Why One Democratic Congresswoman Wants To Drug-Test The Rich - Polidicks

[URL="http://www.npr.org/2016/06/17/482509519/why-one-democratic-congresswoman-wants-to-drug-test-the-rich?utm_medium=RSS&utm_campaign=news"]SOURCE[/URL] [QUOTE]The richest Americans take heavy advantage of the tax code's many deductions. So Rep. Gwen Moore has an idea: She wants rich Americans to get drug-tested before they can get those tax benefits.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]The Wisconsin Democrat is introducing the "Top 1% Accountability Act of 2016." Its goal: require "drug testing for all tax filers claiming itemized deductions in any year over $150,000," her office said in a [URL="https://gwenmoore.house.gov/press-releases/moore-unveils-tax-bill-leveling-the-playing-field-for-impoverished-americans/"]press release[/URL].[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]"It is my sincere hope that my bill will help eradicate the stigma associated with poverty and engage the American public in a substantive dialogue regarding the struggles of working- and middle-class families," she said in the release.[/QUOTE]

But the entire point of being a rich person in America is the hookers and blow! Where else are wealthy people going to live in depraved decadence while paying off the law to turn a blind eye?

This has to pass. If it doesn't pass you could easily paint the congressmen that don't want it to pass as hypocritical for mandatory drug testing for the poor.

[quote]Moore's proposal is also an implicit counterpunch to Republican-backed laws requiring people to undergo drug tests before receiving public assistance.[/quote] Makes sense to me - equal treatment for everyone, regardless of the type of monetary help you're receiving.

Sounds like it would piss off some rich people, but they'll probably lobby against this preposterous proposal.

I can't believe it took so long to come up with this idea... Also using the same argument for drug tests to the poor, everybody has to do it so it's not discriminitory

[QUOTE=Sableye;50541047]I can't believe it took so long to come up with this idea... [/QUOTE] Reminds me of the time some politician was trying to pass a bill that required people on government assistance to make all their purchases and receipts public. I suggested that since they're also being paid with tax-payer dollars, that [I]we[/I] want to see all of [I]their[/I] (as in the politicians, but mostly the one in question) purchases and receipts.

Yes, test before letting them keep their own money. Genius logic.

[QUOTE=sgman91;50541258]Yes, test before letting them keep their own money. Genius logic.[/QUOTE] Before they have access to tax benefits their claiming which really seems like a far more reasonable idea than you're implying here. The rich, the politicians, and tons of republicans have wanted poor people to be subject to this for access to welfare. Yes, those are public funds. What's the difference here? If the government is entitled to their money via taxes, those tax exemptions they receive are after that money is "entitled" to the government, so I wonder, why shouldn't this be the case? Why should only the poor be punished in this manner?

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50541292]Before they have access to tax benefits their claiming which really seems like a far more reasonable idea than you're implying here. The rich, the politicians, and tons of republicans have wanted poor people to be subject to this for access to welfare. Yes, those are public funds. What's the difference here? If the government is entitled to their money via taxes, those tax exemptions they receive are after that money is "entitled" to the government, so I wonder, why shouldn't this be the case? Why should only the poor be punished in this manner?[/QUOTE] They want people on welfare to get drug tested to ensure that other people's money isn't being wasted on things like drugs. No one cares what you do with your own money, whether you're rich or poor. The government isn't entitled in any way to money that's being kept through a tax break.

[QUOTE=VinLAURiA;50541013]But the entire point of being a rich person in America is the hookers and blow! Where else are wealthy people going to live in depraved decadence while paying off the law to turn a blind eye?[/QUOTE] Drink milk every day and take aspirin only once on every three coma-inducing migrains. Like a good boy :)

