Let's drug-test the rich before approving tax deductions, US congresswoman says

[BobStackFan4Life]

Gwen Moore to propose bill requiring tests for returns with itemized deductions of more than $150,000, in response to right’s ‘criminalization of poverty’

Wisconsin’s governor, Scott Walker, really, really wants to know if needy residents of his state use recreational drugs. He’s already put into effect legislation forcing applicants for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (Tanf), commonly known as welfare, to answer questions about their potential drug use and submit to testing if their answers provide a reasonable suspicion that they might use controlled substances. He’s suing the federal government for the right to test Wisconsin participants in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (Snap), better known as food stamps, for the same reason. And in May, he issued new administrative rules to implement drug testing for some people seeking unemployment benefits in the state.

His is not a unique interest: Governor Rick Scott of Florida, for instance, spent four years and $1.5m taxpayer dollars fighting for the right to test all his state’s Tanf recipients; and Alabama congressman Robert Aderholt has proposed legislation to overturn the law that prevents the testing of Snap recipients.

Moore plans to introduce a bill on Thursday that she thinks will even the playing field or, at least, “engage the wealthy in a conversation about what fair tax policy looks like”. The bill, called the Top 1% Accountability Act, would force taxpayers with itemized deductions of more than $150,000 – which, according to 2011 tax data compiled by the IRS, would only be households with a yearly federal adjusted gross income of more than $1m – to submit to the IRS a clear drug test from a sample no more than three months old, or take the much lower standard deduction when filing their taxes. (In 2016, for comparison, the standard deduction for single people or married people filing separately is $6,300.)

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/16/gwen-moore-drug-test-rich-for-tax-deductions

 

[TuffaloDeac10]

 

[scooter84]

What is even the logic there? Or is it just funny or sarcastic?

I assumed the logic behind drug testing those on federal assistance was that we didn't want them using money to buy and use recreational and illegal drugs when they needed money from the government to live and support their families. That, and I guess there is a presumption that using illegal drugs makes it more difficult to get on your feet and off of government assistance.

Where is the analogy for testing the so-called rich?

 

[ImTheCaptain]

why should we give deductions if the money is not going to be put to useful purpose?

 

[ChrisL68]

Well, for one thing all of these drug testing welfare initiatives are state driven. In cases where somebody has itemized deductions on that level of income the vast majority is for state income taxes.

 

[scooter84]

why should we give deductions if the money is not going to be put to useful purpose?

Not quite the same thing, IMO. The government is not writing them a check - only taking a little less of their money in the form of taxes. Taxes that they already pay at a higher rate than people making less money.

 

[DeaconCav06]

Both take money out of the treasury.

 

[ImTheCaptain]

Not quite the same thing, IMO. The government is not writing them a check - only taking a little less of their money in the form of taxes. Taxes that they already pay at a higher rate than people making less money.

only at the pleasure of the State (government); they make the rules in terms of "taking less", despite what we all feel/believe

 

[scooter84]

Both take money out of the treasury.

Most deductions are designed to incentivize behavior that the government deems desirable for some reason - in some cases because it is thought to ultimately improve the economy and actually increase the total revenue collection.

It is humorous to me that anyone would try to equate handing out money to people who are a net financial drain with taking away less money from the people who are driving the economy and supporting those very net drain folks with their tax dollars. I can't believe anyone could think about that for a minute and say 'yea, that seems like the same thing'.

 

[DeaconCav06]

Tell me more about taxes.

 

[19deac92]

why should we pay taxes if the money is not going to be put to useful purpose?

FIFY

 

[ImTheCaptain]

FIFY

 

[EatLeadCommie]

Typical LW claptrap. Apparently, tax incentives are the same as handouts.

 

[RJKarl]

That's what they are.

 

[ImTheCaptain]

Typical LW claptrap. Apparently, tax incentives are the same as handouts.

if the government says we're increasing your taxes to X percentage, what are you going to do, really? bitch and moan? beyond the semantic argument deductions are no different than welfare

 

[WakeandBake]

Most deductions are designed to incentivize behavior that the government deems desirable for some reason - in some cases because it is thought to ultimately improve the economy and actually increase the total revenue collection.

It is humorous to me that anyone would try to equate handing out money to people who are a net financial drain with taking away less money from the people who are driving the economy and supporting those very net drain folks with their tax dollars. I can't believe anyone could think about that for a minute and say 'yea, that seems like the same thing'.

It is thought to, or it does? Fairly consistently since WWII, revenue is about 15-20% of GDP. Deductions are just handouts, they do not really change revenues, they just favor certain groups over others.

Maybe instead of deducters, the drug test should be given to those who benefit from, and in some cases live off, untaxed income or income tax substantially lower than the working man.

 

[BirdinBama]

Bottom line seems to me that a failed drug test by a welfare recipient, and the subsequent suspension of benefits, would only hurt the recipient's dependents. It's a typically fucked up Republican wacko idea.

 

[PhDeac]

Not surprised ELC supports tax breaks for druggies.

 

[RJKarl]

Most deductions are designed to incentivize behavior that the government deems desirable for some reason - in some cases because it is thought to ultimately improve the economy and actually increase the total revenue collection.

It is humorous to me that anyone would try to equate handing out money to people who are a net financial drain with taking away less money from the people who are driving the economy and supporting those very net drain folks with their tax dollars. I can't believe anyone could think about that for a minute and say 'yea, that seems like the same thing'.

The rich do not drive economy. The middle does.

It's very basic marketing. the Top 5% can afford things already. Plus 50% in the middle buy more units.

Even the architect of Reagan's supply side economics, David Stockman, said in his book the concept was a scam from Day One. It was a way to pay back Reagan's benfactors and make them richer. Read his book.

 

[Deacs89]

The rich do not drive economy. The middle does.

It's very basic marketing. the Top 5% can afford things already. Plus 50% in the middle buy more units.

Even the architect of Reagan's supply side economics, David Stockman, said in his book the concept was a scam from Day One. It was a way to pay back Reagan's benfactors and make them richer. Read his book.

Drug test everyone !