"Let's drug-test the rich before approving tax deductions."
June 16, 2016 11:49 AM   Subscribe

US Congresswoman Gwen Moore is tired of the "criminalization of poverty." Moore plans to introduce a bill on Thursday that she thinks will even the playing field or, at least, “engage the wealthy in a conversation about what fair tax policy looks like”. The bill, called the Top 1% Accountability Act, would force taxpayers with itemized deductions of more than $150,000 – which, according to 2011 tax data compiled by the IRS, would only be households with a yearly federal adjusted gross income of more than $1m – to submit to the IRS a clear drug test from a sample no more than three months old, or take the much lower standard deduction when filing their taxes.

Born in Racine, Wisconsin in 1951, Congresswoman Moore was raised in Milwaukee. The eighth of nine children, Congresswoman Moore’s father was a factory worker and her mother was a public school teacher. Congresswoman Moore attended North Division High School in Milwaukee where she served as Student Council President. After graduation, she started college at Marquette University as a single, expectant mother on welfare who could only complete her education with the help of TRIO. Congresswoman Moore earned a B.A. in Political Science from Marquette, and went on to serve as a community leader spearheading the start-up of a community credit union as a VISTA volunteer for which she earned the national “VISTA Volunteer of the Decade” award from 1976-1986. She was also a member of the Wisconsin State Assembly and Senate before serving in Congress.
posted by pjsky (56 comments total) 93 users marked this as a favorite
 
Sounds good to me.
posted by SansPoint at 11:51 AM on June 16, 2016 [18 favorites]


oh snap indeed.

That said I wish politicians on all sides of the political spectrum would stop wasting legislators' time with bullshit drug-testing bills. The notion that being poor isn't a sufficient inherent disincentive to being poor is ridiculous.
posted by GuyZero at 11:51 AM on June 16, 2016 [34 favorites]


Fair's fair!

This reminds me of the meme going around that says prospective gun-buyers should be getting the same kind of treatment as women who want to get an abortion. And similarly it has no chance of success, but it would be wonderful if it somehow came to pass.
posted by wenestvedt at 11:56 AM on June 16, 2016 [54 favorites]


Sounds like Gwen Moore is trying really hard to get an enthusiastic hug and a hundred high fives from me.
posted by furnace.heart at 11:57 AM on June 16, 2016 [40 favorites]


No more than three months old??!? They should have to provide the sample right in front of an IRS agent on tax day!
posted by Phredward at 11:59 AM on June 16, 2016 [73 favorites]


Ha ha ha ha!!! Awesome!!
posted by latkes at 12:01 PM on June 16, 2016


Bless her.
posted by prefpara at 12:01 PM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]


Gee, I wonder if the very rich could manage to find a way to falsify drug test results.

(Yes, I get that she's doing this more to make a point about drug tests than because she actually wants to drug test those taking large deductions, but still.)
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 12:05 PM on June 16, 2016 [4 favorites]


I love it. A quote from comedian Cameron Esposito today points out that since neither women nor people of color signed the original constitution, it may be time for an update. I agree.
posted by amanda at 12:05 PM on June 16, 2016 [23 favorites]


Um, except fuck drug tests in general. I totally approve of going after the rich, but drug tests were a Reagan-era effort to drive liberals out of the military, police, and employment. I do not approve of them nope nope nope.
posted by Abehammerb Lincoln at 12:05 PM on June 16, 2016 [30 favorites]


OK, I see the point about making everyone hate drug tests, not just the rest of us.
posted by Abehammerb Lincoln at 12:06 PM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]


Oh, tell me mor...0h yeah.

Imagine the market for...
It's so straight forward like a headline.

'Man refuses to trim nose hair: experiences 27% increase in cocaine consumption.'
posted by clavdivs at 12:07 PM on June 16, 2016


Let's not stop there.

The standard line is that "government handouts" (welfare, unemployment, etc.) remove the incentive for folks to find jobs. Therefore, we should severely limit them.

OK.

