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

[fredtoast]

(06-17-2016, 12:11 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: This is beyond stupid.

In the case of welfare, people are being GIVEN money other people earned.  In the case of deductions, it's about KEEPING money YOU earned.  

Only in the liberal world is keeping more of your own money a handout.  Sort of like that Nancy Pelosi logic that "tax cuts are spending choices" - wait, wut?!?

Every person who has a dependent child receives a government subsidy in the form of a tax break.  So every person who claims a depoendent child should be required to pass a drug test.

[*Nately120*]

(06-17-2016, 02:29 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: Oh please. 90% of government spending is a waste of taxpayer money. Drug tests on everyone would be way more helpful than most of the shit they do (that being nothing or filibusters).

How would it help?  I worked at a university and I would imagine more than zero percent of the people there who are great at their jobs could fail a drug test...so what?  They fail a drug test and the government forces a private company to fire employees and then shoulder the burden or interviewing, hiring, and training a replacement? Is there any scenario in which this isn't totalitarian BS?

Also, is the government really going to send agents out to make sure every American pees in a cup under strict control settings, or do we all have to take time out of work to report to some local agency to do it?

Can't we just go on with our lives instead of paying the government to inconvenience us further?

[JustWinBaby]

(06-18-2016, 07:18 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Every person who has a dependent child receives a government subsidy in the form of a tax break.  So every person who claims a depoendent child should be required to pass a drug test.

Yeah, still stupid

[JustWinBaby]

(06-18-2016, 07:13 PM)fredtoast Wrote: If yiou are really concerned about the government budget there is zero difference between giving a poor person food stamps and giving some other people a tax break.  They have the exact same effect on the budget.

Not remotely the same.  One case is taking money that someone earned, the other is giving someone money they didn't earn.  Neither really has anything directly to do with the budget.

This is the same idiocy as Nancy Pelosi claiming tax cuts are spending choices. I don't like to use the word ******** but...

[*bfine32*]

(06-18-2016, 07:18 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Every person who has a dependent child receives a government subsidy in the form of a tax break.  So every person who claims a depoendent child should be required to pass a drug test.

So you're comparing being able to keep a little bit more of the money you earned to care for your children to getting other people's money that you did not earn?

[Rotobeast]

(06-19-2016, 12:55 AM)Nately120 Wrote: Also, is the government really going to send agents out to make sure every American pees in a cup under strict control settings, or do we all have to take time out of work to report to some local agency to do it?

They are going to put a Mass Spectrometer on everyone's sewer line to determine the content of what's being flushed.
Don't worry, we'll get Mexico to pay for it.

[fredtoast]

(06-19-2016, 05:53 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Not remotely the same.  One case is taking money that someone earned, the other is giving someone money they didn't earn.  Neither really has anything directly to do with the budget.

WTF?

Expenses and revenue have nothing to do with a budget?  I think you need to be drug tested.  You are speaking gibberish.

[fredtoast]

(06-19-2016, 01:59 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So you're comparing being able to keep a little bit more of the money you earned to care for your children to getting other people's money that you did not earn?

I am saying that decreasing revenue is the same as increasing expenditures.  They both have the exact same effect on the government budget.

I don't speak in spin.  I speak in facts.  

[*bfine32*]

(06-19-2016, 04:38 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I am saying that decreasing revenue is the same as increasing expenditures.  They both have the exact same effect on the government budget.

I don't speak in spin.  I speak in facts.  

So was that a yes or no? I guess I don't understand answers without spin. I look for the more complicated yes or no.

[Vas Deferens]

(06-19-2016, 01:59 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So you're comparing being able to keep a little bit more of the money you earned to care for your children to getting other people's money that you did not earn?

I absolutely do.  Why does someone with a child deserve more money than someone without one?  If that money is necessary for that child to sustain life, shouldn't the parents have thought about that decision before procreating?

[*bfine32*]

(06-19-2016, 07:40 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: I absolutely do.  Why does someone with a child deserve more money than someone without one?  If that money is necessary for that child to sustain life, shouldn't the parents have thought about that decision before procreating?

OK, that's one vote for dependency deduction being the same as welfare. FWIW, I'm good with a flat tax and no deductions for additional dependents. But when folks equate folks having to be drug tested because of a dependency deduction to those that sponge off of other's incomes, I can do nothing but shake my head and sat to myself: I knew it.   

[StLucieBengal]

(06-19-2016, 07:46 PM)bfine32 Wrote: OK, that's one vote for dependency deduction being the same as welfare. FWIW, I'm good with a flat tax and no deductions for additional dependents. But when folks equate folks having to be drug tested because of a dependency deduction to those that sponge off of other's incomes, I can do nothing but shake my head and sat to myself: I knew it.   

Well said.    People are going crazy.  

[fredtoast]

(06-19-2016, 05:41 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So was that a yes or no? 

You fail at reading comprehension.  there is nothing I can do to help you.

[fredtoast]

(06-19-2016, 07:46 PM)bfine32 Wrote: But when folks equate folks having to be drug tested because of a dependency deduction to those that sponge off of other's incomes, I can do nothing but shake my head and sat to myself: I knew it.   

Then you need to learn some basic economics.

Reducing revenue is exactly the same as increasing expenditures. 

[*bfine32*]

(06-20-2016, 01:02 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Then you need to learn some basic economics.

Reducing revenue is exactly the same as increasing expenditures. 

But isn't this thread about drug testing and that those that earn tax deductions should be submitted to drug testing the same as a welfare recipeant? Or is is about what Fred wants it to be about?

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.

[BmorePat87]

It's silly, but I hope it has us asking "what is the total cost of welfare and what is the total cost of tax breaks for the wealthy/corporations?"

Not that I do not support tax breaks, but we should stop scapegoating our downtrodden.

[Benton]

(06-20-2016, 01:04 PM)bfine32 Wrote: But isn't this thread about drug testing and that those that earn tax deductions should be submitted to drug testing the same as a welfare recipeant? Or is is about what Fred wants it to be about?

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.

Quote:Under Moore’s bill, those filing more than $150,000 in itemized tax deductions would have to submit proof of a clean drug test within three months of the tax-filing date.

Just to clarify, it's not all tax deductions. Just those over $150,000. How many people that would effect, no idea.

Personally, if the idea is to those really taking advantage of the system in the upper income levels, I'd say it would need to be higher. $150,000 could still come close to middle class territory (although, apparently, everyone in the middle class now gets a yacht and a horse and a second home).

[*bfine32*]

(06-20-2016, 01:42 PM)Benton Wrote: Just to clarify, it's not all tax deductions. Just those over $150,000. How many people that would effect, no idea.

Personally, if the idea is to those really taking advantage of the system in the upper income levels, I'd say it would need to be higher. $150,000 could still come close to middle class territory (although, apparently, everyone in the middle class now gets a yacht and a horse and a second home).

What does any of that have to do with the rationale that they should be drug tested the same as a welfare recipient?

[BmorePat87]

(06-20-2016, 02:47 PM)bfine32 Wrote: What does any of that have to do with the rationale that they should be drug tested the same as a welfare recipient?

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?"

[Benton]

(06-20-2016, 02:47 PM)bfine32 Wrote: What does any of that have to do with the rationale that they should be drug tested the same as a welfare recipient?

(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?"

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.