Bill would require drug test to claim high-dollar tax deduction

[*bfine32*]

(06-20-2016, 03:03 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Because $150,000 is a lot more in savings than a couple hundred bucks?

"Who should we stop from getting benefits from the government because of drug use, the person costing us under $1,000 or the person costing us over $150,000?"

(06-20-2016, 03:23 PM)Benton Wrote: I think Pat answered pretty well.

If we're going to spend (I have no idea the cost, never had to buy one) $50 to drug test someone getting $500 a month in food stamps, shouldn't we also be drug testing someone getting hundreds of thousands of dollars in subsidies and benefits?

And there's the argument that taxpayers paying for the interest on someone's vacation home isn't the same, as the guy with the vacation home earned the money he's getting paid back. On the other hand, many of the people using some social service are people who paid in for years but found themselves in need, so they're being drug tested for money they're getting back.

I am absolutely at a loss. The point of drug-testing those on welfare is to ensure they are not spending other people's money on drugs.  The only reason I've gotten so far for testing those that earn deductions is because they have earned deductions. I am amazed daily at some of the stances this board has. 

FWIW, I'm not in favor of drug testing or itemized deductions. I just see no correlation behind the mentality for drug testing both.  

[StLucieBengal]

(06-20-2016, 03:03 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Because $150,000 is a lot more in savings than a couple hundred bucks?

"Who should we stop from getting benefits from the government because of drug use, the person costing us under $1,000 or the person costing us over $150,000?"

We could stop giving everyone benefits.   

Flat tax, no deductions, no welfare 

[*bfine32*]

StLucie Bengal Wrote:We could stop giving everyone benefits.

Flat tax, no deductions, no welfare

Maybe I could get some feedback from one of the tax experts. Ballpark, how much would somebody that could claim $150,000 in deductions have paid into the system?

[StLucieBengal]

(06-20-2016, 04:32 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Maybe I could get  some feedback from one of the tax experts. Ballpark, how much would somebody that could claim $150,000 in deductions have paid into the system?

It would be nice.    

I hate giving welfare out but I evolving to replacing it with a mincome.    I know it's not right to just give people money.   I would love to aee the cost differences between what we have now and a min come only scenario. 

[*bfine32*]

(06-20-2016, 04:43 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: It would be nice.    

I hate giving welfare out but I evolving to replacing it with a mincome.    I know it's not right to just give people money.   I would love to aee the cost differences between what we have now and a min come only scenario. 

I remember once in an accounting class when to Professor once mention something like The top 5%  pay 85% of the Federal Taxes. Now I could be mis-remembering this, so I'll just wait to see how much of a burden on society are those that claim these deductions. 

[StLucieBengal]

(06-20-2016, 04:47 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I remember once in an accounting class when to Professor once mention something like The top 5%  pay 85% of the Federal Taxes. Now I could be mis-remembering this, so I'll just wait to see how much of a burden on society are those that claim these deductions. 

Well there is your first mistake.   Using common sense, logic, and basic fundamentals.  These guys don't care about any of those...  

[BmorePat87]

(06-20-2016, 04:16 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I just see no correlation behind the mentality for drug testing both.  

Of course you do, it just doesn't fit your narrative. 

[Benton]

(06-20-2016, 04:16 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I am absolutely at a loss. The point of drug-testing those on welfare is to ensure they are not spending other people's money on drugs.  The only reason I've gotten so far for testing those that earn deductions is because they have earned deductions. I am amazed daily at some of the stances this board has. 

FWIW, I'm not in favor of drug testing or itemized deductions. I just see no correlation behind the mentality for drug testing both.  

If it's food stamps, WIC, Medicare, they shouldn't be spending that money on drugs, because it's not physical money. Unless drug dealers are taking WIC checks now. But the same would be true with the deductions. Writing off your race horse is supposed to spur (get it, spur?) the horse raising and racing industry... but if those guys are taking my tax dollars and blowing it on cocaine instead of horse shoes, it's akin to taking my tax money and blowing it on meth instead of their heating bill.

FWIW, I'm not in favor of drug testing or itemized deductions, either. I just don't like the current theme of trying to alienate or vilify people in need while rewarding people who have enough money to not have to pay out as much money. I said earlier in the thread, if we're going to have a system with deductions, fine, but have them accessible to everyone. Having lower tax rates on bigger boats than smaller boats or having a race horse isn't something accessible to everyone.

[Benton]

(06-20-2016, 04:47 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I remember once in an accounting class when to Professor once mention something like The top 5%  pay 85% of the Federal Taxes. Now I could be mis-remembering this, so I'll just wait to see how much of a burden on society are those that claim these deductions. 

https://www.aei.org/publication/as-tax-day-approaches-lets-thank-top-20-for-shouldering-84-of-the-income-tax-burden-with-only-50-of-us-income/

Quote:The top 20% of Americans earn about half of all income (51.3%) and pay almost all income taxes (84%), see top chart.


...


 As the WSJ points out, the top 1% of Americans (about 3.2 million people) earn about 17% of total US income, but pay almost as much in taxes (about 46% of the total) as the 322 million people in the bottom 99%

I've heard similar, that was just the first thing that comes up in a Google search. The only thing that's a little off with most of those stories are the negative for the bottom 20% of earners. The stories usually say they receive more than they pay, but that omits gas taxes, sales taxes, and other taxes they have to pay, it's just referring to federal taxes and benefits. On the other hand, it doesn't go into how much the top 20% isn't paying.

Which, for me, is the issue.

There's a few deductions that are good and universal, but many aren't. Or aren't usable without some good tax attorneys on your side. It's prohibitive to people running businesses or just get ahead. We don't need to talk about lower rates and higher rates until we get rid of loopholes and deductions. It doesn't matter if your rate is... if one guy has a good tax attorney he's going to pay 0% and a guy without that resource is going to pay 100%.

