|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
just as cheap energy spurs certain kinds of economic activity over and above the simple reduction in cost on the electricity bill (while also inflicting a toll on development of higher efficiency) cheap and eager labor allows certain businesses that employ them. this in turn provides a lot of raw consumption.
upwardly mobile immigrants also raise children to become productive members of the economy often at higher level of productivity. but, these parents' hard work is usually invisible on the gdp calculations.
|
On September 05 2014 15:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2014 14:52 Sub40APM wrote:On September 05 2014 14:46 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 05 2014 14:04 Sub40APM wrote:On September 05 2014 12:40 Introvert wrote:. There are services that they do use, however. Schools, for example. By law, children, regardless of status, are entitled to an education ( Or at least, "strongly advised"). And the state is on its way to opening up more things to illegal immigrants, possibly cutting into whatever benefit that might exist. Arent schools for the most part paid by property taxes? Illegal immigrants or their land lords pay those no? It varies. At most (Connecticut) local taxes pay for ~57% of the school budget. At least (Hawaii) local taxes pay for ~ 3%. ( source Figure 9) So it looks like the federal govt pays max 16% and min 4%, and the rest comes from taxes that I think illegals do pay? For the most part, sure. Average per pupil spending is ~$10K nationally. If they're taxed at a 10% rate you need $100K in illegal immigrant income per student to break even on the education spend. If a lot of illegals are migrant males (and they are) you can break even pretty easy. If not than it's a net drag. I imagine immigrants use public goods other than education though, so this can get complicated pretty quick. In any case, I imagine them being more of a net benefit to the US as legal immigrants than illegal immigrants.
Sure, no one is arguing against that. I am just still unconvinced about Introvert's original claim that illegal immigrants ruined California. Seems like while they are definitely a drag on certain public services they also stay out of certain areas that act as an implicit tax on them that the government fails to capture -- ie fear of authorities ---> increased vulnerability to criminality.
At least as far as I recall, when the US entered into the deep recession the flow of economic illegal immigrants dried up pretty quickly and the recent atmosphere of 'crisis' was created thanks to violence in Central America, no?
Another factor is of course that increased immigration has lead to increased population growth in the US which I think most people agree is good.
But in general I agree, there should be a preference for legal immigrants and guest-workers so that federal government can capture their taxable income and they dont fear the cops and are thus less susceptible to criminalization. I just dont see, based on what I know of California, that its a ruined state.
|
On September 05 2014 14:59 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2014 14:46 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 05 2014 14:04 Sub40APM wrote:On September 05 2014 12:40 Introvert wrote:. There are services that they do use, however. Schools, for example. By law, children, regardless of status, are entitled to an education ( Or at least, "strongly advised"). And the state is on its way to opening up more things to illegal immigrants, possibly cutting into whatever benefit that might exist. Arent schools for the most part paid by property taxes? Illegal immigrants or their land lords pay those no? It varies. At most (Connecticut) local taxes pay for ~57% of the school budget. At least (Hawaii) local taxes pay for ~ 3%. ( source Figure 9) On September 05 2014 02:10 IgnE wrote:
Immigrants easily add more to the GDP as a percentage of their income than millionaires do. They get paid far less than their work is worth and spend far more of their income in the local economy. Well, unless you're talking about a short run situation where more spending and less saving is helpful, a dollar is a dollar. One method to calculate GDP is to add up all income. So $10,000 in income adds $10,000 to GDP, $1,000,000 in income adds $1,000,000 to GDP. As far as the local economy goes, it depends. Someone with a high income may save a lot and have that money invested outside of the local community. But migrants and immigrants typically send a lot 'back home' by way of remittances. I'm not really sure how that washes out. And if the guy with $10k spends it on other goods, that an additional $10k in GDP. If the millionaire only spends $750k, hes only added an additional 75% of his income to GDP.
You can either add it up via income or add it up via spending. You can't do both, that would be double counting.
If you want to go with spending you'd need to know how much of the millionaire's savings is spent by someone else.
|
On September 05 2014 15:06 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2014 15:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 05 2014 14:52 Sub40APM wrote:On September 05 2014 14:46 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 05 2014 14:04 Sub40APM wrote:On September 05 2014 12:40 Introvert wrote:. There are services that they do use, however. Schools, for example. By law, children, regardless of status, are entitled to an education ( Or at least, "strongly advised"). And the state is on its way to opening up more things to illegal immigrants, possibly cutting into whatever benefit that might exist. Arent schools for the most part paid by property taxes? Illegal immigrants or their land lords pay those no? It varies. At most (Connecticut) local taxes pay for ~57% of the school budget. At least (Hawaii) local taxes pay for ~ 3%. ( source Figure 9) So it looks like the federal govt pays max 16% and min 4%, and the rest comes from taxes that I think illegals do pay? For the most part, sure. Average per pupil spending is ~$10K nationally. If they're taxed at a 10% rate you need $100K in illegal immigrant income per student to break even on the education spend. If a lot of illegals are migrant males (and they are) you can break even pretty easy. If not than it's a net drag. I imagine immigrants use public goods other than education though, so this can get complicated pretty quick. In any case, I imagine them being more of a net benefit to the US as legal immigrants than illegal immigrants. Sure, no one is arguing against that. I am just still unconvinced about Introvert's original claim that illegal immigrants ruined California. Seems like while they are definitely a drag on certain public services they also stay out of certain areas that act as an implicit tax on them that the government fails to capture -- ie fear of authorities ---> increased vulnerability to criminality. At least as far as I recall, when the US entered into the deep recession the flow of economic illegal immigrants dried up pretty quickly and the recent atmosphere of 'crisis' was created thanks to violence in Central America, no? Another factor is of course that increased immigration has lead to increased population growth in the US which I think most people agree is good. But in general I agree, there should be a preference for legal immigrants and guest-workers so that federal government can capture their taxable income and they dont fear the cops and are thus less susceptible to criminalization. I just dont see, based on what I know of California, that its a ruined state.
How many times have I tried to clarify? I didn't say that. Stupid politicians are ruining California, and they don't devote all their energy finding new incentives for illegal immigrants.
I've said at least twice that the data hasn't convinced me either way as to the overall effect, much less lead me to blame the economic situation on immigration.
