Drug-testing the rich

[whoisjohngalt]

Haven't seen a thread about this yet. 

www.yahoo.com/news/lawmaker-wants-rich-drug-test-000000565.html

Rep. Gwen Moore, D-Wis., unveiled Thursday the Top 1% Accountability Act, which would require those claiming itemized deductions of more than $150,000 on their tax returns to submit to drug tests or file for less generous tax deductions.

I think it would be hilarious - drug testing people before allowing them to keep their own money, but stranger things have happened.

So, all of you YM millionairess - what say you?

[justme]

Well besides the fact it's hyperbole and impossible to enact...

[Peace Of Mind]

I'm torn between thinking it would be hilarious and absurd. I'm going with absurd.

And how is getting money (welfare recipients) for free from people who pay taxes comparable to people wanting to keep their own money that they earned by filing tax deductions?  If the high earners are buying drugs with their own money I don't care.  I do care that our tax dollars are paying for drugs for people who don't work and get other's money.  It should be used for food, rent, and utilities, and other needs.  Last I checked drugs (unless for a medical condition and prescribed by a doctor) are recreational and not a need.   If the tax deductions are suspect then have them audited. 

I'm all for a helping hand for people who need it (short term - not a way of life unless disabled!) but this makes no sense to me.  Why do so many politicians (both sides) have to act so crazy and over the top and at our expense? 

[whoisjohngalt]

I say  - drug test the politicians!

And no, I can't imagine that bill ever passing. 

[Peace Of Mind]

Jun 18, 2016 0:16:29 GMT -5 whoisjohngalt said:

I say  - drug test the politicians!

And no, I can't imagine that bill ever passing. 

As a tax payer I'd also be ok with a mental evaluation. 

[msventoux]

High income individuals already have their itemized deductions and exemptions phased out at certain levels and are hit with a net investment income tax/Medicare surtax to boot.    If they did away with those and required drug testing, the top 1% would probably rejoice. 

[Opti]

Jun 18, 2016 0:02:43 GMT -5 whoisjohngalt said:

Haven't seen a thread about this yet. 

www.yahoo.com/news/lawmaker-wants-rich-drug-test-000000565.html

Rep. Gwen Moore, D-Wis., unveiled Thursday the Top 1% Accountability Act, which would require those claiming itemized deductions of more than $150,000 on their tax returns to submit to drug tests or file for less generous tax deductions.

I think it would be hilarious - drug testing people before allowing them to keep their own money, but stranger things have happened.

So, all of you YM millionairess - what say you?

I wonder how far it will get? I think her point is valid, mainly because the vast majority of those receiving social welfare of any kind are taxed on their earnings. The amount of people on any social program with no measurable income and therefore paying no taxes is in the ballpark of 20% or less depending on the program.

I earned under poverty level for a single person this year. I paid roughly $1K in SS and Medicare taxes. Most of my federal taxes will be refunded, not all, but that is in large part because of my medical expenses in relation to my income. High net worth individuals are the least audited, most likely to under pay taxes and therefore 'steal from the government', and because they are rich - more likely able to afford and use drugs compared to the general population.

You don't think the Wall Streeters, Hollywood A-list, Sports heroes, etc. are all drug free do you?

From the link-

“As a strong advocate for social programs aimed at combating poverty, it deeply offends me that there is such a deep stigma surrounding those who depend on government benefits, especially as a former welfare recipient,” Moore said in a statement. “Sadly, Republicans across the country continue to implement discriminatory policies that criminalize the less fortunate and perpetuate false narratives about the most vulnerable among us.”

Moore, who represents Milwaukee, used welfare benefits to work herself out of poverty when she was younger and has said that her goal is to ensure others have the same opportunity.

