Lepage's new budget lowers taxes, ... (fingerprinting, buy, school)

[MainerWannabe]

As much as I hate to say it...
We DO need something like this here in California!
Funny isn't it? I find myself more and more in the middle these days...

[Zymer]

Originally Posted by forest beekeeper

Governor LePage Signs Budget with Largest Tax Cut in
Maine History, Pension Reform, Spending Realignments and a Major Down Payment on Welfare Reform

Governor LePage Signs Budget

Is this possible?

"Monday afternoon .... Governor Paul LePage put his signature on the biennial budget that reduces taxes for Mainers and businesses, reforms the State pension system and makes changes to welfare programs. two-year budget includes tax reform which provides $150 million in tax relief – including new tax code changes which conform to federal guidelines and a reduction in Maine's top income tax rate from 8.5 percent to 7.95 percent that is expected eliminate tax payments for 70,000 low-income Mainers. This represents the largest tax cut in Maine history."

This inquiring mind wants to know:

How does reducing the *TOP* tax rate eliminate taxes being paid by 'low-income' people, who by definition are *NOT* in the top income bracket? I fail to see the 'logic' here.

Originally Posted by mainegrl2011

People sometimes have to pass a drug test as a condition of employment and random drug tests once employed....seems logical, practical, and frugal to me for welfare recipients to be subject to random drug tests. Why wait until they are convicted/arrested.

Because we [are supposed to] have a system of 'innocent until proven guilty'. If you start infringing on the rights of one class of people, without due process, it opens the door to expanding that infringement to include any other people.

It would be a bad road to travel...unless you think it would be enjoyable to live in a society ruled by a Gestapo or KGB-like 'police-state'. Is that what you want?

[mainegrl2011]

Quote
Originally Posted by mainegrl2011

People sometimes have to pass a drug test as a condition of employment and random drug tests once employed....seems logical, practical, and frugal to me for welfare recipients to be subject to random drug tests. Why wait until they are convicted/arrested.



Zymer:
Because we [are supposed to] have a system of 'innocent until proven guilty'. If you start infringing on the rights of one class of people, without due process, it opens the door to expanding that infringement to include any other people.

It would be a bad road to travel...unless you think it would be enjoyable to live in a society ruled by a Gestapo or KGB-like 'police-state'. Is that what you want?[/quote]



Oh I see; it's ok to infringe on the rights of employed Americans--aka working class, the class in question in my example--who have never been convicted....and ok to infringe on the rights of Americans who are about to be hired contingent on passing a drug test. However, in your way of thinking above, there is something wrong with requiring someone to pass a drug test who is about to receive welfare benefits or is already receiving them. Your logic is illogical. Unless, of course, you are saying that no one should be required to pass a drug test.

[Submariner]

Originally Posted by Zymer

This inquiring mind wants to know:

How does reducing the *TOP* tax rate eliminate taxes being paid by 'low-income' people, who by definition are *NOT* in the top income bracket? I fail to see the 'logic' here.

I am curious about that too.



Perhaps someone is in the mindset that all Mainers are 'low-income'. I think I have heard such an idea represented here on this forum before.

[Zymer]

Originally Posted by mainegrl2011

Oh I see; it's ok to infringe on the rights of employed Americans--aka working class, the class in question in my example--who have never been convicted....and ok to infringe on the rights of Americans who are about to be hired contingent on passing a drug test. However, in your way of thinking above, there is something wrong with requiring someone to pass a drug test who is about to receive welfare benefits or is already receiving them. Your logic is illogical. Unless, of course, you are saying that no one should be required to pass a drug test.

Drug testing by employers is not technically a violation of rights, you do not have a 'right' to be hired by a particular employer. A private employer is allowed to set the conditions under which an employee may be hired. If one does not wish to be tested, then he/she is free to look for employment elsewhere.

This is not to say that I *agree* with the policy of private employers requiring drug testing, I do not, but it is their right to do it. In fact, *my* employer once mentioned that he was considering instituting such a policy and I spoke up, in front of all of the employees present for the meeting, and loudly voiced my opinion that it was 'unAmerican' to do so. Nearly every employee present agreed, and the subject was dropped (and has not been mentioned since).

[mainegrl2011]

Originally Posted by Zymer

Drug testing by employers is not technically a violation of rights, you do not have a 'right' to be hired by a particular employer. A private employer is allowed to set the conditions under which an employee may be hired. If one does not wish to be tested, then he/she is free to look for employment elsewhere.

This is not to say that I *agree* with the policy of private employers requiring drug testing, I do not, but it is their right to do it. In fact, *my* employer once mentioned that he was considering instituting such a policy and I spoke up, in front of all of the employees present for the meeting, and loudly voiced my opinion that it was 'unAmerican' to do so. Nearly every employee present agreed, and the subject was dropped (and has not been mentioned since).

