Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7373
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 17 Jun 2016, 8:34 am

https://gwenmoore.house.gov/press-releases/moore-unveils-tax-bill-leveling-the-playing-field-for-impoverished-americans/

! am fine with this. Do the same for any recipient. Perhaps she would comment on her position on testing the poor.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 17 Jun 2016, 10:23 am

I have a big problem with this. Some want those claiming welfare to have mandatory drug testing, this makes sense in that 1. if they are on welfare they can't be blowing the money on drugs and 2. they can be productive members of society if not on drugs. It makes sense to require such drug testing IF YOU WANT WELFARE.

But to require those who take itemized deductions to do the same? These are affluent productive people! They are not taking money from the government and are paying a lot (if they can itemize $150,000! in deductions).
Further, by limiting these deductions you would put a severe hit on charities all around the nation. Will the govt step in and give more to these agencies? (hell no)

Be careful what you wish for. The same people this woman wants to protect would almost certainly be hammered by fewer deductions being made that help them out!!! Why oh why would we punish the wealthy?
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7373
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 17 Jun 2016, 11:57 am

I am interested, if she is for equality or just punishing the rich. My bet is that she only wants to punish the rich, and leave the poor not being held to the same standards.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 17 Jun 2016, 12:51 pm

But it makes no sense. The poor are taking from the Government, the rich are paying the government. Yes, I see they are itemizing deductions so they can lessen what they need to pay but this is encouraged and to take that away would cause more pain on the poor than they already suffer.

So what if a rich person is taking drugs? He can afford it and he's productive (yes he could maybe be more productive but that's not the issue) we want to make sure if you are taking welfare that you are not blowing money on drugs and that you are ready to work and be productive. Why would we penalize those who are paying taxes? It's just flat out stupid! She comes from that same entitlement society and just can't understand how things work, hell "work" is what is absent!?
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 17 Jun 2016, 12:56 pm

How's this
If you want something, then you need to "pay" for it. Maybe that payment is taking a drug test, it's proving that you are trying to find a job, it's requiring you to fill out paperwork, etc.
She thinks these people are owed and any attempt to compare them to the wealthy is absurd.

Those taking the deductions are not gaining anything other than having a reason to be encouraged to SPEND their money. For every dollar they give to charity, they get a deduction that is a fraction of what they spent. It makes them feel good about spending on the poor and it helps the poor. Now she wants to penalize those who help the poor!?
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 17 Jun 2016, 12:58 pm

Are you guys serious? Her intent is not to drug test high-earning Americans but simply to highlight the way the poor that receive benefits are stigmatized at every turn. You want benefits? You got to pee in a cup. She does not want to drug test the rich--she wants the poor not to be drug tested to get benefits.. "why oh why punish the wealthy". I had a good laugh at that one.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7373
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 17 Jun 2016, 2:12 pm

I know she is not serious. She is wasting the government's time. If she was serious, would she support equality?

I think not.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 18 Jun 2016, 7:29 am

Isn't a deductible, a tax break, just the same as a benefit in terms of the effect
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7373
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 18 Jun 2016, 7:38 am

danivon wrote:Isn't a deductible, a tax break, just the same as a benefit in terms of the effect


Close. It is a reduction of a negative, not a positive.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 18 Jun 2016, 9:18 am

bbauska wrote:
danivon wrote:Isn't a deductible, a tax break, just the same as a benefit in terms of the effect


Close. It is a reduction of a negative, not a positive.
reducing by a negative is the same thing in maths as adding by a positive.

In both cases, net income is higher than otherwise. If one pays tax as they go and then claimed back based on deductible amounts, then they will be given money.

Of course what we could do is apply the same tests to anyone who receives a government subsidy. Corn farmers, car makers, nuclear power plant owners....
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7373
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 18 Jun 2016, 11:09 am

danivon wrote:
bbauska wrote:
danivon wrote:Isn't a deductible, a tax break, just the same as a benefit in terms of the effect


Close. It is a reduction of a negative, not a positive.
reducing by a negative is the same thing in maths as adding by a positive.

In both cases, net income is higher than otherwise. If one pays tax as they go and then claimed back based on deductible amounts, then they will be given money.

Of course what we could do is apply the same tests to anyone who receives a government subsidy. Corn farmers, car makers, nuclear power plant owners....


Exactly on the subsidies. Are you agreeing that everyone should have drug testing to receive government money?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 18 Jun 2016, 12:10 pm

bbauska wrote:
danivon wrote:
bbauska wrote:
danivon wrote:Isn't a deductible, a tax break, just the same as a benefit in terms of the effect


Close. It is a reduction of a negative, not a positive.
reducing by a negative is the same thing in maths as adding by a positive.

In both cases, net income is higher than otherwise. If one pays tax as they go and then claimed back based on deductible amounts, then they will be given money.

Of course what we could do is apply the same tests to anyone who receives a government subsidy. Corn farmers, car makers, nuclear power plant owners....


Exactly on the subsidies. Are you agreeing that everyone should have drug testing to receive government money?
No. I am saying that if you impose it for some, you should impose it for all.

That does not mean I agree with imposing drug testing for just getting money.
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 3405
Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 2:01 am

Post 18 Jun 2016, 10:44 pm

Everybody receives government money in some form, albeit in some cases this is only indirectly through their use of state infrastructure and their passive use of the deterrant effects of law enforcement and national defence.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 19 Jun 2016, 2:16 am

Sassenach wrote:Everybody receives government money in some form, albeit in some cases this is only indirectly through their use of state infrastructure and their passive use of the deterrant effects of law enforcement and national defence.

Exactly. Drug tests for everyone. All the time. Let's expand the police state!

Or perhaps not, eh?
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 3405
Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 2:01 am

Post 19 Jun 2016, 5:43 am

Out of interest, are welfare recipients currently obliged to submit to drug testing or is this just a silly proposal ?