The 1% are "job creators." Higher taxes remove the incentive to invest and create jobs. Fine. We'll tie the tax rate above a certain income to the unemployment rate. If unemployment goes above a certain threshold, increase the tax (to go into job training programs, etc.). This should be calculated on a month-to-month basis, so it's less impacted on seasonal variations. Want the lower rate? Create jobs.
posted by MrGuilt at 12:07 PM on June 16, 2016 [120 favorites]


The spirit of this proposal is sound, but we ultimately want less emphasis on drug laws, not more. We want to decriminalize for the poor, not criminalize for the rich. I suppose if she's just trying to make a statement, well done.
posted by namesarehard at 12:07 PM on June 16, 2016 [2 favorites]


works for me!
posted by supermedusa at 12:08 PM on June 16, 2016


I wonder if the very rich could manage to find a way to falsify drug test results.

This is why they should be held in a secure facility for twenty-four hours, possibly to consult with a trained mental health/tax accounts professional to be educated about the moral perils inherent in claiming those deductions before being asked to pee in a jar. Before a few third-party witnesses and a member of the clergy, of course.
posted by bonehead at 12:09 PM on June 16, 2016 [21 favorites]


I have a hard time seeing anyone who doesn't already get the issues with criminalizing poverty, get this. But I hope I'm wrong!
posted by R a c h e l at 12:09 PM on June 16, 2016


It's an entertaining idea. And it's cool to talk about the issues instead of whatever asshole thing Trump tweeted today. It's maybe sad that it's necessary to be hyperbolic to get media traction.

I'm glad you guys are considering the fact that rich people have the resources to hire other people to pee for them.
posted by puddledork at 12:17 PM on June 16, 2016 [2 favorites]


I also enjoy the fact that it frames something I don't think enough people get: that a tax deduction is the economic equivalent of a payment. Things look different when you frame the mortgage interest deduction as paying the middle class to own houses, etc.
posted by craven_morhead at 12:20 PM on June 16, 2016 [25 favorites]


The spirit of this proposal is sound, but we ultimately want less emphasis on drug laws, not more. We want to decriminalize for the poor, not criminalize for the rich.

Have you noticed that there's a lot more discussion of whether the drug war is really a good idea now that white middle-class people are dying of heroin overdoses?

The spirit of this proposal is decriminalization, of several different things.
posted by Etrigan at 12:20 PM on June 16, 2016 [6 favorites]


No more than three months old??!? They should have to provide the sample right in front of an IRS agent on tax day!

Can't be on tax day, or they'll just game the system by purging themselves before the test. It'll have to be on completely random days. And, come to think of it, the only thing that shows up on a drug screen more than about 24 hours after consumption is THC, and we're worried about much more than the demon-weed here--there's an opiod crisis afoot, after all. Heroin or cocaine or alcohol will clear your system completely within a day or two, so these tests need to happen with no notice. Preferably in the middle of the night, by an armed extraction team, because the wealthy have been known to employ bodyguards who will need to be neutralized. For maximum effect, I want the leader of the extraction team to scream "I'M FROM THE GOVERNMENT AND I'M HERE TO HELP" as they burst through the door.
posted by Mayor West at 12:23 PM on June 16, 2016 [29 favorites]


The spirit of this proposal is decriminalization modest, and Swift.
posted by Strange Interlude at 12:23 PM on June 16, 2016 [44 favorites]


I like her proposal, but it doesn't go far enough. Anyone who receives anything of benefit from the government should be tested! That includes elected officials and their staffs, defense contractors and their employees, hell, make it any entity that does business with the government. If you use the postal system, drive on the streets, or enjoy sporting events at taxpayer-subsidized stadiums: pee in a cup. That should pretty much cover everyone.
posted by TedW at 12:28 PM on June 16, 2016 [6 favorites]


Then we can have the military hold bake sales!
posted by Greg_Ace at 12:31 PM on June 16, 2016 [2 favorites]


I like MrGuilt's idea to tie taxes to employment numbers
posted by rebent at 12:36 PM on June 16, 2016 [5 favorites]


I also enjoy the fact that it frames something I don't think enough people get: that a tax deduction is the economic equivalent of a payment. Things look different when you frame the mortgage interest deduction as paying the middle class to own houses, etc.

