Compromise on Taxes?

[GenSeneca]

Would you be willing to accept a return to the higher tax rates in effect under Clinton in return for mandatory monthly drug testing of anyone who receives government assistance (welfare, food stamps, subsidized housing, etc)?

If you fail your drug test, you lose your taxpayer funding. Even with the cost of doing millions of drug tests, I think government would still save billions by kicking drug addicts off the dole.

 

[Openmind]

Would you be willing to accept a return to the higher tax rates in effect under Clinton in return for mandatory monthly drug testing of anyone who receives government assistance (welfare, food stamps, subsidized housing, etc)?

If you fail your drug test, you lose your taxpayer funding. Even with the cost of doing millions of drug tests, I think government would still save billions by kicking drug addicts off the dole.

Personally, I wouldn't care. But. . .aren't you the one who wants LESS government control, smaller government, less spending, and LESS infringement of privacy?

It seems kind of contradictory!

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Florida tried that...and it cost the goverment more to do it then it saved...also it found a very small percent...

You want the goverment testing your pee and blood, but don't they dare do anything else!

 

[Dr.Who]

Would you be willing to accept a return to the higher tax rates in effect under Clinton in return for mandatory monthly drug testing of anyone who receives government assistance (welfare, food stamps, subsidized housing, etc)?

If you fail your drug test, you lose your taxpayer funding. Even with the cost of doing millions of drug tests, I think government would still save billions by kicking drug addicts off the dole.

No I would not make that comp.

In comp both sides lose something.

People on welfare need to turn to private charity while all gov assistance is dramatically altered in order to make it constitutional.

Then when people receive private charity only those giving the money could set the rules for who can get it. But for those who get money from the state in ways that are constitutional we know that it is not used as a tool to punish people for bad choices. The gov should not be in the role of rewarding or punishing people for the choices they make as long as they do not harm others.

Even in the current bad system the gov should not be punishing people for being an addict for example. While the choices that lead to addiction are bad choices the end result is a disease and we don't punish people for having a disease. We don't reward them either.

 

[Dr.Who]

Personally, I wouldn't care. But. . .aren't you the one who wants LESS government control, smaller government, less spending, and LESS infringement of privacy?

It seems kind of contradictory!

Gen is not offering that. Gen is letting out rope.

So I encourage everyone to answer fully with lots of detail.

You are on record saying that you would not mind higher tax rates and you would not mind some pretty extreme intrusion into the private lives (and bodies) of people receiving assistance from gov. (and since you earlier have defined all opportunity as assistance everyone would be subject to such intrusions)

 

[Openmind]

Gen is not offering that. Gen is letting out rope.

So I encourage everyone to answer fully with lots of detail.

You are on record saying that you would not mind higher tax rates and you would not mind some pretty extreme intrusion into the private lives (and bodies) of people receiving assistance from gov. (and since you earlier have defined all opportunity as assistance everyone would be subject to such intrusions)

You read a lot in my very short answer.

You are correct that I should have made a lot more "qualifications" in my answer. I may, decide to do that at a later time.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Would you be willing to accept a return to the higher tax rates in effect under Clinton in return for mandatory monthly drug testing of anyone who receives government assistance (welfare, food stamps, subsidized housing, etc)?

How about losing the higher tax rates, losing the government drug testing, and losing the government turning over other people's tax money to the poor and indigent and drug-addicted? Let people do their own charity - voluntary private giving tends to soar when the government slacks off on its government-dependency programs.

BTW, remind me again what part of the Constitution authorizes the Federal government to do EITHER drug tests on people, OR wealth redistribution of their money?

 

[Openmind]

No I would not make that comp.

In comp both sides lose something.

People on welfare need to turn to private charity while all gov assistance is dramatically altered in order to make it constitutional.

Then when people receive private charity only those giving the money could set the rules for who can get it. But for those who get money from the state in ways that are constitutional we know that it is not used as a tool to punish people for bad choices. The gov should not be in the role of rewarding or punishing people for the choices they make as long as they do not harm others.

Even in the current bad system the gov should not be punishing people for being an addict for example. While the choices that lead to addiction are bad choices the end result is a disease and we don't punish people for having a disease. We don't reward them either.

I do agree with the greatest part of what you are saying. . .except that, precisely, private charities are MORE likely to judge the "worthiness" of people in need, not only their status of drug user, but also their sexual orientation, their race, their political preferences.