 

[tskeeter]

Jun 18, 2016 0:02:43 GMT -5 whoisjohngalt said:

Haven't seen a thread about this yet. 

www.yahoo.com/news/lawmaker-wants-rich-drug-test-000000565.html

Rep. Gwen Moore, D-Wis., unveiled Thursday the Top 1% Accountability Act, which would require those claiming itemized deductions of more than $150,000 on their tax returns to submit to drug tests or file for less generous tax deductions.

I think it would be hilarious - drug testing people before allowing them to keep their own money, but stranger things have happened.

So, all of you YM millionairess - what say you?

I find it rather amusing and somewhat ironic that this woman seems to think that becoming a politician somehow pays back the welfare benefits she received many times over.  Last time I checked, welfare benefits and politicians pay checks are both provided by the taxpayers.  

[zibazinski]

The envy of those who are unemployed or underemployed by choice never ceases to amaze me. Now the govt is in the business of hurting those who managed to save in order to support those that didn't. Typical

[Cookies Galore]

I think it's hilarious. Obviously it will never happen, but even if it did, all it would show is that people across all socioeconomic backgrounds use recreational drugs. Although, I bet we'd see more party drug use than pot.

[Wisconsin Beth]

Jun 18, 2016 0:18:43 GMT -5 Peace Of Mind said:

Jun 18, 2016 0:16:29 GMT -5 whoisjohngalt said:

I say  - drug test the politicians!

And no, I can't imagine that bill ever passing. 

As a tax payer I'd also be ok with a mental evaluation. 

wonder how many politicians we'd lose if we did both....



I guess I should read her office emails more frequently.

[giramomma]

Yeah. I saw this on our state news yesterday. I was not happy, but I wasn't surprised.

Why is everything over the top? Have you seen how bad it is in WI? Really, it's not a place I'm suggesting people move to if they can help it. It's gotten to the point where if I thought there was a better place to move to, I would. Stupid policy is everywhere though.

No one here  is willing to listen to reason, no one is willing to compromise and negotiate. My 4 yo has better negotiating skills. Folks just want power.

Our lawmakers aren't funding roads. Construction projects are being delayed now, years. It's a huge  pain in the ass. They are also cutting funding in other places, like education. Why? So that I can get a break for sending my kids to private school and save $12 on my property taxes.

I'm none to pleased with what's happening at the University. On both sides.

Let's look at our leader. He still owes almost a million dollars for a failed presidential campaign. He ASKED people to pay off his bill because he doesn't have that kind of money, and he'd send them a t-shirt. Turns out, people haven't gone for that. How do you explain this sort of fiscal "responsibility?"

My city leaders are also ineffective.. If something bad happens to the University, Madison is going the way of Milwaukee. It's just a matter of time.

[dannylion]

The first thing that came to mind was that Rep. Gwen Moore, D-Wis, can bite my fat white ass.

The second thing was:  Among all of the issues that could be or should be addressed to improve the lives of her constituents and/or other Americans, this is what Rep. Gwen Moore, D-Wis, chooses to put her effort into?  This is how she chooses to spend her time and political capital?  What a complete waste of votes this woman seems to have been. 

[Tiny]

so, what kind of deductions (what size) get you to 150K? Would those deductions be the regular old kind - like mortgage interest, property taxes, what else? Medical? How much income might you have to accompany the 150K in itemized deductions?


I, too, think the idea of drug testing for this to be a waste of taxpayers money.

[milee]

Jun 18, 2016 12:23:25 GMT -5 Tiny said:

so, what kind of deductions (what size) get you to 150K? Would those deductions be the regular old kind - like mortgage interest, property taxes, what else? Medical? How much income might you have to accompany the 150K in itemized deductions?    


   

Well, one of my largest deductions is the one for Domestic Production Activities (AKA - manufacturing here in America)- Form 8903. In other words, I get a deduction for making stuff here rather than importing it from overseas.  And yes, that one phases out just like all the other deductions so I don't get to take all of it.

[obelisk]

It's a non topic, move on. How is XYZ corp going to comply with naming a person to test?

[swamp]

And what happens if I do test positive?  

