on here.
That's about as succinct a summary of the general outlook on life here in America as I've ever seen.
Re: (Score:3)
I have been around the world a time or six.
Everybody, everywhere does what they can to legally minimize taxes and just about all large, non ego tied costs.
Some nations have simple tax codes, some are more...complicated. When the get too complicated, people cheat more as they realize the code itself is just 'a cheat'.
Than there are nations where everybody just cheats and taxes are for chumps.
Re:Apples-Oranges (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Apples-Oranges (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Uh, it looks like it's at 1980s levels, to me [stlouisfed.org]
Re:Apples-Oranges (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
But can 250,000 people in California get a free two-year education? Or are the grants few and far between?
It also assumes time (many work a job or two and still fall below the poverty line), regular availability (so they can't have work that assigns shift because it could overlap classes), that they don't have dependents to care for, nor does it consider the costs of mass transit to places to get this.
I applaud anyone who can pull themselves out of poverty by their bootstraps like that, but I don't think y
Re:Apples-Oranges (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Apples-Oranges (Score:5, Informative)
Nothing is free, certainly not educating and bettering themselves. This also doesn't work for the disabled and the mentally ill. Disability is also riddled with red tape.
Hell, a huge portion of the people on these programs have jobs sometimes more than one. That is the big joke, sometimes you see measures targeted at minimum wage/near minimum wage earners but they always apply to full time employees. Employers in this segment won't hire full time workers, they know their employees are desperate and they can get a new "deadbeat" in a heartbeat from that pool of lazy don't want to work people who apply every day without them even having to advertise. They usually won't permit any scheduling requirements, they over hire and then computer generate part time schedules each week which can vary from 25 hours to 9 each week. And as a rule anyone who is off for whatever reason and doesn't answer their phone or come in when called to cover shifts with no notice is fired for this "offense" or given a number of strikes as if they had done something wrong.
Re: (Score:3)
Congress (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the best place to start would be mandatory drug test for Congress.
Re:Congress (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Seems Reasonable. (Score:5, Insightful)
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?"
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, I recently went through an entire interview process at a major corporation, got an offer, accepted, passed the bg check and then failed the drug test.
I toke up from time-to-time, but it had been almost a month since I had last done so.
It is their loss. I am a good, competent worker and I would have been a good fit for the team.
I hope that my type of statistic isn't overlooked by HR departments who are always struggling to employ qualified talent. There are plenty of people who puff a little on their o
Re: (Score:3)
Sometimes, when a bad policy has been hanging on by selectively targeting those least able to do anything about it, arguing for its expansion can be the most effective way of
Even better (Score:4, Insightful)
Drug test their children.
Very sensible suggestion. (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
No, tax deductions are not government handouts. Another big fail from the leftist authoritarians.
No the big fail is not understanding the invisible role the government plays in contract enforcement, and the investments it makes to make earning income possible. You have not lived in countries where the civil courts are jammed up or corrupt or both. A small business owner takes a credit card from a private citizen issued by a private company to transfer money to a private bank. All private with no role for the government you think? Without good speedy efficient contract enforcement such a thing can not e
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
"People actually do drugs for fun?" (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Capital gains should not be taxed at all... (Score:3)
... 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.
Re:WTF? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: WTF? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
When you make an allegation of corruption you need to back it up. Link to some source.
Re: WTF? (Score:5, Informative)
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 [tampabay.com].
Forbes [forbes.com].
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 [politifact.com] ($1.7 Billion in 1997), leading to his resignation.
Re:WTF? (Score:4, Insightful)
Testing rich people getting tax breaks is more cost-effective.
Re:Please report to re-education rom 314 (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Please report to re-education rom 314 (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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 w
Re:WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.....
Re: WTF? (Score:5, Informative)
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.)
Re: (Score:3)
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 w
Expatriate (Score:3)
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.
Re: WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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 [qz.com]. Overwhelmingly immigrants tend to outpac
Re: (Score:3)
It's hard to imagine a group more o
Re: (Score:3)
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 ow
Re:WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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 no
Re:WTF? (Score:5, Informative)
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. [businessinsider.com]
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Dennis Moore (Score:3)
Re:WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: WTF? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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).
Re:WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:WTF? (Score:5, Interesting)
> 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.
Re:WTF? (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
To me, I can feel the sarcasm simply by reading her statements...
Re: (Score:3)
... 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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
... 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, pr
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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?
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.