Kansas bill bans TANF recipients from spending at movies or pools

[spamking]

hilarious. republicans have absolutely no respect for the needy in this country. they think they are all degenerates and sinners. they should ask farmers that get government subsidies to do the same. how about the oil companies?

Right . . . we never, ever donate money or time to charities of any kind.

Here, you can have your broad brush back.

 

[Lead]

I understand it to a degree. It probably would've gotten less flack if they just said casinos and/or strip clubs than movies/pools. Either way, the point as the money is for necessities a poor person isn't able to fund on their own. If we are talking purely welfare (no job so applied or low income job so applied), there shouldn't be outrage over this. You would just use your earned income for the movie and the welfare for food/etc. If you didn't have a job, this would put move pressure to maybe find a little work, whether it's part time or whatever to get some income you are free to use on whatever.

 

[Lead]

The way these clowns see it, the gov't should determine exactly what you need to survive and then not allow you to buy anything else if you receive this one particular type of assistance (doesn't apply to moochers who get the mortgage interest deduction or farmers or investors in companies that get targeted tax credits, etc.). It's transparent, but it really pisses some people off if you notice it.

Your comparison is a little off.

Surely you understand the difference between a deduction and a tax credit. A deduction is saying we will lower the taxes you paid in. A tax credit is saying, regardless of what tax you paid (even if it's zero), is giving you a certain amount of money.

The second problem with your example is a person has to do something in order to get this deduction (ex Buy a house with a mortgage, have medical bills, pay real estate taxes, donate to charity). The deduction is actually limited to the amount you pay for a specific purchase and nothing else like casino/strip clubs. For tax credits, these are often very restrictive (Retirement contributions, energy credits for buying something specific, etc). Though we could get into a debate about the pros/cons of these deductions/credits, the point is there are specific rules on how you get these. I would be entirely open for limiting child tax credits use to be spent on the children specifically but I think that would be hard to manage in comparison to welfare.

And tbh, I think a bill like this would encourage raising tax revenues via taxing the rich as you could claim your services are watched for misuse. It makes it a far easier argument to say we need to provide more to a struggling single parent/family for necessities if it is in fact enforced that way.

 

[Bagatur]

I would have more of an issue with banning them from pools.

Dont think their $450 a month maximum is gonna be buying a whole lot of cruises. Might as well ban them from Lambos too. It is political grandstanding.

you dont really think that those $450 a month is all that they have to live on?

 

[Oldmansavage]

I'd prefer they start at the top and work down to eliminate waste but progress is progress.

 

[Lead]

I'd prefer they start at the top and work down to eliminate waste but progress is progress.

Reform seems to be a class war issue. You can't be a politician that wants it full-spectrum or both sides will hate you.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Pretty much. And it applies to those other examples too, you can't have a mortgage interest deduction for your credit card bills, it has to be a mortgage, imagine the nerve of the tyrannical government to do such a thing

The money people are given for having mortgages can be spent on anything they want. I'm not complaining about eligibility rules for TANF beneficiaries.

You've been here long enough to know better jack, it's the Sherdog way.

Still surprises me to see people act so boorishly. I guess I'm too old-fashioned sometimes.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Your comparison is a little off.

Surely you understand the difference between a deduction and a tax credit. A deduction is saying we will lower the taxes you paid in. A tax credit is saying, regardless of what tax you paid (even if it's zero), is giving you a certain amount of money.

Yes, though for most people there is no essential difference.

The second problem with your example is a person has to do something in order to get this deduction (ex Buy a house with a mortgage, have medical bills, pay real estate taxes, donate to charity). The deduction is actually limited to the amount you pay for a specific purchase and nothing else like casino/strip clubs.

You're making the same mistake the other guy was (comparing eligibility to receive the assistance with how it can be used). You have to qualify to receive TANF payments and to receive the mortgage interest deduction. But once you qualify for the mortgage interest deduction, people don't question whether you really need the money or are spending it the way you're supposed to (increased consumption? There isn't really a good justification for it).

I would be entirely open for limiting child tax credits use to be spent on the children specifically but I think that would be hard to manage in comparison to welfare.

What doesn't make sense is saying that recipients of some benefits are supposed to only use the money for purposes the gov't deems appropriate, while other beneficiaries are treated like human beings. You can say, "you only get child tax credits or the mortgage interest deduction if you can prove that you never bought alcohol or cigarettes during the year" or something, but that would be stupid (though stupid WR right-wingers would frame disagreement with it as "supporting the use of tax dollars to buy alcohol and cigarettes).