What is helping to ruin the state is coming up with perverse incentives for law breaking. That's not a good habit, wherever it's applied. I've been pretty consistent throughout the thread on that- in many different areas, not just immigration.
|
On September 05 2014 12:07 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2014 11:12 coverpunch wrote:On September 05 2014 09:46 aksfjh wrote:On September 05 2014 01:49 Simberto wrote:On September 05 2014 01:21 IgnE wrote:
It's called economic multipliers . . . That statement doesn't make sense. The GDP per capita in California is 51k. Thus, the average person in California adds ~50k to the GDP total. Unless you want to assume that every person adds the same amount to GDP no matter how much they work, we must assume that there is some difference in how much they add. Thus, some people must add less that 50k. I think it is a reasonable assumption to think that the amount someone adds to the GDP is roughly correlated to their income. Thus, lower income people add less to the GDP. Which sounds fair considering they also get less reward out of the GDP. No amount of "economic multiplying" whatever that is even supposed to mean is going to change that. Let's put it this way. Assume some person in SF makes $1,000,000 a year and has a gigantic yard and they need to maintain it, so they hire some guy for $20k a year to maintain it for them. That rich persons income adds $1,000,000 to the measured economy of California, AND the hiring of the yard worker adds $20k to the measured economy of California as well. From that initial $1,000,000, the total measured GDP of this property is measured at $1,020,000. That is a multiplier. Believe it or not, but economic multipliers are higher for a low-income individual's income than high-income. As they spend roughly their entire paycheck, they provide demand for more products and services, which increases employment and wages, which then does the same thing all over again. As each job is added, as each paycheck is raised, more is added to the economy. At some point, saturation is reached as wages refuse to rise and no more people are hired, because some money always goes to repay capital investment, which is higher income and has a smaller multiplier. But using your example, GDP per head plummets from $1 million per capita to $510k per capita. The low wage worker helps the economy but if the cost of living in this scenario is $500k, the new worker has become a huge drain on the economy because he requires $480k in welfare from the other person. You're spitting on a cupcake and calling it frosting. I think it is highly misleading to not figure a real multiplier (simply assuming it is greater, much greater, than 1) and any model that doesn't bake in the law of diminishing returns is just flat out wrong. Are you fucking serious? You're that dense? -_- The example shows that income from one person doesn't just stop there. You can't just point to somebody making X amount of money a year and say that they only add X to the economy. The million went further than simply being the income of the individual, so the million turned into more. I could have said that he pays the fucker a million dollars so that the economy is now doubled in size, and then he turns around and pays a million for a blowjob and the economy is 3 million in size! That's how it works. Learn how to fucking math.
Ah, but your last sentence is the problem. Economics isn't math. You can't just say "the economy is bigger" and be satisfied with that. The essential question is whether the costs might outweigh the benefits.
You also managed to grope your way onto why GDP is a measure of limited utility. Spending $800 billion was exactly how President Obama responded to the economic crisis of 2008 and assumed we would face a V-shaped recovery in which everyone said the economy was growing, businesses would prosper, and they would employ workers again. The Fed has doubled, tripled, quintupled down on that with QE and Twists by making it easier for banks to have access to liquidity in hopes that people would spend, GDP would grow, and all would be well.
For the record, we are TRYING to get people to spend money, begging really. Letting money bounce around as people demand products, whether it's million dollar blowjobs or bread, is called "velocity" and it's the variable the government and the Fed have desperately been trying to manipulate. It's not working out anywhere near what economic models would have suggested and you would be both very rich and very powerful if you could coherently explain why.
|
On September 05 2014 11:34 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2014 11:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 05 2014 10:51 Introvert wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On September 05 2014 10:29 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2014 09:31 Introvert wrote:On September 05 2014 02:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 05 2014 02:04 Sub40APM wrote:On September 04 2014 16:10 Introvert wrote:On September 04 2014 15:48 Sub40APM wrote:On September 04 2014 14:54 Introvert wrote:On September 04 2014 13:50 Danglars wrote:A report released Wednesday by researchers at USC found that immigrants who are in California illegally make up nearly 10% of the state's workforce and contribute $130 billion annually to its gross domestic product.
The study, which was conducted in conjunction with the California Immigrant Policy Center, was based on census data and other statistics, including data from the Department of Labor and the Department of Homeland Security. It looked at a variety of ways the estimated 2.6 million immigrants living in California without permission participate in state life.[...]
Among the study's findings:
Immigrants who are in California illegally make up 38% of the agriculture industry and 14% of the construction industry statewide.
Half of the immigrants in the state illegally have been here for at least 10 years.
Roughly 58% do not have health insurance.
Nearly three in four live in households that include U.S. citizens. LA TimesThis drink's to immigration laws! I'm just blown away my state's governor will tell Mexicans they are "Welcome in California", but of course he'd be tarred and feathered if he ever came out in favor of enforcing current federal immigration law. I don't understand this place. I can only hope that our craziness can serve as a warning to other states- "see, this is how you ruin a once great state!" If it weren't for the higher education and natural beauty.... I'd try to leave. What exactly did the immigrants ruin in California? Should have been more clear- I was speaking generally. This story displays what must be a symptom of insanity. That and supporting a failed high speed rail project with billions from taxpayers and magical outside investors who don't appear. Second, the post was about illegal immigrants. Not legal immigrants- I know in the liberal mind they are all the same. Brown certainly think so- he's such a panderer. There's pretty much no major Democrat constituency that he will confront, though he tires to make that impression. Hence the president of Mexico, who I hear isn't even so nice about immigration laws in his own country, comes here and praises us for our "immigrant friendly" laws. Like letting illegal immigrants get driver's licenses. Arizona can't enforce federal immigration law when it wants to, but politicians in California get away with ignoring the law over here. We should get some federal agency on that! We need a lawsuit! It's all just so silly. I'm sure Caesar Chavez would be proud... You'll have to excuse me. Seeing this insanity so close up causes me a large amount of annoyance. But other than describing the fact that there are a lot of illegal immigrants in California and not that many in Mexico you havent explained exactly what the illegal immigrants have done to 'ruin california' Well 'they' didn't and even Californians know that...They do make a great scapegoat though... I find it especially ironic that every once in a while the 'illegal immigrants' sometimes have family ties to the land that go back long before any white people were here to forcibly take it. The US sometimes reminds me of the kid from Big Daddy... Once we gain the advantage, change the rules to prevent anyone from obtaining a similar advantage in a similar way (domestic and foreign). Like families still on the Forbes list today who sold heroin and cocaine to help build that fortune. Or the people who use the historical ties to Israel to justify Jewish occupation but then turn around and say Mexicans historic claims mean nothing... Well, there are the costs of public services for illegals, who don't pay taxes for those services. Things such as education (which the state is required to provide), hospitals (same), etc... but I won't post the data because it wasn't really my point. It's easy to google. Granted, I don't know if it amounts to 130 billion. I could just make the Caesar Chavez argument that importing lower wage illegal immigrants harms the citizen/legal immigrant workers by driving wages down (and in Chavez's day, they were used as strike breakers). But I'm no economist. I do, however, value the citizen/legal worker more than the illegal one. But I was making a general point that actually tied into what GH said about scapegoats. You do realize that in California they are used as political pawns, right? You think Republicans are the only ones who use illegal immigration as an issue? What do you think these laws giving them driver's licenses are? It's not the illegals who can vote for or against that! Nevermind the fact that it gives the perverse incentive for more to come and break the law. So... I saw you agree with xDaunt's simple "close the backdoor, open the front door." This is not what states like CA do. By the way, if your family has roots here, and has stayed here, then you were made a citizen... CA became a state in 1850. Not exactly yesterday. There's more to it than that, but it needn't be said. It wasn't really the point. So are you still (or were you in the first place?) suggesting illegal immigrants ruined California because I didn't really see that argument made? How the hell do you come to the distorted idea that they don't pay taxes towards those services? I just actually have no idea how you could come to that conclusion...? Well making the distinction between the two based purely on their legal status implies that we have a practical/functional way for them to legally immigrate/work in the first place, which I think everyone on all sides of the spectrum agrees doesn't exist. I would agree that immigrants are used as political pawns on both sides, it just so happens one side happens to be arguing to give them a better more American life and the other is just arguing why/how to deny them such. Finally I was talking about most border states(not California exclusively) and as I'm sure you know it wasn't exactly the most hospitable place for people of Mexican heritage at various times. So are you still (or were you in the first place?) suggesting illegal immigrants ruined California because I didn't really see that argument made?
