Conquer Club

Point of order on tax breaks and tax cuts - As politicians and the media define those terms, they are identical. They are, however, not identical in the realm of taxes generally.

A tax break is generally an incentive or credit associated with a particular measure the government would like to see accomplished. For example, if the government wants companies to hire disadvantaged persons, they will provide monetary incentives in the form of a credit (or simply cash). Further, a tax break may also be considered to be a deduction related to a particular measure the government would like to see accomplished - a deduction from income for giving to charity, for example.

A tax cut is a reduction in the tax rate.

Also, I would appreciate if you all stopped referring to tax cuts or tax breaks as the government giving you money. They aren't giving you money. They are collecting less from you. The money that the government has is not their money, it's your money. A fine distinction but one that is rarely used by politicians or the media.

I don't care if drug tests are mandatory for welfare recipients or not. I will say that a welfare recipient is on welfare so that he or she may live so that he or she may get a job and get off of welfare. Some drug users can get a job, some cannot (which is probably dependent upon the drug and the frequency of use). The only problem I would have is the cost associated with drug testing (and the taxes collected to pay for drug testing).

The other thing to think about is whether the definition of "drugs" includes alcohol or tobacco and whether the definition should include these items.

thegreekdog wrote:They aren't giving you money. They are collecting less from you.

Semantics.

thegreekdog wrote:
Also, I would appreciate if you all stopped referring to tax cuts or tax breaks as the government giving you money. They aren't giving you money. They are collecting less from you. The money that the government has is not their money, it's your money. A fine distinction but one that is rarely used by politicians or the media.

US GOVT: "I'm not giving you less money. I'm just demanding that you give me less money because I created a way for you to retain some of your money. Essentially, I gave you money, but not really."

TGD, did you just say the following?

10,000 owed
2,000 credited
_______________
8000 owed

The source of the $2000 is not the government because the money that the government claims is not theirs, it's ours (regardless of how little power we have on deciding how it will be spent).

_________________________________________________________

Isn't the revenue collected from taxes basically an act of conversion? If someone steals something, and uses for their own purposes, then they have committed conversion, correct?

The point is that welfare is meant to help people.

Is a welfare recipient who spends the welfare check on drugs being helped?

natty_dread wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:They aren't giving you money. They are collecting less from you.

Semantics.

Not really, no. You believe it's semantics because you've been conditioned to believe it's their money and not yours. And it's very different in light of cash incentives and refundable credits that are given to people, corporations, and other organizations which takes your money and give it to someone else so that the government can attempt to get a certain result (for example, operation of ethanol refineries).

BBS - thanks for the mathematics example. The government takes money from you, which is perhaps conversion, so they can give it to other people, corporations, unions, other entities and organizations (including foreign lenders), and themselves. The credit you receive is when you overpay your taxes based upon what you paid in during the year compared to what you owe once you do your tax return.

Related aside - You get that money back without interest, by the way. If, on the other hand, you don't pay enough taxes (through withholding) during the year, the United States will charge you interest.

thegreekdog wrote:you've been conditioned to believe

I only use shampoo.

natty_dread wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:you've been conditioned to believe

I only use shampoo.

That's good. I've heard conditioner can hurt your hair.

Phatscotty wrote:The point is that welfare is meant to help people.
Is a welfare recipient who spends the welfare check on drugs being helped?

In their mind? I would say "yes" in most cases. Is your opinion of that more valid than theirs, necessarily?

jimboston wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:
If the legislation were proven to have a positive benefit, that is it would truly move people off drugs without cuasing more harm, would save us money, etc. then I would not care that this legislator might benefit. Someone benefits from every decision made.

However, since this is definitely NOT beneficial.. it absolutely makes on question the integrity of that guy.

Please demonstrate how this is definitely NOT beneficial.

If implemented correctly it would be beneficial.

Just saying it is not, does not make it so.

