It is Time To Drug Test Corporate and Religious Welfare Recipients

anyone who makes a profit on real estate is able to use the same tax rate as the top 1%.......

What do you bet that Zipoerhead doesn't know that the money he made off of selling his hovel is considered capital gains?

Ya gotta forgive the poor soul. He like many libtards gets his financial acumen from Media Matters. They tell libtards that capital gains are bad, so therefore capital gains are bad. Libtards think capital gains are only for the Paris Hilton types
 
How are tax deductions remotely the same as welfare?

Why don't you include other non religious tax exempt entities?
its not the point. The point is to unconstitutionally demonize the wealthy as criminals as they do the poor.

It's as good an idea as drug testing welfare recipients. Why should a drug addict be given a tax break that would support their unlawful habit?
 
I am not surprised you refuse to discuss your thread topic and instead attack posters.

How is this welfare? Can you explain how tax cuts and tax exemptions are welfare? Are you actually claiming only the 1% get tax deductions or have tax exempt status?
Its not...no one is claiming its welfare. They're saying that the rich have to prove they are not drug addicted criminals before they can recieve tax breaks that might go to support their criminal drug habits. What's wrong with that?
 
Its not...no one is claiming its welfare. We're saying that the rich have to prove they are not drug addicted criminals before they can recieve tax breaks that might go to support their criminal drug habits.

The problem with the thread is that it is a false equivalency.

You assume getting a tax cut is the same as receiving welfare. I can't believe that I have to explain this (maybe that explains Bernie/Hilllary support) but they aren't the same thing

A tax cut is the government. TAKING less of your property
Welfare is receiving the property of others that the government has taken

It is amazing how nonsense like this OP can be passed off as serious debate and some sort of political gotcha.

For the record, I am opposed to drug testing welfare recipients because it is a violation of their freedoms just because they are takers.

Reform the welfare system. There are simple ways to do it

Nobody's total welfare payments can ever exceed the salary of someone working full time making at least minimum wage. And yes, I don't give a fuck if you have to work two or three jobs to make ends meet.
 
What is the economic argument behind raising them?
its not an economic argument. It's an argument to prevent criminal drug addicts from using the benefits from our hard earned tax dollars or tax breaks to support their criminal drug habits and criminal drug activities. Again, what's wrong with that?
 
Last edited:
Here's an economic argument for why Cap Gains are taxed lower:


YES: It Makes Sense for Individuals—and the Economy


To many people, investment income should obviously be taxed at the same rate as labor income. After all, income is income, right?

But it’s not that simple. There are compelling reasons to treat capital gains differently than other earnings.

For one thing, taxes on investment earnings effectively double-tax that income. Labor income is taxed when it is earned, and investments are generally made out of after-tax earnings—so capital-gains levies represent another bite out of an investor’s money.

In effect, the system punishes those who put their money to work. Raising the capital-gains tax rate would just make the punishment that much more drastic.

This question doesn’t simply affect people who invest—it affects the entire economy. Investment capital is one of the most important drivers of economic growth, and the promise of big capital gains are an important inducement to get people to put money into critical but risky fields like biotechnology. If we want more inventions, or a faster cure for cancer, then we should have lower capital-gains taxes.

The Inflation Bite

Capital gains differ from regular income in another important way: They can be much harder hit by inflation, so they need a lower tax rate to reflect that fact.

Labor income is taxed as it is earned, so there’s no meaningful difference between your nominal and inflation-adjusted earnings. With a capital investment held over time, though, there can be a big difference between the nominal and real capital gain, with much of the nominal gain simply reflecting inflation.

Consider investors who bought an apartment building for $1 million. Assume they held the building for 20 years, over which time its value rose at the rate of inflation, say 2% annually.

In that case, there wouldn’t be a change in the real value of the building. After 20 years it would be worth more in dollar terms, but those dollars would have no more purchasing power than the $1 million originally invested.

Some say we can sidestep the inflation problem—and thereby justify higher taxes on capital gains—by indexing investments to inflation.

But this would further complicate our already complex tax system. You would have to keep track of not just each investment and sale, but also the consumer-price index the day each transaction occurred. Having taught economics for 34 years, I can assure you that even most college graduates are incapable of doing the math required to index their capital income.