What about public employers requiring drug testing as a condition of employment or random drug testing of employees? Sounds like you are saying that the welfare recipients have a "right" to receive welfare from government so no one should violate their rights by requiring a drug test(?)

[Three Wolves In Snow]

Originally Posted by Zymer

Drug testing by employers is not technically a violation of rights, you do not have a 'right' to be hired by a particular employer. A private employer is allowed to set the conditions under which an employee may be hired. If one does not wish to be tested, then he/she is free to look for employment elsewhere.

This is not to say that I *agree* with the policy of private employers requiring drug testing, I do not, but it is their right to do it. In fact, *my* employer once mentioned that he was considering instituting such a policy and I spoke up, in front of all of the employees present for the meeting, and loudly voiced my opinion that it was 'unAmerican' to do so. Nearly every employee present agreed, and the subject was dropped (and has not been mentioned since).

I will only argue that those who receive welfare are, more often than not, free to look for employment as well rather than receive welfare. If they don't want to be drug tested, get a job.

Please note, not a blanket statement...again, more often than not...

[RHB]

Originally Posted by Zymer

This inquiring mind wants to know:

How does reducing the *TOP* tax rate eliminate taxes being paid by 'low-income' people, who by definition are *NOT* in the top income bracket? I fail to see the 'logic' here.

It's like back in school when you get graded on a scale. If the best test score was 85, rather than a B it becomes an A, then B drops down to a score of 75 etc. When the top rate gets pushed down, it pushes the others down also.

At least that's what I was taught in school...but who know, with the new math they teach now-a-days, I might just be showing my age.

[Submariner]

Originally Posted by Zymer

Drug testing by employers is not technically a violation of rights, you do not have a 'right' to be hired by a particular employer. ...

Times have changed.

I was on Active Duty during a time when urine testing was considered against your 'right's. My employer fought long and hard with the courts to get it legal.

Changing the procedures for how samples were handled. Changing labs, writing specs for exactly how a lab is to handle samples even. And more law suits, ...

Then requiring that any 'positive' test be sent to a second lab for independent testing, then to a third lab.

And still the courts had issues with consistency between lab results, and how much of a substances would be needed to be 'positive'.

I was still on Active Duty when it finally all got settled and urine testing finally was ruled as being not in violation of your rights.

Our Federal government spent a lot of cash on making that happen.



Now urine testing is readily available to every civilian employer.



There was a time, when my grandfathers were both farming, when anyone could purchase any chemical or drug over-the-counter. No permits, no prescriptions, you had a 'right' to put anything into your body you wanted to.

My how times do change.


Like these tax rates and spending levels. They were not always this high. We are fortunate if we can get them down again. Never fear one day government spending will be even higher.

[Zymer]

Originally Posted by mainegrl2011

What about public employers requiring drug testing as a condition of employment or random drug testing of employees? Sounds like you are saying that the welfare recipients have a "right" to receive welfare from government so no one should violate their rights by requiring a drug test(?)

Public agencies (PD, etc.) argue that it is for 'safety' reasons. I don't like that either, nor do I like it that truck drivers and others are subjected to it.

I've ranted about certain people on the welfare system before, and no, I don't think it's a 'right'. However, I believe in 'due process', 'probable cause' and 5th amendment rights against self-incrimination. No matter how many scumbags I think there might be sucking off the system while they sit home and smoke dope (or whatever), I still don't want to see a situation where the gov't starts requiring members of the general population to submit to drug testing. It's a bad idea and one more bit of erosion of our rights.

Originally Posted by GatorMama

I will only argue that those who receive welfare are, more often than not, free to look for employment as well rather than receive welfare. If they don't want to be drug tested, get a job.

Please note, not a blanket statement...again, more often than not...

Same answer as above, "give 'em inch, they'll take a mile." The gov't has a history of taking, do you really want to open that door any wider? How about requiring periodic, random drug testing if you get a CC permit? How about the same if you get a driver's license, or a hunting license?

It's too ripe for abuse. It's not that I want to 'protect' welfare recipients, it's that I want to see everyone's rights taken away. If we give them a reason to waive the rights of one class of citizens, it's only a matter of time before they come up with reasons to revoke the rights of the rest of us.

Originally Posted by forest beekeeper

Times have changed.


Like these tax rates and spending levels. They were not always this high. We are fortunate if we can get them down again. Never fear one day government spending will be even higher.

When I heard the figure for the budget for the next two years (more than 6 *BILLION* dollars), I was shocked. Less than 1.5 million people in the state, and we have to come up with 6 BILLION DOLLARS to cover the next two years? (And that's not even figuring in the people who aren't paying income taxes, or those who are not only *not* contributing but instead are living off the state.) We can't continue like this.