There are 2 categories of drug users and alchohol users (the inclusion is intentional, though one is legal and the other not). A few use either "casually", and mostly you could not tell them from anyone else. In drugs, these are pretty much not users of heroine or such, but mostly marihuana and a few others, maybe including a few who even use things like cocaine. A lot of that group are not buying the stuff themselves... think of the friend or neighbor who stops by and gets a beer now and then. Even if they are buying it, sure, they are wasting money, but so are people who buy a lot of stuff. Even people who think they are making "intelligent" choices might be considered to be making "stupid" purchases by others. (you could argue that paying more for some supposedly natural foods might fit in that category, just to pick one example). Testing them will make it harder for them to find another job because they will then have a criminal record, and really for a behavior that is, in itself not more harmful than 1000 other behaviors.

The other group are the ones this law is "really" supposed to be targeting. These are the truth Most of us agree we would rather not be paying the bills of people who go around in a stupor or worse. Ironically, though, most in that category partake of alchohol, not illegal drugs. In either case, these individuals will go to great lengths to get their "fix", including not buying food, or stealing... to get drugs (perhaps food, but only perhaps). Cutting them off welfare won't "encourage" them to go off drugs, go out and get a job because they are just not thinking logically. People don't go on drugs because they are feeling wonderful, thinking logic and caring a lot about either themselves or others.

We know this, because neither drug use nor alchoholism are particularly new to society. There is a long track record of evidence. We KNOW what works. The trouble is those programs that do work to get people off drugs and heavy alchohol are quite expensive and are not 100% effective.

The BEST, and cheapest way to prevent these problems is to deal with the kids... make sure the kids get the counseling, support, treatment and assistance they need. Except -- those are exactly the place these same "brilliant" politicians are cutting over and over.

I can add another solution, but I already touched on that earlier.. enough.

jimboston wrote:

Woodruff wrote:
So laws like this that cost more than they save...that sounds like a "taxpayer stfu" if I've ever heard one.

How would this cost more?

Randomly test Welfare Recipients... if they test positive, you stop payments.

Seems like a money-saver to me.

Because the overwhelming majority of welfare recipients are not on drugs and never will be. The cost of testing, administration of the programs, enforcing the testing, etc, etc. all will cost considerally more than the money that is paid out for welfare.

As I already said, the cost of treatment and prevention programs are even more expensive. So, we continue to pay off these folks with bare minimum payments.

Also, one other thing. Welfare is not "living the high life", not unless you are getting significant help from outside. (which, with few exceptions means you are cheating -- kids can get xmas gifts, etc.), It really does cover just the bare minimums. Now, it still grates.. but as I have said before, it is a payoff that is cheaper (not just "more moral" or "softer", but CHEAPER) than either letting them go or dealing with the situation more effectively.

Woodruff wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:The point is that welfare is meant to help people.
Is a welfare recipient who spends the welfare check on drugs being helped?

In their mind? I would say "yes" in most cases. Is your opinion of that more valid than theirs, necessarily?

I am actually impressed by how you dodged that.

In "their mind"? Like I'm asking them... "Excuse me welfare recipient, but do drugs help you?"

I'm asking you. Care to take another swing at it?

Phatscotty wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:The point is that welfare is meant to help people.
Is a welfare recipient who spends the welfare check on drugs being helped?

In their mind? I would say "yes" in most cases. Is your opinion of that more valid than theirs, necessarily?

I am actually impressed by how you dodged that.

Oh snap!





When the King Of The Dodge is impressed with how you dodged something...

thegreekdog wrote: BBS - thanks for the mathematics example. The government takes money from you, which is perhaps conversion, so they can give it to other people, corporations, unions, other entities and organizations (including foreign lenders), and themselves. The credit you receive is when you overpay your taxes based upon what you paid in during the year compared to what you owe once you do your tax return.

Uh... greekdog, you must be tired (and were you not a tac professional, I would probably let this slide as irrelevant, but.. you are )

A tax refund is overpaid money from the year. A tax credit is money you get off from your tax bill. [for any other readers:] It is at least theoretically to encourage some behavior or compensate for some loss, be it haivng children, losing your house in Katrina or buying solar energy systems.

A refund is irrelevant to the tax rate, tax payment. Someone owing $200 a year could get more, as much or less a refund than someone owing $20,000, depending on how much they overpay. A credit, however will change the actual tax rate paid.