How the hell do you come to the distorted idea that they don't pay taxes towards those services? I just actually have no idea how you could come to that conclusion...? That wasn't the argument I was making, no. More is going wrong in this state than illegal immigration. We could devote an entire thread to the dysfunction and perhaps even criminality of the state government (4 of 40 state senators are currently suspended, pending criminal charges.) The Democrats in California take affirmative steps to open the "backdoor." The Republicans occasionally try to stop it. It's not like they are re-introducing school segregation. It's a reaction. If the democrats didn't try all this crap there wouldn't be a counter-push. It seems logical to believe that outside of overall GDP growth, that using cheaper laborers that work below the minimum wage probably reinforces the cycle. More Americans won't do those jobs for those wages. This hurts legal workers who need those jobs. I could be wrong here though, as I said. Why reduce their wages or opportunities (the "American life") for the sake of someone who crept over the border? What makes that immigrant more deserving of it than the one who spent the time and toil to follow the rules? Certain sectors are profiting from flat out breaking the law. That's not something I can support, and that's where a lot of my objection to this comes from.
Well making the distinction between the two based purely on their legal status implies that we have a practical/functional way for them to legally immigrate/work in the first place, which I think everyone on all sides of the spectrum agrees doesn't exist.
I would agree that immigrants are used as political pawns on both sides, it just so happens one side happens to be arguing to give them a better more American life and the other is just arguing why/how to deny them such.
Illegal immigrants don't pay the same taxes that go to things like medical, local taxes that pay for schools, etc. At least not in the same way. Of course they don't avoid ALL taxes, e.g. sales taxes. If this has to be explained to you yet again then there is no point. Let's just say that a broken system isn't an excuse to break the law. If they want to have the "American life" then come in the front. Seriously, if you actually agreed with the closed back door open front then you wouldn't support doing things that open the backdoor wider. Ok I didn't comment on California specifically but I guess I would support having them get licenses. I see a lot of positives and not a lot of negatives. Other policies I guess would have to be evaluated on their own merits. Also you said "I'm not an economist" so I'm not going to go into the wage argument. I'm also not commenting on the value of either sides argument (narrative) just that one sounds pretty scroogy (It could be true that basically 'we can't afford it' [I don't buy it, but it could be true]). As for the tax argument since you admitted/clarified that illegal immigrants do pay taxes to pay for the services you mentioned it seems it would be easier to understand what you are trying to say by explaining which taxes, towards which services, you think they are not paying? Numbers/percentages (even estimates) would be nice but I don't expect them. I'm actually far right of most here on immigration in general. My problem is our hypocrisy more than our policy (though I see it's broken). I used to say tear down the statue of liberty, but now my frugality has kicked in and I say just change the inscription. But having that message and our immigration policy at the same time is far more shameful, than hearing that message and coming here, legally or not... I see the granting of driver's licenses as perverse incentives, if you don't want to go into numbers (wasn't my intention either). Unless you are an economist and could enlighten me  As far as I'm aware though, that used to be the union position- at least in California. And during the time of Chavez it was undeniably true, since illegals were used as strike breakers more than once. The stuff he said and did about illegal Mexican immigrants... it wouldn't be allowed today, lol. I have seen no proof that they pay (to borrow a liberal phrase) their "fair share." Google quickly leads to groups claiming both sides, but it seems logical that when you have people who are (again, in the words of the Democrat party) "undocumented" that they would pay less in taxes than the average citizen in their position. This is before benefits for citizens, of course. My main point is that we have politicians, instead of doing something to discourage illegal immigration and fix legal immigration (whatever may be broken), that they just advocate skirting existing law with new, BS laws. This offends my sensibilities towards law and order IF you come here to play the game, then you have to play by the rules. Show nested quote +On September 05 2014 11:37 Sub40APM wrote:On September 05 2014 11:34 Introvert wrote:On September 05 2014 11:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 05 2014 10:51 Introvert wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On September 05 2014 10:29 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2014 09:31 Introvert wrote:On September 05 2014 02:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 05 2014 02:04 Sub40APM wrote:On September 04 2014 16:10 Introvert wrote:On September 04 2014 15:48 Sub40APM wrote:On September 04 2014 14:54 Introvert wrote:On September 04 2014 13:50 Danglars wrote:A report released Wednesday by researchers at USC found that immigrants who are in California illegally make up nearly 10% of the state's workforce and contribute $130 billion annually to its gross domestic product.
The study, which was conducted in conjunction with the California Immigrant Policy Center, was based on census data and other statistics, including data from the Department of Labor and the Department of Homeland Security. It looked at a variety of ways the estimated 2.6 million immigrants living in California without permission participate in state life.[...]
Among the study's findings:
Immigrants who are in California illegally make up 38% of the agriculture industry and 14% of the construction industry statewide.
Half of the immigrants in the state illegally have been here for at least 10 years.
Roughly 58% do not have health insurance.