 

[Lead]

Yes, though for most people there is no essential difference.

There is a difference. A deduction is taxes which the person paid in. This is essentially money they earned which was withheld for tax purposes. A credit is the government giving you money. A credit is far more closer to an example of welfare compared to the deduction example you're using.

You're making the same mistake the other guy was (comparing eligibility to receive the assistance with how it can be used). You have to qualify to receive TANF payments and to receive the mortgage interest deduction. But once you qualify for the mortgage interest deduction, people don't question whether you really need the money or are spending it the way you're supposed to (increased consumption? There isn't really a good justification for it).

I'm not making the mistake, I understand your point. Part of the problem is as mentioned above that it is an unequal comparison. A tax credit would be easier to debate.

You qualify for welfare because you don't have enough money for basic necessities. The money is given to pay for those costs.

You qualify for mortgage interest deduction because the IRS code thinks this balances out the revenue ratio well among wealthy/poor people (again, a whole other debate). The reward is not money given (they aren't paying for your mortgage) but some of your taxes (which were withheld from your wages) back.

It's a poor comparison. You are trying to compare someones earned income should be treated with the same restrictions as a hand out. They are two different things.

What doesn't make sense is saying that recipients of some benefits are supposed to only use the money for purposes the gov't deems appropriate, while other beneficiaries are treated like human beings.

This again is a problem with your comparison. Welfare is a government payout. A mortgage deduction is a deduction of the taxes from earned income. If a person didn't have earned income, they couldn't receive this benefit. It is not the government giving you money but rather them taking less money from you in taxes.

You can say, "you only get child tax credits or the mortgage interest deduction if you can prove that you never bought alcohol or cigarettes during the year" or something, but that would be stupid

When we compare with tax credits, I mentioned it would be harder/impossible to enforce. That doesn't dismiss an argument for enforcing restrictions on welfare, but opens up debate if government payments (distributions) should be made through filing taxes.

(though stupid WR right-wingers would frame disagreement with it as "supporting the use of tax dollars to buy alcohol and cigarettes).

Strawman

I think the bigger problem is the money not going to what it's intended for rather than "support". Either way, both parties argue what tax dollar should and shouldn't support.

 

[Jack V Savage]

There is a difference. A deduction is taxes which the person paid in. This is essentially money they earned which was withheld for tax purposes. A credit is the government giving you money. A credit is far more closer to an example of welfare compared to the deduction example you're using.

No, they are essentially the same. Look at it with some other form of spending that people are less emotional about. Let's say you're buying groceries for $150 and you're the 100th customer of the day and they want to give you a prize. Does it make a difference if they give you $10 off your purchase or $10 in cash? No.

I'm not making the mistake, I understand your point. Part of the problem is as mentioned above that it is an unequal comparison. A tax credit would be easier to debate.

No, you compared the wrong aspects. It's objectively a mistake. The debate isn't about TANF eligibility rules; it's about a requirement that recipients of that particular gov't benefit, unlike other gov't benefits, not be allowed to spend their money according to their own judgment.

You qualify for welfare because you don't have enough money for basic necessities. The money is given to pay for those costs.

Yes, that is the difference. If they give you money for being middle class or above, you can do whatever you want with it, and if they give you money for being poor, you're presumed to be unable to decide how to spend it yourself and generally a lesser human being.

It's a poor comparison. You are trying to compare someones earned income should be treated with the same restrictions as a hand out. They are two different things.

The mortgage interest is a handout, though. It's not their earned income, really. Framing it as a tax break rather than a check is irrelevant.

This again is a problem with your comparison. Welfare is a government payout. A mortgage deduction is a deduction of the taxes from earned income.

This is an irrelevant distinction. The gov't could eliminate the deduction and send cash to people instead with no change in anything. Likewise, it could provide tax breaks to families eligible for TANF and eliminate the payment with no change.

If a person didn't have earned income, they couldn't receive this benefit. It is not the government giving you money but rather them taking less money from you in taxes.

To-may-to, to-may-to. Come on, you're smart enough to understand this.

Strawman

I think the bigger problem is the money not going to what it's intended for rather than "support". Either way, both parties argue what tax dollar should and shouldn't support.