Also, with private charities (especially Religious charities), it is obvious that Churches in the wealthiest districts would have access to a lot more charity money from their wealthy contributors, but would have the lesser pool of needy people to assist, ad the demographic of that district would be quite different than, let's say, an inner city area.

And, by the way, any "rules" that would penalize a person from getting assistance because of drug (or alcohol) use would ALSO penalize his/her family and send the whole family into even more suffering.

This is such a complex issue that I doubt we can resolve anything in this forum, but I also believe that, if we went deeper in discussing this, we would find that we have more agreements than differences. . .although we come from very different ideological stands.

 

[Dr.Who]

I do agree with the greatest part of what you are saying. . .except that, precisely, private charities are MORE likely to judge the "worthiness" of people in need, not only their status of drug user, but also their sexual orientation, their race, their political preferences.

I dont think you grasp the wide variety of charities that exist out there. They are not ALL run by churches from the 1940's.

There are tons and tons of charities of every stripe. There exist charities specifically to help gay people. Their exist charities specifically to help people of certain races too. Probably some just for people with certain political persuasions.

If one does not satisfy then just move on down the road.

Also, with private charities (especially Religious charities), it is obvious that Churches in the wealthiest districts would have access to a lot more charity money from their wealthy contributors, but would have the lesser pool of needy people to assist, ad the demographic of that district would be quite different than, let's say, an inner city area..

You have never heard of outreach? Most churches set up some charities in places where they do not have a presence. My church for example gives all over the world even though all of its branches are located near chicago.

In terms of access there are many more locations (thousands) and many more sets of rules (thousands) that one could fit into at the various charities around chicago than one could possibly find with the one or two public aid offices and the one set of rules.

 

[Openmind]

I dont think you grasp the wide variety of charities that exist out there. They are not ALL run by churches from the 1940's.

There are tons and tons of charities of every stripe. There exist charities specifically to help gay people. Their exist charities specifically to help people of certain races too. Probably some just for people with certain political persuasions.

If one does not satisfy then just move on down the road.



You have never heard of outreach? Most churches set up some charities in places where they do not have a presence. My church for example gives all over the world even though all of its branches are located near chicago.

In terms of access there are many more locations (thousands) and many more sets of rules (thousands) that one could fit into at the various charities around chicago than one could possibly find with the one or two public aid offices and the one set of rules.

Dr. Who. I know I mentionned that I am a Social worker (MSW) per vocation. I have worked extensively with several needy populations, including people with mental illnesses, people with developmental disabilities (and their families), and people with AIDS at a time when so many gay men (not exclusively, however) were still dying from the disease.

Part of my training, and a great part of my job as a case manager for these populations was to access EVERY resource available, whether private or public, whether Federal (like IHSS, or HUD), State (like group homes for people with disabilities, State hospitals, and Medicaid eligibility), or County and totally private. The fact is that, while the private charities provide a nice "icing on the cake" which is not ALWAY monetary, by the way, but can be voluntering one's services also, it is absolutely clear that the diverse "public" resources offer the overwhelming bulk of the assistance, and that without it, these populations would be absolutely left to suffer.

I have worked CLOSELY with Ombudsman, Hospice, public nurses, School systems, Advocates for the disabled and the abused elderly and children, and private enterprises working as private contractor to the State government to provide services to those populations.

I have previously given the exemple of ONE of the very well known charity: "Easter Seals." I hate that story, so I will only repeat it if you want me to do so. But let me tell you. . .I will NOT give another penny to Easter Seals.

However, I am an avid supporter (and donor) of "Doctors without Borders."

No, I am not ignorant of the resources. . .It was actually my job, my life, prior to my retiring.

 

[GenSeneca]

Gen is not offering that. Gen is letting out rope.

How well you know me...

You are on record saying that you would not mind higher tax rates and you would not mind some pretty extreme intrusion into the private lives (and bodies) of people receiving assistance from gov. (and since you earlier have defined all opportunity as assistance everyone would be subject to such intrusions)

Actually, it wasn't my intention to offer a subject that would allow people to hang themselves but Openmind certainly seems to have done just that with the little bit of rope I dangled out there... Sorry Open, really I won't hold anything you've said to this point against you in any way.