Nearly three in four live in households that include U.S. citizens. LA TimesThis drink's to immigration laws! I'm just blown away my state's governor will tell Mexicans they are "Welcome in California", but of course he'd be tarred and feathered if he ever came out in favor of enforcing current federal immigration law. I don't understand this place. I can only hope that our craziness can serve as a warning to other states- "see, this is how you ruin a once great state!" If it weren't for the higher education and natural beauty.... I'd try to leave. What exactly did the immigrants ruin in California? Should have been more clear- I was speaking generally. This story displays what must be a symptom of insanity. That and supporting a failed high speed rail project with billions from taxpayers and magical outside investors who don't appear. Second, the post was about illegal immigrants. Not legal immigrants- I know in the liberal mind they are all the same. Brown certainly think so- he's such a panderer. There's pretty much no major Democrat constituency that he will confront, though he tires to make that impression. Hence the president of Mexico, who I hear isn't even so nice about immigration laws in his own country, comes here and praises us for our "immigrant friendly" laws. Like letting illegal immigrants get driver's licenses. Arizona can't enforce federal immigration law when it wants to, but politicians in California get away with ignoring the law over here. We should get some federal agency on that! We need a lawsuit! It's all just so silly. I'm sure Caesar Chavez would be proud... You'll have to excuse me. Seeing this insanity so close up causes me a large amount of annoyance. But other than describing the fact that there are a lot of illegal immigrants in California and not that many in Mexico you havent explained exactly what the illegal immigrants have done to 'ruin california' Well 'they' didn't and even Californians know that...They do make a great scapegoat though... I find it especially ironic that every once in a while the 'illegal immigrants' sometimes have family ties to the land that go back long before any white people were here to forcibly take it. The US sometimes reminds me of the kid from Big Daddy... Once we gain the advantage, change the rules to prevent anyone from obtaining a similar advantage in a similar way (domestic and foreign). http://youtu.be/8HUvTp8ZcJs?t=7sLike families still on the Forbes list today who sold heroin and cocaine to help build that fortune. Or the people who use the historical ties to Israel to justify Jewish occupation but then turn around and say Mexicans historic claims mean nothing... Well, there are the costs of public services for illegals, who don't pay taxes for those services. Things such as education (which the state is required to provide), hospitals (same), etc... but I won't post the data because it wasn't really my point. It's easy to google. Granted, I don't know if it amounts to 130 billion. I could just make the Caesar Chavez argument that importing lower wage illegal immigrants harms the citizen/legal immigrant workers by driving wages down (and in Chavez's day, they were used as strike breakers). But I'm no economist. I do, however, value the citizen/legal worker more than the illegal one. But I was making a general point that actually tied into what GH said about scapegoats. You do realize that in California they are used as political pawns, right? You think Republicans are the only ones who use illegal immigration as an issue? What do you think these laws giving them driver's licenses are? It's not the illegals who can vote for or against that! Nevermind the fact that it gives the perverse incentive for more to come and break the law. So... I saw you agree with xDaunt's simple "close the backdoor, open the front door." This is not what states like CA do. By the way, if your family has roots here, and has stayed here, then you were made a citizen... CA became a state in 1850. Not exactly yesterday. There's more to it than that, but it needn't be said. It wasn't really the point. So are you still (or were you in the first place?) suggesting illegal immigrants ruined California because I didn't really see that argument made? How the hell do you come to the distorted idea that they don't pay taxes towards those services? I just actually have no idea how you could come to that conclusion...? Well making the distinction between the two based purely on their legal status implies that we have a practical/functional way for them to legally immigrate/work in the first place, which I think everyone on all sides of the spectrum agrees doesn't exist. I would agree that immigrants are used as political pawns on both sides, it just so happens one side happens to be arguing to give them a better more American life and the other is just arguing why/how to deny them such. Finally I was talking about most border states(not California exclusively) and as I'm sure you know it wasn't exactly the most hospitable place for people of Mexican heritage at various times. So are you still (or were you in the first place?) suggesting illegal immigrants ruined California because I didn't really see that argument made?
How the hell do you come to the distorted idea that they don't pay taxes towards those services? I just actually have no idea how you could come to that conclusion...? That wasn't the argument I was making, no. More is going wrong in this state than illegal immigration. We could devote an entire thread to the dysfunction and perhaps even criminality of the state government (4 of 40 state senators are currently suspended, pending criminal charges.) The Democrats in California take affirmative steps to open the "backdoor." The Republicans occasionally try to stop it. It's not like they are re-introducing school segregation. It's a reaction. If the democrats didn't try all this crap there wouldn't be a counter-push. It seems logical to believe that outside of overall GDP growth, that using cheaper laborers that work below the minimum wage probably reinforces the cycle. More Americans won't do those jobs for those wages. This hurts legal workers who need those jobs. I could be wrong here though, as I said. Why reduce their wages or opportunities (the "American life") for the sake of someone who crept over the border? What makes that immigrant more deserving of it than the one who spent the time and toil to follow the rules? Certain sectors are profiting from flat out breaking the law. That's not something I can support, and that's where a lot of my objection to this comes from.
Well making the distinction between the two based purely on their legal status implies that we have a practical/functional way for them to legally immigrate/work in the first place, which I think everyone on all sides of the spectrum agrees doesn't exist.
I would agree that immigrants are used as political pawns on both sides, it just so happens one side happens to be arguing to give them a better more American life and the other is just arguing why/how to deny them such.
Illegal immigrants don't pay the same taxes that go to things like medical, local taxes that pay for schools, etc. At least not in the same way. Of course they don't avoid ALL taxes, e.g. sales taxes. If this has to be explained to you yet again then there is no point. Let's just say that a broken system isn't an excuse to break the law. If they want to have the "American life" then come in the front. Seriously, if you actually agreed with the closed back door open front then you wouldn't support doing things that open the backdoor wider. Ok I didn't comment on California specifically but I guess I would support having them get licenses. I see a lot of positives and not a lot of negatives. Other policies I guess would have to be evaluated on their own merits. Also you said "I'm not an economist" so I'm not going to go into the wage argument. I'm also not commenting on the value of either sides argument (narrative) just that one sounds pretty scroogy (It could be true that basically 'we can't afford it' [I don't buy it, but it could be true]). As for the tax argument since you admitted/clarified that illegal immigrants do pay taxes to pay for the services you mentioned it seems it would be easier to understand what you are trying to say by explaining which taxes, towards which services, you think they are not paying? Numbers/percentages (even estimates) would be nice but I don't expect them. I'm actually far right of most here on immigration in general. My problem is our hypocrisy more than our policy (though I see it's broken). I used to say tear down the statue of liberty, but now my frugality has kicked in and I say just change the inscription. But having that message and our immigration policy at the same time is far more shameful, than hearing that message and coming here, legally or not... but it seems that logical that when you have people who are (again, in the words of the Democrat party) "undocumented" that they would pay less in taxes than the average citizen in their position. This is before benefits for citizens, of course. What taxes dont illegals pay? Not social security or federal income ? They obviously must pay all the consumption taxes and probably local taxes like property right? Like I've said- they do pay taxes since there are certain things you buy for which you must pay taxes. Property, for one. I imagine income being payed under the table is a major player. So I'm not saying that they pay no taxes, but until it's shown to be false, it's probably less than they would were they legal citizens. I admit to having no hard and fast proof, however.
Well my point was that when you start with completely fallacious and inflammatory statements like
Well, there are the costs of public services for illegals, who don't pay taxes for those services. Things such as education (which the state is required to provide), hospitals (same), etc... but I won't post the data because it wasn't really my point.
It becomes really easy to tune out the rest of what may be a reasonable argument. You didn't post the data because you had never seen it.
Going from "they don't pay taxes for the services they use" to "they probably pay less than a legal immigrant/native but I actually have no factual/data driven basis for that claim" is a lot closer to being caught red-handed using the same tired old rhetoric to advance the same tired, old, propaganda and trying to back track to save face than some sort of clarification.
For me that's enough. I just can't stand ignorant (kinda racist) statements like you started with. Especially if you take off the privilege glasses and realize there is probably much larger sums of money dodging taxes from California's many millionaires (and just average people for that matter) than from the people picking their fruit and mowing their lawns (among other jobs).
Until you prove my claim false it's true too than right....?
So what taxes specifically are they avoiding again because you didn't mention any... Other than ones who are actually being dodged by their native/legal resident business owner...? You make it sound like the illegal immigrants are forcing businesses to pay illegal wages under the table at gunpoint or something.
So besides the paychecks that their employers are writing off as lord knows what (more likely not paying taxes on cash jobs and pulling wages from them) what elaborate tax avoidance strategies do you imagine them doing?