[QUOTE=sgman91;50541338]They want people on welfare to get drug tested to ensure that other people's money isn't being wasted on things like drugs. No one cares what you do with your own money, whether you're rich or poor. The government isn't entitled to money that's applied to a tax break because that tax break's entire purpose is that you get to keep that part.[/QUOTE] I beg to disagree. There's tons of people who care what you spend your own money on, including the government, you're not allowed to spend your money on illicit drugs, and the rich almost never get arrested for the drug habbits they've been documented to have. They are matter of factly, treated better than poor drug addicts or users, there's a disgusting dichotomy there regardless of your personal opinion on the matter. I disagree, again on whether that's their money or not. Without that tax break, that money wouldn't be theirs, that tax break exists because the rich have done their best to minimize the effective taxes and costs they pay. If the basis of why they get to keep their tax returns is changed, then that's no longer the case I believe. In any event, the concept that the rich can't undergo the same level of examination while forcing the poor of the country to do so without a good reason, without any evidence showing that regularly testing employees who are not involved in heavy machinery has any effect on the productivity of the company is hypocritical. The rich want to enforce drug checking policies for their employees, their citizens, everyone, except themselves, one of the single largest users of luxury and high class drugs in the US. But no, you're right, it's their money, they can buy all the illegal blow they want, and never face any consequences for it because the systems stacked in their favour from the judiciary system all the way to the legislative system.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50541363]I beg to disagree. There's tons of people who care what you spend your own money on, including the government, you're not allowed to spend your money on illicit drugs, and the rich almost never get arrested for the drug habbits they've been documented to have. They are matter of factly, treated better than poor drug addicts or users, there's a disgusting dichotomy there regardless of your personal opinion on the matter. I disagree, again on whether that's their money or not. Without that tax break, that money wouldn't be theirs, that tax break exists because the rich have done their best to minimize the effective taxes and costs they pay. If the basis of why they get to keep their tax returns is changed, then that's no longer the case I believe. In any event, the concept that the rich can't undergo the same level of examination while forcing the poor of the country to do so without a good reason, without any evidence showing that regularly testing employees who are not involved in heavy machinery has any effect on the productivity of the company is hypocritical. The rich want to enforce drug checking policies for their employees, their citizens, everyone, except themselves, one of the single largest users of luxury and high class drugs in the US. But no, you're right, it's their money, they can buy all the illegal blow they want, and never face any consequences for it because the systems stacked in their favour from the judiciary system all the way to the legislative system.[/QUOTE] You're taking this into an entire different direction. I'm not talking about the fairness of the justice system. I'm not talking about the fairness of the specific tax breaks. Etc. I'm talking about one thing and one thing only: there's a difference between keeping your own money and being given other people's money. Saying that the money wouldn't have been theirs without the tax break is like saying none of the money would have been theirs if the government had higher taxes. That line of reasoning only works if you start with the assumption that all the money is inherently the government's and they get to decide what to let the person keep. If you start with the assumption that all the money is the person's, and the government takes a certain amount, then any money not taken by the government is still the person's.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50541363]I beg to disagree. There's tons of people who care what you spend your own money on, including the government, you're not allowed to spend your money on illicit drugs, and the rich almost never get arrested for the drug habbits they've been documented to have. They are matter of factly, treated better than poor drug addicts or users, there's a disgusting dichotomy there regardless of your personal opinion on the matter. I disagree, again on whether that's their money or not. Without that tax break, that money wouldn't be theirs, that tax break exists because the rich have done their best to minimize the effective taxes and costs they pay. If the basis of why they get to keep their tax returns is changed, then that's no longer the case I believe. In any event, the concept that the rich can't undergo the same level of examination while forcing the poor of the country to do so without a good reason, without any evidence showing that regularly testing employees who are not involved in heavy machinery has any effect on the productivity of the company is hypocritical. The rich want to enforce drug checking policies for their employees, their citizens, everyone, except themselves, one of the single largest users of luxury and high class drugs in the US. But no, you're right, it's their money, they can buy all the illegal blow they want, and never face any consequences for it because the systems stacked in their favour from the judiciary system all the way to the legislative system.[/QUOTE] I don't agree with you very often but spot on.

