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.