Because as of now it looks like they are paying as much taxes as anyone else in their income bracket.
|
On September 05 2014 15:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2014 14:59 IgnE wrote:On September 05 2014 14:46 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 05 2014 14:04 Sub40APM wrote:On September 05 2014 12:40 Introvert wrote:. There are services that they do use, however. Schools, for example. By law, children, regardless of status, are entitled to an education ( Or at least, "strongly advised"). And the state is on its way to opening up more things to illegal immigrants, possibly cutting into whatever benefit that might exist. Arent schools for the most part paid by property taxes? Illegal immigrants or their land lords pay those no? It varies. At most (Connecticut) local taxes pay for ~57% of the school budget. At least (Hawaii) local taxes pay for ~ 3%. ( source Figure 9) On September 05 2014 02:10 IgnE wrote:
Immigrants easily add more to the GDP as a percentage of their income than millionaires do. They get paid far less than their work is worth and spend far more of their income in the local economy. Well, unless you're talking about a short run situation where more spending and less saving is helpful, a dollar is a dollar. One method to calculate GDP is to add up all income. So $10,000 in income adds $10,000 to GDP, $1,000,000 in income adds $1,000,000 to GDP. As far as the local economy goes, it depends. Someone with a high income may save a lot and have that money invested outside of the local community. But migrants and immigrants typically send a lot 'back home' by way of remittances. I'm not really sure how that washes out. And if the guy with $10k spends it on other goods, that an additional $10k in GDP. If the millionaire only spends $750k, hes only added an additional 75% of his income to GDP. You can either add it up via income or add it up via spending. You can't do both, that would be double counting. If you want to go with spending you'd need to know how much of the millionaire's savings is spent by someone else.
And if, as is argued in this thread, many illegal immigrants are not getting paid on the books, then the income their employer pays them won't show up on his books as a loss, but they will still be able to spend the money again in the economy. Right?
|
I just received my drivers license in Japan (where I now live). In Japan, a driver's license is just that, a license to drive. It doesn't double as an ID card. Thinking about it, it's quite strange in America that we do that. It's especially weird if you think back to the voter ID debate where a key argument is that many poor people don't have driver's licenses because they can't afford cars, so voter ID laws are de facto discrimination against them.
Although for the record, the DMV does issue identification cards, at least in California.
|
That they can't afford cars isn't the whole argument.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On September 05 2014 15:15 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2014 11:34 Introvert wrote:On September 05 2014 11:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 05 2014 10:51 Introvert wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On September 05 2014 10:29 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2014 09:31 Introvert wrote:On September 05 2014 02:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 05 2014 02:04 Sub40APM wrote:On September 04 2014 16:10 Introvert wrote:On September 04 2014 15:48 Sub40APM wrote:On September 04 2014 14:54 Introvert wrote:On September 04 2014 13:50 Danglars wrote:A report released Wednesday by researchers at USC found that immigrants who are in California illegally make up nearly 10% of the state's workforce and contribute $130 billion annually to its gross domestic product.
The study, which was conducted in conjunction with the California Immigrant Policy Center, was based on census data and other statistics, including data from the Department of Labor and the Department of Homeland Security. It looked at a variety of ways the estimated 2.6 million immigrants living in California without permission participate in state life.[...]
Among the study's findings:
Immigrants who are in California illegally make up 38% of the agriculture industry and 14% of the construction industry statewide.
Half of the immigrants in the state illegally have been here for at least 10 years.
Roughly 58% do not have health insurance.
Nearly three in four live in households that include U.S. citizens. LA TimesThis drink's to immigration laws! I'm just blown away my state's governor will tell Mexicans they are "Welcome in California", but of course he'd be tarred and feathered if he ever came out in favor of enforcing current federal immigration law. I don't understand this place. I can only hope that our craziness can serve as a warning to other states- "see, this is how you ruin a once great state!" If it weren't for the higher education and natural beauty.... I'd try to leave. What exactly did the immigrants ruin in California? Should have been more clear- I was speaking generally. This story displays what must be a symptom of insanity. That and supporting a failed high speed rail project with billions from taxpayers and magical outside investors who don't appear. Second, the post was about illegal immigrants. Not legal immigrants- I know in the liberal mind they are all the same. Brown certainly think so- he's such a panderer. There's pretty much no major Democrat constituency that he will confront, though he tires to make that impression. Hence the president of Mexico, who I hear isn't even so nice about immigration laws in his own country, comes here and praises us for our "immigrant friendly" laws. Like letting illegal immigrants get driver's licenses. Arizona can't enforce federal immigration law when it wants to, but politicians in California get away with ignoring the law over here. We should get some federal agency on that! We need a lawsuit! It's all just so silly. I'm sure Caesar Chavez would be proud... You'll have to excuse me. Seeing this insanity so close up causes me a large amount of annoyance. But other than describing the fact that there are a lot of illegal immigrants in California and not that many in Mexico you havent explained exactly what the illegal immigrants have done to 'ruin california' Well 'they' didn't and even Californians know that...They do make a great scapegoat though... I find it especially ironic that every once in a while the 'illegal immigrants' sometimes have family ties to the land that go back long before any white people were here to forcibly take it. The US sometimes reminds me of the kid from Big Daddy... Once we gain the advantage, change the rules to prevent anyone from obtaining a similar advantage in a similar way (domestic and foreign). http://youtu.be/8HUvTp8ZcJs?t=7sLike families still on the Forbes list today who sold heroin and cocaine to help build that fortune. Or the people who use the historical ties to Israel to justify Jewish occupation but then turn around and say Mexicans historic claims mean nothing... Well, there are the costs of public services for illegals, who don't pay taxes for those services. Things such as education (which the state is required to provide), hospitals (same), etc... but I won't post the data because it wasn't really my point. It's easy to google. Granted, I don't know if it amounts to 130 billion. I could just make the Caesar Chavez argument that importing lower wage illegal immigrants harms the citizen/legal immigrant workers by driving wages down (and in Chavez's day, they were used as strike breakers). But I'm no economist. I do, however, value the citizen/legal worker more than the illegal one. But I was making a general point that actually tied into what GH said about scapegoats. You do realize that in California they are used as political pawns, right? You think Republicans are the only ones who use illegal immigration as an issue? What do you think these laws giving them driver's licenses are? It's not the illegals who can vote for or against that! Nevermind the fact that it gives the perverse incentive for more to come and break the law. So... I saw you agree with xDaunt's simple "close the backdoor, open the front door." This is not what states like CA do. By the way, if your family has roots here, and has stayed here, then you were made a citizen... CA became a state in 1850. Not exactly yesterday. There's more to it than that, but it needn't be said. It wasn't really the point. So are you still (or were you in the first place?) suggesting illegal immigrants ruined California because I didn't really see that argument made? How the hell do you come to the distorted idea that they don't pay taxes towards those services? I just actually have no idea how you could come to that conclusion...? Well making the distinction between the two based purely on their legal status implies that we have a practical/functional way for them to legally immigrate/work in the first place, which I think everyone on all sides of the spectrum agrees doesn't exist. I would agree that immigrants are used as political pawns on both sides, it just so happens one side happens to be arguing to give them a better more American life and the other is just arguing why/how to deny them such. Finally I was talking about most border states(not California exclusively) and as I'm sure you know it wasn't exactly the most hospitable place for people of Mexican heritage at various times. So are you still (or were you in the first place?) suggesting illegal immigrants ruined California because I didn't really see that argument made?