That's not a strawman. A strawman is a weaker form of an argument that someone brings up to discredit one. You know, like what people talking about tattoos and shit have been doing in this thread. What was I doing was using the same argument in a different context to illustrate the absurdity of it. The argument is that people who get one source of supplemental income from the gov't buying X are "using gov't money to buy X." Why wouldn't that apply to people who get the mortgage interest deduction?

 

[Lead]

No, they are essentially the same. Look at it with some other form of spending that people are less emotional about. Let's say you're buying groceries for $150 and you're the 100th customer of the day and they want to give you a prize. Does it make a difference if they give you $10 off your purchase or $10 in cash? No.

Bad example. You are explaining the math but not the source of the money which is what makes the comparison wrong.

No, you compared the wrong aspects. It's objectively a mistake. The debate isn't about TANF eligibility rules; it's about a requirement that recipients of that particular gov't benefit, unlike other gov't benefits, not be allowed to spend their money according to their own judgment.



Yes, that is the difference. If they give you money for being middle class or above, you can do whatever you want with it, and if they give you money for being poor, you're presumed to be unable to decide how to spend it yourself and generally a lesser human being.



The mortgage interest is a handout, though. It's not their earned income, really. Framing it as a tax break rather than a check is irrelevant.



This is an irrelevant distinction. The gov't could eliminate the deduction and send cash to people instead with no change in anything. Likewise, it could provide tax breaks to families eligible for TANF and eliminate the payment with no change.



To-may-to, to-may-to. Come on, you're smart enough to understand this.



That's not a strawman. A strawman is a weaker form of an argument that someone brings up to discredit one. You know, like what people talking about tattoos and shit have been doing in this thread. What was I doing was using the same argument in a different context to illustrate the absurdity of it. The argument is that people who get one source of supplemental income from the gov't buying X are "using gov't money to buy X." Why wouldn't that apply to people who get the mortgage interest deduction?

There is a fundamental difference in our thoughts from your comparison. You are saying that as long as a person is originally taxed a certain amount, any deduction in the tax is the same as the government handing out unearned income.

I can't possibly see beyond that we disagree they aren't the same thing. One is a reduction of how much you have to give away to the government and the other is an amount the government gives out to you. You are debating the math part of it but not the definition and source of the money which is where we disagree.

 

[Jack V Savage]

There is a fundamental difference in our thoughts from your comparison. You are saying that as long as a person is originally taxed a certain amount, any deduction in the tax is the same as the government handing out unearned income.

I can't possibly see beyond that we disagree they aren't the same thing. One is a reduction of how much you have to give away to the government and the other is an amount the government gives out to you. You are debating the math part of it but not the definition and source of the money which is where we disagree.

What do you think of the comparison to a grocery store? Because I think it is just an emotional thing that is preventing you from seeing how they are obviously the same thing.

 

[LilMountain]

What do you think of the comparison to a grocery store? Because I think it is just an emotional thing that is preventing you from seeing how they are obviously the same thing.

Except in that analogy the person on welfare is only 'spending" $5 thus getting back more than they spent and that extra money is the part deemed a handout. And now instead of making it cash the "store" wants it to be a gift card, so you can only spend it where they intended it to be spent when they gave it to you

 

[Lead]

What do you think of the comparison to a grocery store? Because I think it is just an emotional thing that is preventing you from seeing how they are obviously the same thing.

The grocery store is explaining a net amount which we both understand.

You are saying tax on earned income is the same thing as welfare. The income from a deduction did not originate from government. It originated from your paycheck. That's a very distinct and objective difference, not an emotional one (whatever that meant)

 

[Jjunk]

Makes sense to me

 

[Jack V Savage]

The grocery store is explaining a net amount which we both understand.

You are saying tax on earned income is the same thing as welfare.

I'm saying that tax expenditures are the same as cash payouts, from the perspective of both the gov't and the beneficiaries. That is objectively true.

The income from a deduction did not originate from government. It originated from your paycheck.

All money in our system originates from the gov't. You mean that you think money received from market transactions is "earned" (presumably, including unearned income) while money received from gov't programs is not earned, but then, we have the same problem (the mortgage interest deduction is money received from a gov't program). Make a serious effort to explain the difference and I think you'll see that you can't do it.

That's a very distinct and objective difference, not an emotional one (whatever that meant)

See above. I explained it. Plus, the reason there is so much resistance to the idea that any particular program is a form of gov't assistance is that recipients of gov't assistance are heavily stigmatized in the media. So people who buy into that get upset when it's pointed out that they are recipients of gov't assistance (witness "get your gov't hands off my Medicare!" or the Anung's idiocy in this thread).