Phatscotty wrote:The point is that welfare is meant to help people.

Is a welfare recipient who spends the welfare check on drugs being helped?

The point is that this program helps US far less. If you are truly interested in helping people on drugs, then vote for increased support of drug abuse programs, schools, etc. Those will, in the long term, cost less. (they do cost more in the short term, but that gets paid back many times over, even given that no program has anything like a 100% success rate).

Timminz wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:The point is that welfare is meant to help people.
Is a welfare recipient who spends the welfare check on drugs being helped?

In their mind? I would say "yes" in most cases. Is your opinion of that more valid than theirs, necessarily?

I am actually impressed by how you dodged that.

Oh snap!

When the King Of The Dodge is impressed with how you dodged something...

But why wait for a shittier example, unless you real motive is to life-preserve Woody in his valiant efforts.

I will allow you Timminz, to show me any or every example of any dodge ever committed by myself, and I will address it. Don't be flattered, is the same coupon deal I give everyone anytime they try to say that same old bullshit.

Sometimes I don't even think you are trying. Just knowing that you passed over Woody's highly visible side-step which was also conveniently deleted by you gives you a lot of clout on the issue of dodging however.

Now that I look at it, you are making an accusation of dodging where there is none, only to help Woody dodge.

Can't dodge the lodge son.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:The point is that welfare is meant to help people.

Is a welfare recipient who spends the welfare check on drugs being helped?

The point is that this program helps US far less. If you are truly interested in helping people on drugs, then vote for increased support of drug abuse programs, schools, etc. Those will, in the long term, cost less. (they do cost more in the short term, but that gets paid back many times over, even given that no program has anything like a 100% success rate).

Okay, but.....Is a welfare recipient who spends the welfare check on drugs being helped?

Phatscotty wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:The point is that welfare is meant to help people.

Is a welfare recipient who spends the welfare check on drugs being helped?

The point is that this program helps US far less. If you are truly interested in helping people on drugs, then vote for increased support of drug abuse programs, schools, etc. Those will, in the long term, cost less. (they do cost more in the short term, but that gets paid back many times over, even given that no program has anything like a 100% success rate).

Okay, but.....Is a welfare recipient who spends the welfare check on drugs being helped?

You are missing the point. They will be helped even less by not getting a welfare check.. and the rest of us will be hurt worse as well.

Phatscotty wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:The point is that welfare is meant to help people.
Is a welfare recipient who spends the welfare check on drugs being helped?

In their mind? I would say "yes" in most cases. Is your opinion of that more valid than theirs, necessarily?

I am actually impressed by how you dodged that.

Dodged? There was no dodge there. You asked if someone on drugs is being helped by being given more drugs. From the drug user's perspective, I would say that is a "yes" in most cases. As I asked before (and YOU dodged), do you believe your opinion of "helping them" is more valid than theirs?

Phatscotty wrote:In "their mind"? Like I'm asking them... "Excuse me welfare recipient, but do drugs help you?"

Not quite. More like "Excuse me welfare recipient, but would it help you if I gave you money for drugs?"

Phatscotty wrote:I'm asking you. Care to take another swing at it?

You're asking me what? I already answered you. I then asked you a question...and received no response.

Phatscotty wrote:I will allow you Timminz, to show me any or every example of any dodge ever committed by myself, and I will address it. Don't be flattered, is the same coupon deal I give everyone anytime they try to say that same old bullshit.

And you keep saying this...and keep getting shown examples...which you keep ignoring. It's happened so often it's almost a ConquerClub meme.

Woodruff wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:I will allow you Timminz, to show me any or every example of any dodge ever committed by myself, and I will address it. Don't be flattered, is the same coupon deal I give everyone anytime they try to say that same old bullshit.

And you keep saying this...and keep getting shown examples...which you keep ignoring. It's happened so often it's almost a ConquerClub meme.

The healthcare threads probably have the most.

BigBallinStalin wrote:Drug testing for welfare recipients discriminates against a people of a certain socioeconomic background because other recipients of "welfare" won't be drug tested.

The cost incurred by welfare recipients are partly subsidized by revenue raised through taxes, which in turn makes welfare recipients receivers of a government subsidy. In order to ensure that no particular socioeconomic category is discriminated against, then almost everyone* whose costs are subsidized by the government should also be drug tested. In effect, anyone who has received a "tax break" or "tax credit," which was NOT due to overpayment of taxes, must be drug tested because tax breaks and tax credits are essentially a form of a government subsidy.

This would supposedly ensure that recipients of government subsidies act responsibly (lolwut?).


*What special exceptions preclude recipients of government subsidies from this drug test?

In that case, there are already plenty of "BBS defined welfare" sectors who require drug tests. People who are on probation (see BBS definition of welfare) have to pee in a cup every month or 3 months or what have you. Oh, if they are caught, they go to jail. Or, we could go much more realistically, with certain sectors of government employment who do have to take a test at the interview, specifically people who drive cars and trucks. There aren't really that many like that tho...ya know

Your argument only slightly holds up when viewed strictly through a socio-economic lens. Unfortunately, the topic is not socio-economics.

Not to mention, your entire posts apparently lives in a world where if we test one person, we have to test everyone? That won't even be the case in this specific thread issue. They can't possibly test every recipient every month. It will be random or upon suspicion. You can slap my hand for assuming, but I would bet that someone who would be smart enough to implement this program would also have a plan to make sure they aren't requiring someone to piss in a cup or give a hair sample that comes up clean for 36 months straight....

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:The point is that welfare is meant to help people.

Is a welfare recipient who spends the welfare check on drugs being helped?

The point is that this program helps US far less. If you are truly interested in helping people on drugs, then vote for increased support of drug abuse programs, schools, etc. Those will, in the long term, cost less. (they do cost more in the short term, but that gets paid back many times over, even given that no program has anything like a 100% success rate).

Okay, but.....Is a welfare recipient who spends the welfare check on drugs being helped?

You are missing the point. They will be helped even less by not getting a welfare check.. and the rest of us will be hurt worse as well.

I am the one making the point. Are you trying to top Woody now by accusing me of missing my own point? Or are you trying to come runner up in dodging the question. If you are unable to answer it, then why respond?

Woodruff wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:The point is that welfare is meant to help people.
Is a welfare recipient who spends the welfare check on drugs being helped?

In their mind? I would say "yes" in most cases. Is your opinion of that more valid than theirs, necessarily?

I am actually impressed by how you dodged that.

Dodged? There was no dodge there. You asked if someone on drugs is being helped by being given more drugs. From the drug user's perspective, I would say that is a "yes" in most cases. As I asked before (and YOU dodged), do you believe your opinion of "helping them" is more valid than theirs?

Phatscotty wrote:In "their mind"? Like I'm asking them... "Excuse me welfare recipient, but do drugs help you?"

Not quite. More like "Excuse me welfare recipient, but would it help you if I gave you money for drugs?"

Phatscotty wrote:I'm asking you. Care to take another swing at it?

You're asking me what? I already answered you. I then asked you a question...and received no response.

your answer was what you assume a drug addict on welfare thinks? REJECTED! forgive me if you are a drug addict on welfare...

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:I will allow you Timminz, to show me any or every example of any dodge ever committed by myself, and I will address it. Don't be flattered, is the same coupon deal I give everyone anytime they try to say that same old bullshit.

And you keep saying this...and keep getting shown examples...which you keep ignoring. It's happened so often it's almost a ConquerClub meme.

The healthcare threads probably have the most.

I can tell by your attitude that you know you're gonna be doing a lot of looking.......dont ya

Woodruff wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:I will allow you Timminz, to show me any or every example of any dodge ever committed by myself, and I will address it. Don't be flattered, is the same coupon deal I give everyone anytime they try to say that same old bullshit.

And you keep saying this...and keep getting shown examples...which you keep ignoring. It's happened so often it's almost a ConquerClub meme.

Go ahead, throw it right in my face. I said I will address it.

I suppose now you are gonna start calling me scared?