How the hell do you come to the distorted idea that they don't pay taxes towards those services? I just actually have no idea how you could come to that conclusion...? That wasn't the argument I was making, no. More is going wrong in this state than illegal immigration. We could devote an entire thread to the dysfunction and perhaps even criminality of the state government (4 of 40 state senators are currently suspended, pending criminal charges.) The Democrats in California take affirmative steps to open the "backdoor." The Republicans occasionally try to stop it. It's not like they are re-introducing school segregation. It's a reaction. If the democrats didn't try all this crap there wouldn't be a counter-push. It seems logical to believe that outside of overall GDP growth, that using cheaper laborers that work below the minimum wage probably reinforces the cycle. More Americans won't do those jobs for those wages. This hurts legal workers who need those jobs. I could be wrong here though, as I said. Why reduce their wages or opportunities (the "American life") for the sake of someone who crept over the border? What makes that immigrant more deserving of it than the one who spent the time and toil to follow the rules? Certain sectors are profiting from flat out breaking the law. That's not something I can support, and that's where a lot of my objection to this comes from.
Well making the distinction between the two based purely on their legal status implies that we have a practical/functional way for them to legally immigrate/work in the first place, which I think everyone on all sides of the spectrum agrees doesn't exist.
I would agree that immigrants are used as political pawns on both sides, it just so happens one side happens to be arguing to give them a better more American life and the other is just arguing why/how to deny them such.
Illegal immigrants don't pay the same taxes that go to things like medical, local taxes that pay for schools, etc. At least not in the same way. Of course they don't avoid ALL taxes, e.g. sales taxes. If this has to be explained to you yet again then there is no point. Let's just say that a broken system isn't an excuse to break the law. If they want to have the "American life" then come in the front. Seriously, if you actually agreed with the closed back door open front then you wouldn't support doing things that open the backdoor wider. Ok I didn't comment on California specifically but I guess I would support having them get licenses. I see a lot of positives and not a lot of negatives. Other policies I guess would have to be evaluated on their own merits. Also you said "I'm not an economist" so I'm not going to go into the wage argument. I'm also not commenting on the value of either sides argument (narrative) just that one sounds pretty scroogy (It could be true that basically 'we can't afford it' [I don't buy it, but it could be true]). As for the tax argument since you admitted/clarified that illegal immigrants do pay taxes to pay for the services you mentioned it seems it would be easier to understand what you are trying to say by explaining which taxes, towards which services, you think they are not paying? Numbers/percentages (even estimates) would be nice but I don't expect them. I'm actually far right of most here on immigration in general. My problem is our hypocrisy more than our policy (though I see it's broken). I used to say tear down the statue of liberty, but now my frugality has kicked in and I say just change the inscription. But having that message and our immigration policy at the same time is far more shameful, than hearing that message and coming here, legally or not... I see the granting of driver's licenses as perverse incentives, if you don't want to go into numbers (wasn't my intention either). Unless you are an economist and could enlighten me As far as I'm aware though, that used to be the union position- at least in California. And during the time of Chavez it was undeniably true, since illegals were used as strike breakers more than once. The stuff he said and did about illegal Mexican immigrants... it wouldn't be allowed today, lol. I have seen no proof that they pay (to borrow a liberal phrase) their "fair share." Google quickly leads to groups claiming both sides, but it seems logical that when you have people who are (again, in the words of the Democrat party) "undocumented" that they would pay less in taxes than the average citizen in their position. This is before benefits for citizens, of course. My main point is that we have politicians, instead of doing something to discourage illegal immigration and fix legal immigration (whatever may be broken), that they just advocate skirting existing law with new, BS laws. This offends my sensibilities towards law and order IF you come here to play the game, then you have to play by the rules. On September 05 2014 11:37 Sub40APM wrote:On September 05 2014 11:34 Introvert wrote:On September 05 2014 11:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 05 2014 10:51 Introvert wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On September 05 2014 10:29 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2014 09:31 Introvert wrote:On September 05 2014 02:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 05 2014 02:04 Sub40APM wrote:On September 04 2014 16:10 Introvert wrote:On September 04 2014 15:48 Sub40APM wrote:On September 04 2014 14:54 Introvert wrote:On September 04 2014 13:50 Danglars wrote:A report released Wednesday by researchers at USC found that immigrants who are in California illegally make up nearly 10% of the state's workforce and contribute $130 billion annually to its gross domestic product.
The study, which was conducted in conjunction with the California Immigrant Policy Center, was based on census data and other statistics, including data from the Department of Labor and the Department of Homeland Security. It looked at a variety of ways the estimated 2.6 million immigrants living in California without permission participate in state life.[...]
Among the study's findings:
Immigrants who are in California illegally make up 38% of the agriculture industry and 14% of the construction industry statewide.
Half of the immigrants in the state illegally have been here for at least 10 years.
Roughly 58% do not have health insurance.
Nearly three in four live in households that include U.S. citizens. LA TimesThis drink's to immigration laws! I'm just blown away my state's governor will tell Mexicans they are "Welcome in California", but of course he'd be tarred and feathered if he ever came out in favor of enforcing current federal immigration law. I don't understand this place. I can only hope that our craziness can serve as a warning to other states- "see, this is how you ruin a once great state!" If it weren't for the higher education and natural beauty.... I'd try to leave. What exactly did the immigrants ruin in California? Should have been more clear- I was speaking generally. This story displays what must be a symptom of insanity. That and supporting a failed high speed rail project with billions from taxpayers and magical outside investors who don't appear. Second, the post was about illegal immigrants. Not legal immigrants- I know in the liberal mind they are all the same. Brown certainly think so- he's such a panderer. There's pretty much no major Democrat constituency that he will confront, though he tires to make that impression. Hence the president of Mexico, who I hear isn't even so nice about immigration laws in his own country, comes here and praises us for our "immigrant friendly" laws. Like letting illegal immigrants get driver's licenses. Arizona can't enforce federal immigration law when it wants to, but politicians in California get away with ignoring the law over here. We should get some federal agency on that! We need a lawsuit! It's all just so silly. I'm sure Caesar Chavez would be proud... You'll have to excuse me. Seeing this insanity so close up causes me a large amount of annoyance. But other than describing the fact that there are a lot of illegal immigrants in California and not that many in Mexico you havent explained exactly what the illegal immigrants have done to 'ruin california' Well 'they' didn't and even Californians know that...They do make a great scapegoat though... I find it especially ironic that every once in a while the 'illegal immigrants' sometimes have family ties to the land that go back long before any white people were here to forcibly take it. The US sometimes reminds me of the kid from Big Daddy... Once we gain the advantage, change the rules to prevent anyone from obtaining a similar advantage in a similar way (domestic and foreign). http://youtu.be/8HUvTp8ZcJs?t=7sLike families still on the Forbes list today who sold heroin and cocaine to help build that fortune. Or the people who use the historical ties to Israel to justify Jewish occupation but then turn around and say Mexicans historic claims mean nothing... Well, there are the costs of public services for illegals, who don't pay taxes for those services. Things such as education (which the state is required to provide), hospitals (same), etc... but I won't post the data because it wasn't really my point. It's easy to google. Granted, I don't know if it amounts to 130 billion. I could just make the Caesar Chavez argument that importing lower wage illegal immigrants harms the citizen/legal immigrant workers by driving wages down (and in Chavez's day, they were used as strike breakers). But I'm no economist. I do, however, value the citizen/legal worker more than the illegal one. But I was making a general point that actually tied into what GH said about scapegoats. You do realize that in California they are used as political pawns, right? You think Republicans are the only ones who use illegal immigration as an issue? What do you think these laws giving them driver's licenses are? It's not the illegals who can vote for or against that! Nevermind the fact that it gives the perverse incentive for more to come and break the law. So... I saw you agree with xDaunt's simple "close the backdoor, open the front door." This is not what states like CA do. By the way, if your family has roots here, and has stayed here, then you were made a citizen... CA became a state in 1850. Not exactly yesterday. There's more to it than that, but it needn't be said. It wasn't really the point. So are you still (or were you in the first place?) suggesting illegal immigrants ruined California because I didn't really see that argument made? How the hell do you come to the distorted idea that they don't pay taxes towards those services? I just actually have no idea how you could come to that conclusion...? Well making the distinction between the two based purely on their legal status implies that we have a practical/functional way for them to legally immigrate/work in the first place, which I think everyone on all sides of the spectrum agrees doesn't exist. I would agree that immigrants are used as political pawns on both sides, it just so happens one side happens to be arguing to give them a better more American life and the other is just arguing why/how to deny them such. Finally I was talking about most border states(not California exclusively) and as I'm sure you know it wasn't exactly the most hospitable place for people of Mexican heritage at various times. So are you still (or were you in the first place?) suggesting illegal immigrants ruined California because I didn't really see that argument made?