I'm also strongly in favor of some good old-fashioned public shaming. You can take the mortgage interest deduction for your $3 million house, sure, but in exchange, the mail carrier gets to call you a mooch when he sees you, and the next time you go to the DMV, they give you a new license plate that says "You helped pay for this car!"

(I'm picturing something like this)
posted by Mayor West at 12:38 PM on June 16, 2016 [4 favorites]


'Man refuses to trim nose hair: experiences 27% increase in cocaine consumption.'

But wouldn't trimming the nose hair make it easier to, uh, feel the burn?
posted by octobersurprise at 12:39 PM on June 16, 2016


Basically, this is legislative snark. As a snark-fan, I appreciate these stunts. But I wonder whether it's persuasive or effective. (I recall similar efforts in state legislatures to protest the vaginal ultrasound bill seemed to fall on deaf ears.)
posted by anotherpanacea at 12:40 PM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]


Well, when you're the minority party in the House with no actual power, pretty much all you have are attention-getting ploys. Might as well play loud for the cheap seats.
posted by tonycpsu at 12:47 PM on June 16, 2016 [15 favorites]


Alternate proposal:

We should take their money. And then we should use it to buy drugs.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 1:00 PM on June 16, 2016 [30 favorites]


I also enjoy the fact that it frames something I don't think enough people get: that a tax deduction is the economic equivalent of a payment. Things look different when you frame the mortgage interest deduction as paying the middle class to own houses, etc.

Oh how I wish we could flip the public conversation this way. I know far, far too many people who just don't understand the fundamentals of taxation. I make it my personal business to barge into people's posts every April about "Oh, I owe so much in tax" to say "Wow, you must make TONS of money compared to me." Cause it's true, and they need to remember that.
posted by threeturtles at 1:06 PM on June 16, 2016 [20 favorites]


Some background on tax expenditures.
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 1:11 PM on June 16, 2016


When I first scanned the "criminalization of poverty", my brain immediately went to the fees and penalties that disproportionally penalize the poor in our privatized justice system.

So I was hoping this would aim at evening out that out, like, speeding ticket proportional to car value, or a "fee for warrant" proportional to your property value.
posted by Dashy at 1:14 PM on June 16, 2016


I don't actually support instituting drug testing in any circumstance where it's not directly relevant to public safety. However, I do like this as an object lesson in explaining the irrelevancy, poor logic, and hypocrisy of the justifications made for instituting drug-testing laws to receive TANF.

Related: Start conducting stop-and-frisks near the bars/restaurants popular in the high-rent office districts, targeting certain types of well-heeled businesspersons right after happy hour. If hauling people in for possession and low-level drug dealing is so damn valuable, why ignore the gold mine of cocaine exchanging hands downtown? (This is a rhetorical question.)
posted by desuetude at 1:37 PM on June 16, 2016 [13 favorites]


Aren't the drug tests for benefits systems all administered by the states? Why not introduce a bill to prohibit states receiving block grants for benefits from drug testing recipients? I understand how a stunt can be used to pave the way, but why not introduce the bill, then do the stunt after it fails to pass?
posted by hermanubis at 1:57 PM on June 16, 2016


Basically, this is legislative snark. As a snark-fan, I appreciate these stunts. But I wonder whether it's persuasive or effective. (I recall similar efforts in state legislatures to protest the vaginal ultrasound bill seemed to fall on deaf ears.)
If it can be brought to a vote (let's not get our hopes up), we might get the representatives who are against it to stand up and explain why it's a bad idea. Which would not only be great fun, it could provide great material during the next election cycle.
posted by adamrice at 2:08 PM on June 16, 2016 [3 favorites]


It's not gonna get to a vote. Most people, I suspect, intuit a difference between tax expenditures and transfer payments, so I wouldn't think anyone would fumble with a response.
posted by jpe at 2:18 PM on June 16, 2016


MrGuilt: The 1% are "job creators." Higher taxes remove the incentive to invest and create jobs. Fine. We'll tie the tax rate above a certain income to the unemployment rate. If unemployment goes above a certain threshold, increase the tax (to go into job training programs, etc.). This should be calculated on a month-to-month basis, so it's less impacted on seasonal variations. Want the lower rate? Create jobs.