[Shooby]

  If it is OK to drug test non criminals, then yes CEO's and politicians should be drug tested as well .

[Tiny]

Jun 18, 2016 12:47:09 GMT -5 milee said:

Jun 18, 2016 12:23:25 GMT -5 Tiny said:

so, what kind of deductions (what size) get you to 150K? Would those deductions be the regular old kind - like mortgage interest, property taxes, what else? Medical? How much income might you have to accompany the 150K in itemized deductions?    


   

Well, one of my largest deductions is the one for Domestic Production Activities (AKA - manufacturing here in America)- Form 8903. In other words, I get a deduction for making stuff here rather than importing it from overseas.  And yes, that one phases out just like all the other deductions so I don't get to take all of it.

Thanks milee. I was wondering who this bill would effect.     I still think it's stupid.    

[Tennesseer]

Jun 18, 2016 14:54:14 GMT -5 swamp said:

And what happens if I do test positive?  

Yes. Then what?

Ridiculous proposal.

[Peace Of Mind]

Jun 18, 2016 14:54:14 GMT -5 swamp said:

And what happens if I do test positive?  

IF?! 

[happyhoix]

Jun 18, 2016 12:23:25 GMT -5 Tiny said:

so, what kind of deductions (what size) get you to 150K? Would those deductions be the regular old kind - like mortgage interest, property taxes, what else? Medical? How much income might you have to accompany the 150K in itemized deductions?


I, too, think the idea of drug testing for this to be a waste of taxpayers money.

I don't think she thinks this will actually go anywhere. Her point is that drug testing welfare recipients is a waste of money -  this program regularly turns up only a small number of people using illegal drugs - so why further stigmatize the poor by drug testing them when the cost of the testing far outweighs the number of 'bad' recipients on drugs.

I tend to agree with her - it is a waste of tax payer money, and since the testing turns up so few druggies, what's the point of continuing it? Unless the point is all about making welfare recipients feel like criminals, another population that is routinely drug tested.

Rather than drug testing them, maybe we could spend that money on something more productive - improving the schools in lower income areas, maybe?

   

[tskeeter]

Jun 20, 2016 9:09:28 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Jun 18, 2016 12:23:25 GMT -5 Tiny said:

so, what kind of deductions (what size) get you to 150K? Would those deductions be the regular old kind - like mortgage interest, property taxes, what else? Medical? How much income might you have to accompany the 150K in itemized deductions?


I, too, think the idea of drug testing for this to be a waste of taxpayers money.

I don't think she thinks this will actually go anywhere. Her point is that drug testing welfare recipients is a waste of money -  this program regularly turns up only a small number of people using illegal drugs - so why further stigmatize the poor by drug testing them when the cost of the testing far outweighs the number of 'bad' recipients on drugs.

I tend to agree with her - it is a waste of tax payer money, and since the testing turns up so few druggies, what's the point of continuing it? Unless the point is all about making welfare recipients feel like criminals, another population that is routinely drug tested.

Rather than drug testing them, maybe we could spend that money on something more productive - improving the schools in lower income areas, maybe?

   

While I think you make an outstanding point, I don't believe that challenging the value of drug testing for social program eligibility is really a significant part of the Congesswoman's agenda.  I believe she is really pandering to the envy of voters on social programs and working to make the rich targets for the resentments of the poor.  After all, telling voters that some other group is responsible for the challenges in their lives in order to curry the voters favor is a well established political strategy.

[Opti]

Jun 20, 2016 9:43:17 GMT -5 tskeeter said:

Jun 20, 2016 9:09:28 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

I don't think she thinks this will actually go anywhere. Her point is that drug testing welfare recipients is a waste of money -  this program regularly turns up only a small number of people using illegal drugs - so why further stigmatize the poor by drug testing them when the cost of the testing far outweighs the number of 'bad' recipients on drugs.

I tend to agree with her - it is a waste of tax payer money, and since the testing turns up so few druggies, what's the point of continuing it? Unless the point is all about making welfare recipients feel like criminals, another population that is routinely drug tested.