How the hell do you come to the distorted idea that they don't pay taxes towards those services? I just actually have no idea how you could come to that conclusion...? That wasn't the argument I was making, no. More is going wrong in this state than illegal immigration. We could devote an entire thread to the dysfunction and perhaps even criminality of the state government (4 of 40 state senators are currently suspended, pending criminal charges.) The Democrats in California take affirmative steps to open the "backdoor." The Republicans occasionally try to stop it. It's not like they are re-introducing school segregation. It's a reaction. If the democrats didn't try all this crap there wouldn't be a counter-push. It seems logical to believe that outside of overall GDP growth, that using cheaper laborers that work below the minimum wage probably reinforces the cycle. More Americans won't do those jobs for those wages. This hurts legal workers who need those jobs. I could be wrong here though, as I said. Why reduce their wages or opportunities (the "American life") for the sake of someone who crept over the border? What makes that immigrant more deserving of it than the one who spent the time and toil to follow the rules? Certain sectors are profiting from flat out breaking the law. That's not something I can support, and that's where a lot of my objection to this comes from.
Well making the distinction between the two based purely on their legal status implies that we have a practical/functional way for them to legally immigrate/work in the first place, which I think everyone on all sides of the spectrum agrees doesn't exist.
I would agree that immigrants are used as political pawns on both sides, it just so happens one side happens to be arguing to give them a better more American life and the other is just arguing why/how to deny them such.
Illegal immigrants don't pay the same taxes that go to things like medical, local taxes that pay for schools, etc. At least not in the same way. Of course they don't avoid ALL taxes, e.g. sales taxes. If this has to be explained to you yet again then there is no point. Let's just say that a broken system isn't an excuse to break the law. If they want to have the "American life" then come in the front. Seriously, if you actually agreed with the closed back door open front then you wouldn't support doing things that open the backdoor wider. Ok I didn't comment on California specifically but I guess I would support having them get licenses. I see a lot of positives and not a lot of negatives. Other policies I guess would have to be evaluated on their own merits. Also you said "I'm not an economist" so I'm not going to go into the wage argument. I'm also not commenting on the value of either sides argument (narrative) just that one sounds pretty scroogy (It could be true that basically 'we can't afford it' [I don't buy it, but it could be true]). As for the tax argument since you admitted/clarified that illegal immigrants do pay taxes to pay for the services you mentioned it seems it would be easier to understand what you are trying to say by explaining which taxes, towards which services, you think they are not paying? Numbers/percentages (even estimates) would be nice but I don't expect them. I'm actually far right of most here on immigration in general. My problem is our hypocrisy more than our policy (though I see it's broken). I used to say tear down the statue of liberty, but now my frugality has kicked in and I say just change the inscription. But having that message and our immigration policy at the same time is far more shameful, than hearing that message and coming here, legally or not... but it seems that logical that when you have people who are (again, in the words of the Democrat party) "undocumented" that they would pay less in taxes than the average citizen in their position. This is before benefits for citizens, of course. What taxes dont illegals pay? Not social security or federal income ? They obviously must pay all the consumption taxes and probably local taxes like property right? Like I've said- they do pay taxes since there are certain things you buy for which you must pay taxes. Property, for one. I imagine income being payed under the table is a major player. So I'm not saying that they pay no taxes, but until it's shown to be false, it's probably less than they would were they legal citizens. I admit to having no hard and fast proof, however. Well my point was that when you start with completely fallacious and inflammatory statements like Show nested quote +Well, there are the costs of public services for illegals, who don't pay taxes for those services. Things such as education (which the state is required to provide), hospitals (same), etc... but I won't post the data because it wasn't really my point. It becomes really easy to tune out the rest of what may be a reasonable argument. You didn't post the data because you had never seen it. Going from "they don't pay taxes for the services they use" to "they probably pay less than a legal immigrant/native but I actually have no factual/data driven basis for that claim" is a lot closer to being caught red-handed using the same tired old rhetoric to advance the same tired, old, propaganda and trying to back track to save face than some sort of clarification. For me that's enough. I just can't stand ignorant (kinda racist) statements like you started with. Especially if you take off the privilege glasses and realize there is probably much larger sums of money dodging taxes from California's many millionaires (and just average people for that matter) than from the people picking their fruit and mowing their lawns (among other jobs). Until you prove my claim false it's true too than right....? So what taxes specifically are they avoiding again because you didn't mention any... Other than ones who are actually being dodged by their native/legal resident business owner...? You make it sound like the illegal immigrants are forcing businesses to pay illegal wages under the table at gunpoint or something. So besides the paychecks that their employers are writing off as lord knows what (more likely not paying taxes on cash jobs and pulling wages from them) what elaborate tax avoidance strategies do you imagine them doing? Because as of now it looks like they are paying as much taxes as anyone else in their income bracket.
Too bad, for a minute I thought you were actually understanding what I was saying.
Going from "they don't pay taxes for the services they use" to "they probably pay less than a legal immigrant/native but I actually have no factual/data driven basis for that claim" is a lot closer to being caught red-handed using the same tired old rhetoric to advance the same tired, old, propaganda and trying to back track to save face than some sort of clarification.
I've seen lots of data, I have more bookmarks on these things than I could ever hope to use. I've actually looked this stuff up before. So yes, I've seen data. I've tried to correct that first statement like 3 or 4 times now. I'm hardly dodging. I've admitted mistakes before- I have no objection to it. Why would I?