And if they complain that high taxes are making it hard to have enough money to hire enough people, they can take out a payday loan.
posted by filthy light thief at 2:36 PM on June 16, 2016 [9 favorites]


Fine snark, but.

a) Not only is a "within three months" drug test beyond ludicrous at face value -- as Jello Biafra once said, "do it live on national TV, let Vanna turn the letters, Yes or No" -- it's doubly silly because drugs simply do not stay in your system for that long. If you're testing hair instead of urine or blood, you stand a chance of catching habitual users but opening up further arguments over test reliability.

b) Who performs the tests? Who vouches for their reliability? Who vouches for THEIR reliability? Who maintains chain-of-possession-certified samples for that many people when we have enough trouble trying to keep smaller groups like professional athletes from evading pissing hot?

c) What drugs are we testing for, anyway? If you move from Colorado to Texas and you were smoking legal weed, do you get a grace period? Are we going full Olympics where Sudafed knocks you out, or are we going the other way and picking and choosing what's acceptable?

d) And most importantly, saying "if the rich take drugs we are entitled to take their money away" has an unfortunate implication -- that it's okay after all if we hold the poor to that same standard.
posted by delfin at 3:20 PM on June 16, 2016 [2 favorites]


most importantly, saying "if the rich take drugs we are entitled to take their money away" has an unfortunate implication -- that it's okay after all if we hold the poor to that same standard.

The US already holds the poor to that standard. This bill is just leveling the playing field.

/explainsthejoke
posted by dazed_one at 3:26 PM on June 16, 2016 [23 favorites]


Nice troll.
posted by Sebmojo at 3:50 PM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]


To truly assess this totally-serious plan, we need to know two figures:
1. How many cups of pee will the IRS be receiving under this plan? and
2. How many more cups of pee is that than normal?
posted by Huffy Puffy at 4:10 PM on June 16, 2016 [3 favorites]



The US already holds the poor to that standard. This bill is just leveling the playing field.

On a more serious note, perhaps drug testing the poor would not survive an equal protection challenge--now that Congress is passing on the chance to do likewise to the rich.
posted by stevis23 at 5:57 PM on June 16, 2016 [4 favorites]


I guess I'm naive, but I was taken aback, if not downright horrified, with the deluge of genuinely mean and self-righteous comments on this story on the popular site that begins with an "R" and rhymes with "credit". Is there really a massive empathy problem with people under a certain age in this country? (I won't be going there again, sigh...)
posted by anguspodgorny at 6:26 PM on June 16, 2016


> b) Who performs the tests? Who vouches for their reliability? Who vouches for THEIR reliability? Who maintains chain-of-possession-certified samples for that many people when we have enough trouble trying to keep smaller groups like professional athletes from evading pissing hot?

The lowest bidder, of course!
posted by rtha at 6:43 PM on June 16, 2016


This is a pretty important test, so I think one strike and you're out.
posted by maxwelton at 6:57 PM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]


when you frame the mortgage interest deduction as paying the middle class to own houses

Even that's a depressingly ideological framing. The m.i.d. makes it easier for the middle class to own *mortgages*, not houses.
posted by clew at 7:00 PM on June 16, 2016 [2 favorites]


b) Who performs the tests? Who vouches for their reliability? Who vouches for THEIR reliability? Who maintains chain-of-possession-certified samples for that many people when we have enough trouble trying to keep smaller groups like professional athletes from evading pissing hot?

It's only a serious proposal insofar as it gets privileged people to back off of criminalizing people of lesser means. The point is that nobody should get drug tested like this (how freaking demeaning), and it takes an invasive law proposal like this to make it obvious. It's similar (in kind, not degree) to those dumb door checks in stores where you have to prove that you are not a criminal with your receipt before they let you get out what is already appropriately yours.
posted by SpacemanStix at 7:09 PM on June 16, 2016 [2 favorites]


I guess I'm naive, but I was taken aback, if not downright horrified, with the deluge of genuinely mean and self-righteous comments on this story on the popular site that begins with an "R" and rhymes with "credit". Is there really a massive empathy problem with people under a certain age in this country? (I won't be going there again, sigh...)