Rather than drug testing them, maybe we could spend that money on something more productive - improving the schools in lower income areas, maybe?

   

While I think you make an outstanding point, I don't believe that challenging the value of drug testing for social program eligibility is really a significant part of the Congesswoman's agenda.  I believe she is really pandering to the envy of voters on social programs and working to make the rich targets for the resentments of the poor.  After all, telling voters that some other group is responsible for the challenges in their lives in order to curry the voters favor is a well established political strategy.

I think Tskeeter didn't read the initial link, because my take is she is in politics to champion causes of people like her.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwen_Moore

During her first term, Moore introduced legislation to provide economic incentives and tax cuts to small businesses to promote job creation, and also cosponsored legislation supporting community block grants, continuing and expanding Medicaid funding, amending the Truth in Lending Act to prevent so-called "predatory lending," and removing troops from Iraq; Moore also cosponsored two prospective amendments to the US Constitution, providing for uniform national election standards and prohibiting gender discrimination under law.[citation needed]

Moore is a prominent advocate for women’s rights, releasing frequent statements on topics ranging from domestic abuse awareness to abortion rights. In January 2011, she was elected Democratic co-chair of the Congressional Women's Caucus to become a leader on health insurance reform and the protection of reproductive rights.[5]

During the congressional debate in February 2011 on the Pence Amendment proposing to defund the health services organization Planned Parenthood, in response to comments from Paul Broun suggesting that Planned Parenthood promoted racist eugenics because more black women than white women have abortions, Moore spoke about her experience raising children on little money, and why "planned parenthood is healthy for women, it’s healthy for children and it's healthy for our society".

In March 2012, during the House debate over re-authorizing the Violence Against Women Act, she spoke about her own experience of being sexually assaulted and raped as a child and as an adult, criticizing the all-male Senate Judiciary Committee that voted no on the bill.[9]

[tskeeter]

Jun 20, 2016 10:05:12 GMT -5 Opti said:

Jun 20, 2016 9:43:17 GMT -5 tskeeter said:

While I think you make an outstanding point, I don't believe that challenging the value of drug testing for social program eligibility is really a significant part of the Congesswoman's agenda.  I believe she is really pandering to the envy of voters on social programs and working to make the rich targets for the resentments of the poor.  After all, telling voters that some other group is responsible for the challenges in their lives in order to curry the voters favor is a well established political strategy.

I think Tskeeter didn't read the initial link, because my take is she is in politics to champion causes of people like her.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwen_Moore

During her first term, Moore introduced legislation to provide economic incentives and tax cuts to small businesses to promote job creation, and also cosponsored legislation supporting community block grants, continuing and expanding Medicaid funding, amending the Truth in Lending Act to prevent so-called "predatory lending," and removing troops from Iraq; Moore also cosponsored two prospective amendments to the US Constitution, providing for uniform national election standards and prohibiting gender discrimination under law.[citation needed]

Moore is a prominent advocate for women’s rights, releasing frequent statements on topics ranging from domestic abuse awareness to abortion rights. In January 2011, she was elected Democratic co-chair of the Congressional Women's Caucus to become a leader on health insurance reform and the protection of reproductive rights.[5]

During the congressional debate in February 2011 on the Pence Amendment proposing to defund the health services organization Planned Parenthood, in response to comments from Paul Broun suggesting that Planned Parenthood promoted racist eugenics because more black women than white women have abortions, Moore spoke about her experience raising children on little money, and why "planned parenthood is healthy for women, it’s healthy for children and it's healthy for our society".

In March 2012, during the House debate over re-authorizing the Violence Against Women Act, she spoke about her own experience of being sexually assaulted and raped as a child and as an adult, criticizing the all-male Senate Judiciary Committee that voted no on the bill.[9]

Your assumption would be wrong.  And I still believe she is pandering to envious voters.  If she wasn't pandering, she would simply make the argument that the findings of currently existing drug screening programs do not provide a benefit that justifies continuing the drug testing programs.