 

[Lead]

I'm saying that tax expenditures are the same as cash payouts, from the perspective of both the gov't and the beneficiaries. That is objectively true.

A tax expenditure is a return of tax paid in by the individual. A cash payout is the government giving income to an individual that they never originally had.

If we are talking about tax credits I would agree because the income never originally came from either individual.

All money in our system originates from the gov't. You mean that you think money received from market transactions is "earned" (presumably, including unearned income) while money received from gov't programs is not earned, but then, we have the same problem (the mortgage interest deduction is money received from a gov't program). Make a serious effort to explain the difference and I think you'll see that you can't do it.

I think I have a better point to your grocery store example. What if there wasn't a 100th customer reward. What if you walked in the items bought had a "discount" or "sale" or the use of coupons. Is the savings in your transaction the grocery store giving you money? No. The store established a strategy in how they will maximize their sales by targeting customers at different prices.

The same is true with taxes. The government develops a revenue system that tries to best capture the max amount of revenue while making decisions on what each individual should pay. For the grocery store, it is about profit but government it's about high collections along with fairness so it's not a perfect comparison. Just by making the initial starting tax rate at a certain basepoint and having different things deduct it down doesn't mean those deductions suddenly become government money. For a tax credit however, this would be true.

All money in our system originates from government but in no means is it the property of government. The value comes from a variety of things other than the government's name backed behind it.

See above. I explained it. Plus, the reason there is so much resistance to the idea that any particular program is a form of gov't assistance is that recipients of gov't assistance are heavily stigmatized in the media. So people who buy into that get upset when it's pointed out that they are recipients of gov't assistance (witness "get your gov't hands off my Medicare!" or the Anung's idiocy in this thread).

Medicare is something you pay into and also receive back. The net result is debatable and complex with each individual. The voter who is saying such a line likely has no idea what net amount the government has given them compared to what they paid in or vice versa.

I agree they are stigmatized but that doesn't make it an issue to ignore the programs purpose. Welfare is suppose to cover necessities for those who cannot afford them. I have no problem with people applying for this program is they cannot feed or shelter themselves. It's great knowing part of revenues go to a safety net like that.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I think I have a better point to your grocery store example. What if there wasn't a 100th customer reward. What if you walked in the items bought had a "discount" or "sale". Is the savings in your transaction the grocery store giving you money? No.

OK, so we're now trying to get tighter with the analogy. What I'd say is that the grocery store puts items on sale in order to benefit its own business, while the mortgage interest deduction doesn't provide any benefits to anyone but the people who receive the assistance. And even ignoring that substantial difference, there is certainly an argument that the sale is the store giving you money.

The same is true with taxes. Just by making the initial starting rate at a certain basepoint and having different things deduct it down doesn't mean those deductions suddenly become government money.

Sure it does. The gov't makes things happen through regulations, laws, and spending money. Deductions are just a way to spend money without saying you're doing that (though, really, all spending and taxation has subjective elements).

All money in our system originates from government but in no means is it the property of government.

Well, the gov't determines who the rightful owner of all property is, though people will sometimes think that it is determined immorally or inefficiently or something.

The value comes from a variety of things other than the government's name backed behind it.

That's true, but not relevant. You're not providing any value when you inherit or when your asset holdings become more valuable. Generally, most forms of wealth transfer have nothing to do with the production of economic value.

Medicare is something you pay into and also receive back. The net result is debatable and complex with each individual. The voter who is saying such a line likely has no idea what net amount the government has given them compared to what they paid in or vice versa.

Second part is wholly correct and my point.

I agree they are stigmatized but that doesn't make it an issue to ignore the programs purpose. Welfare is suppose to cover necessities for those who cannot afford them. I have no problem with people applying for this program is they cannot feed or shelter themselves. It's great knowing part of revenues go to a safety net like that.

What TANF is "supposed to do" is the matter at issue. If the gov't decides that it is supposed to be a means of identifying who the subhumans who should be treated like shit are, than I guess it is. I'm not arguing that the law (assuming it passes) doesn't do what it does. I'm arguing that it is oppressive and cruel.

 

[Lead]

I'll come back this later tonight. Good discussion.

 

[Quipling]

Just wanted to pop in and say that this discussion took a turn for the productive after the drek of the first 8 or so pages. I'm enjoying reading it.