Think of that site like a massive sleepaway camp with everyone wearing masks, very few counselors and very few rules. If you find like-minded people and you stick to your own subcommunity and hide out, you can have a good time. If you venture into the wide-open areas, don't be surprised when it turns into Lord of the Flies.
posted by delfin at 7:11 PM on June 16, 2016 [4 favorites]


b) Who performs the tests? Who vouches for their reliability? Who vouches for THEIR reliability? Who maintains chain-of-possession-certified samples for that many people when we have enough trouble trying to keep smaller groups like professional athletes from evading pissing hot?

The lowest bidder, of course!


More likely the biggest campaign donor
posted by TedW at 7:14 PM on June 16, 2016


This makes sense. Whatever you think about the legality of drugs I'm pretty sure we can all agree we don't want tax dollars subsidizing the cocaine habits of rich addicts, especially not when were throwing poor people in jail for the same behavior. How does that make sense? And this is not a civil liberties issue, anyone who doesn't want testing can pay the standard tax rate like everyone else. Completely voluntary here.

There are actually a few other behaviors that may be tough to deal with in general, but I definitely don't want my tax dollars subsidizing. For example, if you are claiming a tax subsidy I think it's reasonable to ask that you are paying your legal share; you should be willing to open up all your books wide for money in trusts, corporations or off shore accounts. Again, you don't need to disclose this information unless you are asking for a handout.

Landlords involved in disputes with tenants should not receive tax benefits while these disputes are ongoing. Also, I'd be disturbed if money was going to subsidize things like sexual harassment. If there is a case open against you, or you are an officer or on the board of a company that has such a case being prosecuted against it, subsidies should be with held as well.

And please. This is not about targeting rich people; it's about making sure we're not paying for illegal acts with our public money.
posted by mark k at 7:55 PM on June 16, 2016 [9 favorites]


This makes sense. Whatever you think about the legality of drugs I'm pretty sure we can all agree we don't want tax dollars subsidizing the cocaine habits of rich addicts, especially not when were throwing poor people in jail for the same behavior.

I'm sorry, I can't agree with this. What happened to the old hippies who believed in spreading free love and drugs.

I was previously working with a non-profit doing needle exchange, and most of their clients were poor, and I realized volunteering there that I was doing an impossible endless job, just bailing water. Yes, it helped the people who needed immediate access to safe resources, but I was just another pawn in the culture wars.

As a person against the drug war, I think we need more examples of drug users who are rich and successful. This just feels like shaming. Too many conversations nowadays feel like the proverbial crab pot. So what if rich people like to get hi as much as poor people? Let's reward that instead of of sick fascination with over work and horrible vacation policies.
posted by formless at 8:27 PM on June 16, 2016 [3 favorites]


I've done call center and support work, I can only hope they have their drug of choice waiting for them at home.

Meant to say class wars above, but both apply.
posted by formless at 8:35 PM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]


mark k: Again, you don't need to disclose this information unless you are asking for a handout.

formless: As a person against the drug war, I think we need more examples of drug users who are rich and successful.

I can't tell who is playing along with the joke and who is actually serious, any more....
posted by anotherpanacea at 7:06 AM on June 17, 2016 [5 favorites]


Most people, I suspect, intuit a difference between tax expenditures and transfer payments.

Intuition has nothing to do with it. Republicans have actively campaigned to mislead people into thinking subsidies for the rich are different than subsidies for the poor.
posted by JackFlash at 8:58 AM on June 17, 2016 [5 favorites]


The m.i.d. makes it easier for the middle class to own *mortgages*, not houses.

Depressing truth, indeed. I no longer have a mortgage because we bought a very modest, low-cost home we were able to pay off in 10 years. And every year I look at my lack of credit for being fiscally responsible and grumble.
posted by threeturtles at 9:36 PM on June 17, 2016


« Older A pleasant place. Everything's nice here.   |   "The cable people tell me, 'People calling in. Do... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments