• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

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

It isn't semantics. Refunds are our money and what ends up in the government coffers is the government's money, subject to feedback by the people. What doesn't is ours (and thanks to withholding, much of what is initially theirs is still ours). Just because some typical government accounting voodoo says all money is technically the government's before tax breaks doesn't make it so. Jesus, do they not teach philosophy at Wake anymore? I mean, I don't remember what the hell Kant and Descartes and those guys believed, but at least the class assisted in basic logic skills.

That having been said, the merits of drug testing welfare recipients can be argued, albeit only from a cost benefit perspective.


----------
Tapatalk.
 
You just answered my point about semantics by saying "nuh uh"

Bottom line is you're not owed a deduction. It's a figment of the governments imagination and used to promote or discourage behavior. Just like welfare rules.
 
EatLeadCommie said:
It isn't semantics. Refunds are our money and what ends up in the government coffers is the government's money, subject to feedback by the people. What doesn't is ours (and thanks to withholding, much of what is initially theirs is still ours). Just because some typical government accounting voodoo says all money is technically the government's before tax breaks doesn't make it so. Jesus, do they not teach philosophy at Wake anymore? I mean, I don't remember what the hell Kant and Descartes and those guys believed, but at least the class assisted in basic logic skills.

That having been said, the merits of drug testing welfare recipients can be argued, albeit only from a cost benefit perspective.


----------
Tapatalk.
Click to expand...

So would you be in favor of drug testing anybody who receives government money?
 
It's only "your income" because of a property rights regime enforced by the government. There's no bedrock desert to get to.


Except of course that capital income is theft!! ☭
 
People actually arguing that a tax deduction for the "rich" is the same as welfare is easily the stupidest thing I have ever seen on this board.
 
What is the purpose of a tax deduction, from the government's perspective?
 
scooter84 said:
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?
Click to expand...

So they don't use federal assistance to buy drugs.
 
ImTheCaptain said:
You just answered my point about semantics by saying "nuh uh"

Bottom line is you're not owed a deduction. It's a figment of the governments imagination and used to promote or discourage behavior. Just like welfare rules.
Click to expand...

Actually, you are owed a deduction if you claim it. That's why you get it. Welfare is not meant to promote or discourage behavior. It is meant to keep people off the streets. If anything, a tax deduction which encourages a certain behavior is akin to the drug testing itself, which discourages a certain behavior. But a tax deduction is not anything close to welfare.

How about we drug test everybody who files their taxes and is owed a refund? Doesn't sound so cool now, does it? You mean that tax free loan the government got from me isn't the same as a welfare handout? Who knew!? But as long as it is something affecting the top 1%, everybody is A-OK for that and jumps through all sorts of hoops to justify their idiotic notions.
 
PhDeac said:
So would you be in favor of drug testing anybody who receives government money?
Click to expand...

I think the problem here is we have no accurate accounting of what exactly constitutes "government money." A tax refund or deduction does not. If you're talking about corporate welfare or something, well good luck drug testing Nabisco.
 
EatLeadCommie said:
Actually, you are owed a deduction if you claim it. That's why you get it. Welfare is not meant to promote or discourage behavior. It is meant to keep people off the streets. If anything, a tax deduction which encourages a certain behavior is akin to the drug testing itself, which discourages a certain behavior. But a tax deduction is not anything close to welfare.

How about we drug test everybody who files their taxes and is owed a refund? Doesn't sound so cool now, does it? You mean that tax free loan the government got from me isn't the same as a welfare handout? Who knew!? But as long as it is something affecting the top 1%, everybody is A-OK for that and jumps through all sorts of hoops to justify their idiotic notions.
Click to expand...

This is so obviously incorrect. SNAP is meant to encourage eating, that's why it's an in-kind benefit that pays for food. Daycare subsidies are meant to encourage poor parents to work, that's why it pays for a service that lets parents leave their children with competent childcare pros during normal working hours. TANF, to the extent it exists, encourages work and job-training, that's why it requires recipients to work or get job training. Section 8 is meant to encourage people to live in a building, that's why it pays for rent.

WTF.
 
I can't decide if I like the snark of this idea more than or equally to forcing men to get the approval of their wife and/or doctor before getting an ED prescription (which I think originated in Kentucky?).
 
i mean clearly it's a snarky political stunt. That said I am one of the many posters who have beat the drum of tax expenditures being the same as handouts for years, because it's true. The impact to the fisc of a $100 handout is exactly the same as the impact of a $100 deduction from, or credit against, taxes that would otherwise be due and owing. Take the mortgage interest deduction. No one has ever explained to me how this is anything other than a handout to homeowners that takes money away from other important government priorities, discriminates against renters, and encourages excessive borrowing and sprawly development patterns. All the other English-speaking nations either don't have it or phased it out, and their homeownership rates are at least as high as ours, so the argument that it encourages homeownership is clearly false.
 
TuffaloDeac10 said:
This is so obviously incorrect. SNAP is meant to encourage eating, that's why it's an in-kind benefit that pays for food. Daycare subsidies are meant to encourage poor parents to work, that's why it pays for a service that lets parents leave their children with competent childcare pros during normal working hours. TANF, to the extent it exists, encourages work and job-training, that's why it requires recipients to work or get job training. Section 8 is meant to encourage people to live in a building, that's why it pays for rent.

WTF.
Click to expand...

"Encourage eating"...that's a new one. Like I said, it's a safety net with a completely different purpose-- to keep people off the streets (Section 8 encouraging people to "live in a building.). Yeah, ok, there are elements to it to subsidize certain actions. A gal won't try to work if her daycare costs more than she makes (dated a girl with that problem once who, incidentally, happened to also smoke a shitload of weed. To her credit, she did mooch most of it rather than spend her own scarce money), so there are subsidies for that and there is OTJ type shit available. Again, all for the purpose of allowing people to better their circumstance and all of it a gift from the government not remotely akin to tax breaks.
 
Whether your counterfactual is cash assistance or no assistance, SNAP clearly encourages eating, specifically of self-prepared food. That is promoting a behavior. There's no two ways about it.
 
Deacon923 said:
i mean clearly it's a snarky political stunt. That said I am one of the many posters who have beat the drum of tax expenditures being the same as handouts for years, because it's true. The impact to the fisc of a $100 handout is exactly the same as the impact of a $100 deduction from, or credit against, taxes that would otherwise be due and owing. Take the mortgage interest deduction. No one has ever explained to me how this is anything other than a handout to homeowners that takes money away from other important government priorities, discriminates against renters, and encourages excessive borrowing and sprawly development patterns. All the other English-speaking nations either don't have it or phased it out, and their homeownership rates are at least as high as ours, so the argument that it encourages homeownership is clearly false.
Click to expand...

Actually, the impact of a $100 handout is $100, whereas the impact of a $100 deduction is more likely to be about $15, but I guess it could be as high as around $33.

The MID is a boom to the real estate industry and was certainly a factor in my decision to buy. If it encourages excessive borrowing and sprawly development patterns, then it would follow that it does encourage home ownership. If we are on par with other English-speaking nations, do they have any incentives for home ownership that aren't tax deductions? I don't care if it's unfair to renters. They are renting and don't bear the burdens of maintenance that their landlords do. And in spite of RJ's claims to the contrary, the hit they take on property taxes isn't nearly as substantial either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top