Ya' know what fuck it, lets go the extra mile Lets make it so everyone has to get drug tested for a tax refund. Watch as no one ever wants a tax refund again, or drug usage rates suddenly drop in the January-February-March area :v:

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50541363]I beg to disagree. There's tons of people who care what you spend your own money on, including the government, you're not allowed to spend your money on illicit drugs, and the rich almost never get arrested for the drug habbits they've been documented to have. They are matter of factly, treated better than poor drug addicts or users, there's a disgusting dichotomy there regardless of your personal opinion on the matter. I disagree, again on whether that's their money or not. Without that tax break, that money wouldn't be theirs, that tax break exists because the rich have done their best to minimize the effective taxes and costs they pay. If the basis of why they get to keep their tax returns is changed, then that's no longer the case I believe. In any event, the concept that the rich can't undergo the same level of examination while forcing the poor of the country to do so without a good reason, without any evidence showing that regularly testing employees who are not involved in heavy machinery has any effect on the productivity of the company is hypocritical. The rich want to enforce drug checking policies for their employees, their citizens, everyone, except themselves, one of the single largest users of luxury and high class drugs in the US. But no, you're right, it's their money, they can buy all the illegal blow they want, and never face any consequences for it because the systems stacked in their favour from the judiciary system all the way to the legislative system.[/QUOTE] I agree with you on every point except not being allowed to spend money on illicit drugs. Poor or rich, everybody should be free to blow their money on whatever they want. But that is me just being nitpicky.

[QUOTE=LtKyle2;50541433]I agree with you on every point except not being allowed to spend money on illicit drugs. Poor or rich, everybody should be free to blow their money on whatever they want. But that is me just being nitpicky.[/QUOTE] Actually, i'm pretty sure buying illegal stuff is illegal.

[QUOTE=sgman91;50541338]They want people on welfare to get drug tested to ensure that other people's money isn't being wasted on things like drugs. No one cares what you do with your own money, whether you're rich or poor. The government isn't entitled in any way to money that's being kept through a tax break.[/QUOTE] I want people on corporate welfare to get drug tested to ensure that my money isn't being wasted on things like drugs.

[QUOTE=eirexe;50541568]Actually, i'm pretty sure buying illegal stuff is illegal.[/QUOTE] Personally I think it shouldn't be illegal in the first place.

[QUOTE=Omali;50541586]I want people on corporate welfare to get drug tested to ensure that my money isn't being wasted on things like drugs.[/QUOTE] Nothing in this thread is talking about "corporate welfare." It's about personal tax deductions. If a corporation were able to take drugs, then I would agree. With that said, I totally agree that there should be more oversight with how the government's money is spent by corporations (Ideally, the government wouldn't be giving any money to corporations, but that's another discussion entirely). If that were happening we might not end up with failures like Solyndra.

[QUOTE=sgman91;50541603]Nothing in this thread is talking about "corporate welfare." It's about personal tax deductions. If a corporation were able to take drugs, then I would agree. With that said, I totally agree that there should be more oversight with how the government's money is spent by corporations (Ideally, the government wouldn't be giving any money to corporations, but that's another discussion entirely).[/QUOTE] You shouldn't have access to personal tax deductions if you're breaking the law taking drugs.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50541620]You shouldn't have access to personal tax deductions if you're breaking the law taking drugs.[/QUOTE] Do we take away the ability to use tax deductions for every crime? If so, then sure. If not, then no. The issue in question would be the crime part, not the drug part.

[QUOTE=sgman91;50541635]Do we take away the ability to use tax deductions for every crime? If so, then sure. If not, then no. The issue in question would be the crime part, not the drug part.[/QUOTE] Seeing as crime of any sort denies one welfare, then yes, they should be denied their tax exemptions for any crime. However, because the rich, and affluent face criminal charges in an entirely different manner than the rest of the population this wouldn't have a practical, or noticeable affect because they largely avoid even getting booked for said crimes. The drug testing aspect of this at least gives them some semblance of chance to be caught red handed at some point in time.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50541671]Seeing as crime of any sort denies one welfare, then yes, they should be denied their tax exemptions for any crime. However, because the rich, and affluent face criminal charges in an entirely different manner than the rest of the population this wouldn't have a practical, or noticeable affect because they largely avoid even getting booked for said crimes. The drug testing aspect of this at least gives them some semblance of chance to be caught red handed at some point in time.[/QUOTE] Do the middle class or poor lose their tax deductions when convicted of criminal activity?

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50541671]Seeing as crime of any sort denies one welfare, then yes, they should be denied their tax exemptions for any crime. However, because the rich, and affluent face criminal charges in an entirely different manner than the rest of the population this wouldn't have a practical, or noticeable affect because they largely avoid even getting booked for said crimes. The drug testing aspect of this at least gives them some semblance of chance to be caught red handed at some point in time.[/QUOTE] Tax exemptions/deductions/credits are not welfare. [editline]maybe i shouldnt be posting[/editline] Perhaps instead of enacting convoluted, expensive programs to sate some ridiculous proletarian bloodthirst, we could instead focus on reforming the tax code so we wouldn't have these problems in the first place.