Seriously though, I was at dinner with a friend of mine who thinks we should radically reform the way gov. assistance operates and his suggestions served as the impetus for this thread. First, a little about who he is... He's the son of legal immigrants, his family received a lot of gov assistance when they first moved to the US and it took years for them to work their way to independence from the state. He's also a beer swilling-pot smoking-Progressive, so our conversations are usually quite interesting.

Now as to his suggestions for how to reform gov assistance... When someone gets out of jail on parole, they get assigned a parole officer who they must check in with on a regular basis and who also shows up at their doorstep (sometimes unannounced) on a regular basis. Additionally the parolee gets an ankle bracelet, they have to find employment, they have to undergo regular drug and alcohol testing, and basically their entire life is regulated by an Orwellian "big brother" style of government surveillance. He thinks this system works so well that America should do the same thing with people who live on government assistance. However, rather than a parole officer, people would be assigned a case worker, everything else, ankle bracelet and all, would remain the same.

At that point I had to pick my jaw off the floor and duct tape it to my face... He could see that I was shocked at what I was hearing, so he offered his rationale and assured me that I would like the plan once I heard all of it...

As he sees it, most people would would be appalled to live under such tight government intrusion into their private lives. Therefore, he believes, most people would do whatever it took, work as hard as they had to, live as frugally as possible and save as much as was necessary, to become totally self-sufficient. Once they were no longer dependent on government handouts, they would truly earn their freedom.

He also claimed (and this is the part he thought I would love about his plan) that forcing people to live under these circumstances would actually have the benefit of instilling in people the necessity of personal responsibility, since they would be willing to do whatever it took to keep their freedom and not return to a life of being dependent on government.

Well that left me with an obvious question... What of the people who don't become independent but, instead, gleefully accept trading their own freedom for a minimal standard of living?

His reply was that having such people under close government supervision would benefit all of society; it would keep them from becoming drug addicts, alcoholics, gang bangers, and generally keep them from participating in criminal activity or anything else that might send them to jail or further burden society.

For the record: No, I do not and would not support such a plan but I did find it entertaining. I put the compromise on taxation bit in there just to make it more interesting.

 

[Openmind]

How well you know me...


Actually, it wasn't my intention to offer a subject that would allow people to hang themselves but Openmind certainly seems to have done just that with the little bit of rope I dangled out there... Sorry Open, really I won't hold anything you've said to this point against you in any way.

Seriously though, I was at dinner with a friend of mine who thinks we should radically reform the way gov. assistance operates and his suggestions served as the impetus for this thread. First, a little about who he is... He's the son of legal immigrants, his family received a lot of gov assistance when they first moved to the US and it took years for them to work their way to independence from the state. He's also a beer swilling-pot smoking-Progressive, so our conversations are usually quite interesting.

Now as to his suggestions for how to reform gov assistance... When someone gets out of jail on parole, they get assigned a parole officer who they must check in with on a regular basis and who also shows up at their doorstep (sometimes unannounced) on a regular basis. Additionally the parolee gets an ankle bracelet, they have to find employment, they have to undergo regular drug and alcohol testing, and basically their entire life is regulated by an Orwellian "big brother" style of government surveillance. He thinks this system works so well that America should do the same thing with people who live on government assistance. However, rather than a parole officer, people would be assigned a case worker, everything else, ankle bracelet and all, would remain the same.

At that point I had to pick my jaw off the floor and duct tape it to my face... He could see that I was shocked at what I was hearing, so he offered his rationale and assured me that I would like the plan once I heard all of it...

As he sees it, most people would would be appalled to live under such tight government intrusion into their private lives. Therefore, he believes, most people would do whatever it took, work as hard as they had to, live as frugally as possible and save as much as was necessary, to become totally self-sufficient. Once they were no longer dependent on government handouts, they would truly earn their freedom.

He also claimed (and this is the part he thought I would love about his plan) that forcing people to live under these circumstances would actually have the benefit of instilling in people the necessity of personal responsibility, since they would be willing to do whatever it took to keep their freedom and not return to a life of being dependent on government.

Well that left me with an obvious question... What of the people who don't become independent but, instead, gleefully accept trading their own freedom for a minimal standard of living?

His reply was that having such people under close government supervision would benefit all of society; it would keep them from becoming drug addicts, alcoholics, gang bangers, and generally keep them from participating in criminal activity or anything else that might send them to jail or further burden society.

For the record: No, I do not and would not support such a plan but I did find it entertaining. I put the compromise on taxation bit in there just to make it more interesting.

Just understand that YOU may think that I hung myself. . .I do not consider expressing my opinion as any "suicidal" feat!

I said that I personally wouldn't mind taking a drug test. . .because I just don't and never have done drugs. . .so it is a moot point for ME.

I also do not believe in dividing people between "worthy and unworthy" (especially based on whether or not they are addicted to drugs!), so I think it is a moot point.

And, I do not believe that, at least until we get our deficit much lower and our economy going again, returning to Clinton's tax schedule would be ENOUGH. I think we can obviously go back to the "before Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy" time with no problem. But in addition, we need to get a greater overhaul of the tax system, one that would take away loop holes for people making over $1 million a year, and one who would tax obscene incomes (let's say, over $10 millions a year) at 45 or 50%.

I have not answer that poll BECAUSE neither of the two options are satisfying to me. . . And after reading your explanation and your friend's "proposal," I find it insulting and ridiculous.

So, NO, I do not believe in creating a whole "slave" society, no matter how much some people need assistance to survive. In fact, I hope all of you realize that A LOT of people who do need assistance are already giving up too much of their own personal privacy to meet the regulations (I am especially thinking of disabled people right now).

 

[GenSeneca]

Just understand that YOU may think that I hung myself. . .I do not consider expressing my opinion as any "suicidal" feat!

I said that I personally wouldn't mind taking a drug test. . .because I just don't and never have done drugs. . .so it is a moot point for ME.

As I said, it was not my intention to use your replies against you, so settle down.

I also do not believe in dividing people between "worthy and unworthy" (especially based on whether or not they are addicted to drugs!), so I think it is a moot point.

That's fine, give them YOUR money and not mine because when it's MY money, I don't want it going to subsidize the lifestyles of people who spend their money getting drunk, smoking crack, snorting coke, juicing heroin, etc. I don't consider those people worthy of my hard earned money.

I think we can obviously go back to the "before Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy" time with no problem.

You do realize that the Bush Tax Cuts actually made the income tax MORE progressive, right? The "wealthy" actually paid MORE under the BTC's than they were paying under the Clinton rates, you know that right? You must also know that those "tax cuts for the wealthy" are responsible for removing MILLIONS of people from the tax rolls, making so that their income tax contributions were zero or even negative (they got back more than they paid in).... You do realize all of that, right?

But in addition, we need to get a greater overhaul of the tax system, one that would take away loop holes for people making over $1 million a year, and one who would tax obscene incomes (let's say, over $10 millions a year) at 45 or 50%.

No matter what rates you set, government is going to see revenue at 16-17% of GDP in bad economic times, 19-20% in good economic times, and average 18% in average economic times.... So raising taxes on what you characterize as "obscene" incomes is the real obscenity.

I have not answer that poll BECAUSE neither of the two options are satisfying to me. . . And after reading your explanation and your friend's "proposal," I find it insulting and ridiculous.

I found it entertaining... Why are you insulted?

So, NO, I do not believe in creating a whole "slave" society, no matter how much some people need assistance to survive.

I'm going to save that quote because I believe that's exactly what people like you are trying to accomplish... Enslave a minority of the population to the federal government in order to offer assistance to people who need it to survive.

 

[BigRob]

Would you be willing to accept a return to the higher tax rates in effect under Clinton in return for mandatory monthly drug testing of anyone who receives government assistance (welfare, food stamps, subsidized housing, etc)?

If you fail your drug test, you lose your taxpayer funding. Even with the cost of doing millions of drug tests, I think government would still save billions by kicking drug addicts off the dole.

No..most of the states that propose this either don't allow random testing (ie you won't catch many people), or even if you get caught, you are not kicked off, you get multiple attempts, and then if you have dependents, the money still goes to them through a family member (ie you will prob still get paid anyway).

I don't like the idea of a broken government program being fixed with another government program.

 

[BigRob]

And, I do not believe that, at least until we get our deficit much lower and our economy going again, returning to Clinton's tax schedule would be ENOUGH. I think we can obviously go back to the "before Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy" time with no problem.

Does this include eliminating all the Bush tax cuts that targeted the middle class, and actually made their overall percentage of taxes paid go down?