I do think it is possible to be an advocate for the poor.  I just don't think advocating for the poor requires that one attack the rich.

[happyhoix]

Jun 20, 2016 9:43:17 GMT -5 tskeeter said:

Jun 20, 2016 9:09:28 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

I don't think she thinks this will actually go anywhere. Her point is that drug testing welfare recipients is a waste of money -  this program regularly turns up only a small number of people using illegal drugs - so why further stigmatize the poor by drug testing them when the cost of the testing far outweighs the number of 'bad' recipients on drugs.

I tend to agree with her - it is a waste of tax payer money, and since the testing turns up so few druggies, what's the point of continuing it? Unless the point is all about making welfare recipients feel like criminals, another population that is routinely drug tested.

Rather than drug testing them, maybe we could spend that money on something more productive - improving the schools in lower income areas, maybe?

   

While I think you make an outstanding point, I don't believe that challenging the value of drug testing for social program eligibility is really a significant part of the Congesswoman's agenda.  I believe she is really pandering to the envy of voters on social programs and working to make the rich targets for the resentments of the poor.  After all, telling voters that some other group is responsible for the challenges in their lives in order to curry the voters favor is a well established political strategy.

Yes. It's the same thing Trump is doing by trying to shift the blame for all our problems on the immigrants (both Mexican and Muslim). 

[happyhoix]

Jun 20, 2016 10:09:20 GMT -5 @sroo4 said:

Jun 20, 2016 10:05:12 GMT -5 Opti said:

I think Tskeeter didn't read the initial link, because my take is she is in politics to champion causes of people like her.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwen_Moore

During her first term, Moore introduced legislation to provide economic incentives and tax cuts to small businesses to promote job creation, and also cosponsored legislation supporting community block grants, continuing and expanding Medicaid funding, amending the Truth in Lending Act to prevent so-called "predatory lending," and removing troops from Iraq; Moore also cosponsored two prospective amendments to the US Constitution, providing for uniform national election standards and prohibiting gender discrimination under law.[citation needed]

Moore is a prominent advocate for women’s rights, releasing frequent statements on topics ranging from domestic abuse awareness to abortion rights. In January 2011, she was elected Democratic co-chair of the Congressional Women's Caucus to become a leader on health insurance reform and the protection of reproductive rights.[5]

During the congressional debate in February 2011 on the Pence Amendment proposing to defund the health services organization Planned Parenthood, in response to comments from Paul Broun suggesting that Planned Parenthood promoted racist eugenics because more black women than white women have abortions, Moore spoke about her experience raising children on little money, and why "planned parenthood is healthy for women, it’s healthy for children and it's healthy for our society".

In March 2012, during the House debate over re-authorizing the Violence Against Women Act, she spoke about her own experience of being sexually assaulted and raped as a child and as an adult, criticizing the all-male Senate Judiciary Committee that voted no on the bill.[9]

I think she's in politics because she's a blowhard attention whore.   

I guess we all have different perspectives. 

Well, aren't most politicians blowhard attention whores?

[tskeeter]

Jun 20, 2016 15:41:47 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Jun 20, 2016 9:43:17 GMT -5 tskeeter said:

While I think you make an outstanding point, I don't believe that challenging the value of drug testing for social program eligibility is really a significant part of the Congesswoman's agenda.  I believe she is really pandering to the envy of voters on social programs and working to make the rich targets for the resentments of the poor.  After all, telling voters that some other group is responsible for the challenges in their lives in order to curry the voters favor is a well established political strategy.

Yes. It's the same thing Trump is doing by trying to shift the blame for all our problems on the immigrants (both Mexican and Muslim). 

He seems to be doing a pretty good job of blaming Mrs. Clinton and the Prez for the state of the economy and a variety of other ills.  On the whole, Trump seems to be an equal opportunity blamer.