[fredtoast]

(06-20-2016, 04:16 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I am absolutely at a loss. The point of drug-testing those on welfare is to ensure they are not spending other people's money on drugs.  The only reason I've gotten so far for testing those that earn deductions is because they have earned deductions. I am amazed daily at some of the stances this board has. 

Shouldn't we make sure that the people who get tax subsidies by having chikldren spend that money of thier children instead of drugs?

[fredtoast]

(06-20-2016, 01:04 PM)bfine32 Wrote: As to your feeble-minded econ lesson: What you say is true for the Short-Run impact, but not necessarily for the long-run benefit of the Macro-Economy.

Please explain how reducing revenue is not the same as increasing expenditures in long term macro terms.

[*bfine32*]

(06-20-2016, 06:56 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Shouldn't we make sure that the people who get tax subsidies by having chikldren spend that money of thier children instead of drugs?

Nobody who pays their own way should be subjected to drug tests to see determine what they are spending their money on; however, if that same family has to rely on handouts from the government  to provide for their family; I'm not going to pick up  a picket sign if the government wants to ensure those funds aren't going toward illegal drugs. 

[*bfine32*]

(06-20-2016, 06:59 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Please explain how reducing revenue is not the same as increasing expenditures in long term macro terms.

As simple as I can state it: with increase revenue you can be more diverse; than you can with savings. Short-term impact they are similar; however, in the long term they may not be; depending on where the revenue is allocated.


WTS, I know where this is going: you will ask another question, it will be answered, then you will ask another question....

We'll just let it go as you think that are exactly the same in long term and I think they very-well can be different. Either way; it's really not relevant to the discussion of weather those that pay the vast majority in Federal taxes should be drug-tested because those that drain the economy may be. 

[*bfine32*]

(06-20-2016, 06:15 PM)Benton Wrote: https://www.aei.org/publication/as-tax-day-approaches-lets-thank-top-20-for-shouldering-84-of-the-income-tax-burden-with-only-50-of-us-income/



I've heard similar, that was just the first thing that comes up in a Google search. The only thing that's a little off with most of those stories are the negative for the bottom 20% of earners. The stories usually say they receive more than they pay, but that omits gas taxes, sales taxes, and other taxes they have to pay, it's just referring to federal taxes and benefits. On the other hand, it doesn't go into how much the top 20% isn't paying.

Which, for me, is the issue.

There's a few deductions that are good and universal, but many aren't. Or aren't usable without some good tax attorneys on your side. It's prohibitive to people running businesses or just get ahead. We don't need to talk about lower rates and higher rates until we get rid of loopholes and deductions. It doesn't matter if your rate is... if one guy has a good tax attorney he's going to pay 0% and a guy without that resource is going to pay 100%.

So we can agree that those that earn more money pay more taxes. Sure, just like everyone else they will look for deductions; but they are not costing the government money the way those who only take do.  

[Benton]

(06-20-2016, 07:10 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So we can agree that those that earn more money pay more taxes. Sure, just like everyone else they will look for deductions; but they are not costing the government money the way those who only take do.  

Honestly, I haven't ever read a study or enough material that satisfied my questions in that regard.

Take WalMart.

http://ftmdaily.com/daily-briefing/is-now-a-good-time-to-invest-in-walmart/

Quote: Since 2009, the company has increased its earnings per share by 59% and its free-cash-flow by 123%. During that same time, the company has returned $60 billion to shareholders in the form of dividends and share repurchases.

...

Wal-Mart became a publicly traded company in 1970. Let’s say that you decided back in the summer of 1971 to toss $100 into Wal-Mart stock. If you had held that stock until today, your original $100 investment would now be worth an astounding $315,105.28! (And this is assuming that you did not reinvest your dividends, but instead, took them as a cash distribution.) If you would have had the foresight to invest say $5,000 back then, your Wal-mart stock would now be worth a cool $15.7 million! (You can use this handy calculator to come up with your own “what-ifs” with Wal-Mart’s stock)

Which is great. If part of your portfolio comes from WalMart (full disclosure, I own some WalMart stocks so I'm guilty of the last point), you most likely made money off of that. If you earned enough money off of it, you might even be able to shelter it or get loopholes to keep a sizable chunk of it.

The problem is, that per share earning increase came at a cost of an annual $6 billion to taxpayers in the form of employee social aide  (link below). That's not even including any taxes WalMart didn't pay, like the $80 billion it's got overseas in tax shelters. That's over $100 billion in tax dollars to keep the company increasing its share value, so indirectly anyone who owns shares is having an impact on the government in the same way as those who only take.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2014/04/15/report-walmart-workers-cost-taxpayers-6-2-billion-in-public-assistance/#363df1d47cd8

[fredtoast]

(06-20-2016, 07:10 PM)bfine32 Wrote:  but they are not costing the government money the way those who only take do.  

Sure they are.

Reducing revenue has the same exact effect as increasing expenses.

Every dollar they take in deductions or tax credits is the same as every dollar paid out on benefits.

[fredtoast]

(06-20-2016, 07:08 PM)bfine32 Wrote: As simple as I can state it: with increase revenue you can be more diverse; than you can with savings. Short-term impact they are similar; however, in the long term they may not be; depending on where the revenue is allocated.

But reduced revenue does not allow any more diversification.

Reduced revenue is just like increased expense.  It has the same effect on the bottom lione.

[fredtoast]

(06-20-2016, 07:03 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Nobody who pays their own way should be subjected to drug tests to see determine what they are spending their money on; 

They are not "paying thier own way".  They are being subsidized by the government.  

A person with a child gets more money in his pocket than a person with no children due to a government subsidy.  The people with no children are picking up the slack for the people with children.