What Works Best

Critics raise a number of other arguments for raising capital-gains rates. They say lower rates provide perverse incentives, spurring people to go into certain jobs that are driven by capital gains instead of doing more productive work. And, they argue, lower rates lead people to spend great time and effort on unproductive things like setting up tax shelters.

Yet, as we’ve seen, capital gains are a way to reward investors in crucial industries. Do we want to risk cutting off that supply of funds to keep some people from becoming, say, hedge-fund managers? If we want to eliminate tax shelters, meanwhile, we should tighten the tax code, not raise taxes on capital gains.

Then there’s an argument about fairness. A low capital-gains rate, critics say, defeats the idea of progressive taxation, since mostly wealthy individuals take advantage of the lower rate.

The best way to handle the situation is to aim for progressivity with respect to consumption—what people take out of society. Ultimately, my preference is for a system where assets can be shifted around within a 401(k)-type structure. That means investors would be able to move their money from one investment to another, without facing a tax liability until they actually withdrew the money and spent it. There should be no limits to contributions to these plans, and no restrictions on the date of withdrawal.


http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-should-capital-gains-be-taxed-1425271052
Again, you're missing the point. This isn't about tax policy. It's about not giving tax breaks to anyone until the have proven they are not a criminal drug addict. What is wrong with that Wacko?
 
The congregation where I preach might be tax exempt but I pay taxes on what they pay me. A large percentage, IMO.
Sorry LR but you're missing the point too. Why shouldn't you and you're congregation not have to prove your not a bunch of criminal drug addicts using your Church as a front for the drug trade by having to submit a drug test before you can file a tax exempt status?
 
Last edited:
The problem with the thread is that it is a false equivalency.

You assume getting a tax cut is the same as receiving welfare. I can't believe that I have to explain this (maybe that explains Bernie/Hilllary support) but they aren't the same thing

A tax cut is the government. TAKING less of your property
Welfare is receiving the property of others that the government has taken

It is amazing how nonsense like this OP can be passed off as serious debate and some sort of political gotcha.

For the record, I am opposed to drug testing welfare recipients because it is a violation of their freedoms just because they are takers.

Reform the welfare system. There are simple ways to do it

Nobody's total welfare payments can ever exceed the salary of someone working full time making at least minimum wage. And yes, I don't give a fuck if you have to work two or three jobs to make ends meet.
Boy you're dumber than a bagful of hammers. It has nothing to do with that. Why shouldn't those who recieve public benefits of any kind not have to prove they are not a criminal druggie?
 
Its not...no one is claiming its welfare. They're saying that the rich have to prove they are not drug addicted criminals before they can recieve tax breaks that might go to support their criminal drug habits. What's wrong with that?

Because tax breaks are merely them getting to keep more of their own money!

The very idea that you or the OP somehow miss this most basic point is ridiculous and why we are rapidly descending into a nation of vapid idiots.
 
Boy you're dumber than a bagful of hammers. It has nothing to do with that. Why shouldn't those who recieve public benefits of any kind not have to prove they are not a criminal druggie?

The government not confiscating your money is a public benefit?

That's part of what's wrong with this country lol.
 
its not an economic argument. It's an argument to prevent criminal drug addicts from using the benefits from our hard earned tax dollars or tax breaks to support their criminal drug habits and criminal drug activities. Again, what's wrong with that?

Someone getting to keep more of their money does not take money from your tiny $50,000 year salary sparky
 
well you shits want corporations to have votes too


you don't seem to mind that they often are owned by non Americans
 
Because tax breaks are merely them getting to keep more of their own money!

The very idea that you or the OP somehow miss this most basic point is ridiculous and why we are rapidly descending into a nation of vapid idiots.
if anyone is missing the point it is you. What is wrong with requiring anyone to take a drug test to prove they are not a criminal druggie be fore they recieve any government service, benefit or tax break?
 
its not the point. The point is to unconstitutionally demonize the wealthy as criminals as they do the poor.

It's as good an idea as drug testing welfare recipients. Why should a drug addict be given a tax break that would support their unlawful habit?

so everyone who has a capital gain should be drug tested before they can file their income taxes.......would the same apply to the itemized deductions, because that is where you declare your charitable contributions and we all know that THOSE are welfare for the rich.........
 
Back
Top