[QUOTE=Chonch;50542327]Tax exemptions/deductions/credits are not welfare.[/QUOTE] No and I don't think they have to be the same to have similar conclusions on what you have access too. [editline]17th June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Chonch;50542327] Perhaps instead of enacting convoluted, expensive programs to sate some ridiculous proletarian bloodthirst, we could instead focus on reforming the tax code so we wouldn't have these problems in the first place.[/QUOTE] That's a great fucking idea! I agree! Now, will the rich who you're saying I have a "blood thirst" for accept that lying down? Will the systems of legislation, consultation, and lobbyism allow that? Who's going to spend the millions, bankroll the millions, to force that change down? Such a change would be faced by huge amounts of lobbyist money, you need to counter that. Who's going to? [editline]17th June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;50542023]Do the middle class or poor lose their tax deductions when convicted of criminal activity?[/QUOTE] Sure just to keep things in line with each other. I don't think all drugs should be illegal in the first place, so that's not really the goal of such a process. The goal should be to make the tax burdens more equal. You're not going to get that in the current system.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50542358]No and I don't think they have to be the same to have similar conclusions on what you have access too. [editline]17th June 2016[/editline] That's a great fucking idea! I agree! Now, will the rich who you're saying I have a "blood thirst" for accept that lying down? Will the systems of legislation, consultation, and lobbyism allow that? Who's going to spend the millions, bankroll the millions, to force that change down? Such a change would be faced by huge amounts of lobbyist money, you need to counter that. Who's going to? [editline]17th June 2016[/editline] Sure just to keep things in line with each other. I don't think all drugs should be illegal in the first place, so that's not really the goal of such a process. The goal should be to make the tax burdens more equal. You're not going to get that in the current system.[/QUOTE] I don't quite get your argument. Are you trying to actually argue that this drug testing idea makes sense in the same way as welfare drug testing or are you just trying to spite rich people?

[QUOTE=sgman91;50541258]Yes, test before letting them keep their own money. Genius logic.[/QUOTE] you did not read. they aren't keeping their money, that money has been spent. they are deducting that expenditure from their taxes, the government is deciding to subtract that money from their taxes, which means they're writing that tax income off the books. Functionally identical to cutting a check to the poor [editline]18th June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;50542419]I don't quite get your argument. Are you trying to actually argue that this drug testing idea makes sense in the same way as welfare drug testing or are you just trying to spite rich people?[/QUOTE] drug testing the poor doesn't make any sense anyways. it costs millions AND less than 1% of applicants test positive. These bogus tests waste more money than they save

[QUOTE=Sableye;50542459]you did not read. they aren't keeping their money, that money has been spent. they are deducting that expenditure from their taxes, the government is deciding to subtract that money from their taxes, which means they're writing that tax debt off the books. Functionally identical to cutting a check to the poor[/QUOTE] Deductions are a decreasing of the amount of taxes that a person owes by lowering the amount of money in higher tax brackets. The person in question just owes less taxes. They aren't being given any money. Any money they receive at the end of the year is the result of them overpaying, not the government deciding to give them money. [QUOTE]drug testing the poor doesn't make any sense anyways. it costs millions AND less than 1% of applicants test positive. These bogus tests waste more money than they save[/QUOTE] I'm not even arguing that any drug testing is good at the moment, just that this idea about rich people isn't comparable on it's face.

[QUOTE=sgman91;50542491]Deductions are a decreasing of the amount of taxes that a person owes by lowering the amount of money in higher tax brackets. The person in question just owes less taxes. They aren't being given any money. Any money they receive at the end of the year is the result of them overpaying, not the government deciding to give them money. I'm not even arguing that any drug testing is good at the moment, just that this idea about rich people isn't comparable on it's face.[/QUOTE] you don't understand, the government has already budgeted that that person owes X, by allowing the deduction, they are essentially saying they now owe X-y. while the government isn't cutting them a check for +150,000$ they are writing off the sum y from the books, which is identical to writing a check for the same amount