For me that's enough. I just can't stand ignorant (kinda racist) statements like you started with. Especially if you take off the privilege glasses and realize there is probably much larger sums of money dodging taxes from California's many millionaires (and just average people for that matter) than from the people picking their fruit and mowing their lawns (among other jobs).
There was nothing racist in it- that's pure projection on your part. I've been harping on people who play the system in every context. I even provided an example of a famed worker's rights champion who had the same intuition I did. He was a Mexican-American. Such a racist, huh?
I just can't stand it when someone begins a lecture with "privilege." You know why I didn't talk about rich people? Because it wasn't the topic of discussion! I wasn't advocatiing two seperate standards. That's you. They are poor illegal immigrants, so they should get a pass compared to everyone else (including the legal immigrants). So i'm not even going to address if that comparison is accurate. (I'm sure the laborers hired day-by-day payed in straight cash send their money to the IRS with all haste).
Until you prove my claim false it's true too than right....?
My contention was that it was a logical inference. It still seems logical. Having seen how inconclusive the data is, I'll lean towards the logic at this moment.
So what taxes specifically are they avoiding again because you didn't mention any... Other than ones who are actually being dodged by their native/legal resident business owner...? You make it sound like the illegal immigrants are forcing businesses to pay illegal wages under the table at gunpoint or something.
So besides the paychecks that their employers are writing off as lord knows what (more likely not paying taxes on cash jobs and pulling wages from them) what elaborate tax avoidance strategies do you imagine them doing?
Because as of now it looks like they are paying as much taxes as anyone else in their income bracket.
I mentioned in passing income taxes, which can be dodged by being payed to daily, offsite laborers with cash after being picked up at certain places where, for instance, the farmers know to go.
And make no mistake, the people who hire them also benefit greatly. But again, that wasn't the topic of discussion.
Even sub40 acknowledged this possibility, but wonders if the net benefit offsets this. It's hardly a far-fetched idea.
But I will give the leftist strategy of name calling the victory. Accusing people of racism is enough for me to lose the interest in this recreational pastime.
|
On September 05 2014 15:33 IgnE wrote:
That they can't afford cars isn't the whole argument.
Um, no, it's not. I don't know why you would even say that.
The main point is they don't have driver's licenses; "because" is a subordinating conjunction...
|
On September 05 2014 15:21 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2014 15:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 05 2014 14:59 IgnE wrote:On September 05 2014 14:46 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 05 2014 14:04 Sub40APM wrote:On September 05 2014 12:40 Introvert wrote:. There are services that they do use, however. Schools, for example. By law, children, regardless of status, are entitled to an education ( Or at least, "strongly advised"). And the state is on its way to opening up more things to illegal immigrants, possibly cutting into whatever benefit that might exist. Arent schools for the most part paid by property taxes? Illegal immigrants or their land lords pay those no? It varies. At most (Connecticut) local taxes pay for ~57% of the school budget. At least (Hawaii) local taxes pay for ~ 3%. ( source Figure 9) On September 05 2014 02:10 IgnE wrote:
Immigrants easily add more to the GDP as a percentage of their income than millionaires do. They get paid far less than their work is worth and spend far more of their income in the local economy. Well, unless you're talking about a short run situation where more spending and less saving is helpful, a dollar is a dollar. One method to calculate GDP is to add up all income. So $10,000 in income adds $10,000 to GDP, $1,000,000 in income adds $1,000,000 to GDP. As far as the local economy goes, it depends. Someone with a high income may save a lot and have that money invested outside of the local community. But migrants and immigrants typically send a lot 'back home' by way of remittances. I'm not really sure how that washes out. And if the guy with $10k spends it on other goods, that an additional $10k in GDP. If the millionaire only spends $750k, hes only added an additional 75% of his income to GDP. You can either add it up via income or add it up via spending. You can't do both, that would be double counting. If you want to go with spending you'd need to know how much of the millionaire's savings is spent by someone else. And if, as is argued in this thread, many illegal immigrants are not getting paid on the books, then the income their employer pays them won't show up on his books as a loss, but they will still be able to spend the money again in the economy. Right?
Well, in that situation the farmer's income would be artificially high and the workers' would be artificially low and they'd net out.
If you're trying to say "what if we count the black market" than yes, GDP as an economic statistic would be higher.
|
On September 05 2014 15:44 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2014 15:21 IgnE wrote:On September 05 2014 15:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 05 2014 14:59 IgnE wrote:On September 05 2014 14:46 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 05 2014 14:04 Sub40APM wrote:On September 05 2014 12:40 Introvert wrote:. There are services that they do use, however. Schools, for example. By law, children, regardless of status, are entitled to an education ( Or at least, "strongly advised"). And the state is on its way to opening up more things to illegal immigrants, possibly cutting into whatever benefit that might exist. Arent schools for the most part paid by property taxes? Illegal immigrants or their land lords pay those no? It varies. At most (Connecticut) local taxes pay for ~57% of the school budget. At least (Hawaii) local taxes pay for ~ 3%. ( source Figure 9) On September 05 2014 02:10 IgnE wrote:
Immigrants easily add more to the GDP as a percentage of their income than millionaires do. They get paid far less than their work is worth and spend far more of their income in the local economy. Well, unless you're talking about a short run situation where more spending and less saving is helpful, a dollar is a dollar. One method to calculate GDP is to add up all income. So $10,000 in income adds $10,000 to GDP, $1,000,000 in income adds $1,000,000 to GDP. As far as the local economy goes, it depends. Someone with a high income may save a lot and have that money invested outside of the local community. But migrants and immigrants typically send a lot 'back home' by way of remittances. I'm not really sure how that washes out. And if the guy with $10k spends it on other goods, that an additional $10k in GDP. If the millionaire only spends $750k, hes only added an additional 75% of his income to GDP. You can either add it up via income or add it up via spending. You can't do both, that would be double counting. If you want to go with spending you'd need to know how much of the millionaire's savings is spent by someone else. And if, as is argued in this thread, many illegal immigrants are not getting paid on the books, then the income their employer pays them won't show up on his books as a loss, but they will still be able to spend the money again in the economy. Right? Well, in that situation the farmer's income would be artificially high and the workers' would be artificially low and they'd net out. If you're trying to say "what if we count the black market" than yes, GDP as an economic statistic would be higher.
Who says we are using an income method to calculate GDP? Is that what the original article uses?
|
On September 05 2014 15:41 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2014 15:33 IgnE wrote:
That they can't afford cars isn't the whole argument. Um, no, it's not. I don't know why you would even say that. The main point is they don't have driver's licenses; "because" is a subordinating conjunction...
So the other parts of the argument apply to identification cards given out at California DMV too.
|
On September 05 2014 15:50 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2014 15:44 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 05 2014 15:21 IgnE wrote:On September 05 2014 15:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 05 2014 14:59 IgnE wrote:On September 05 2014 14:46 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 05 2014 14:04 Sub40APM wrote:On September 05 2014 12:40 Introvert wrote:. There are services that they do use, however. Schools, for example. By law, children, regardless of status, are entitled to an education ( Or at least, "strongly advised"). And the state is on its way to opening up more things to illegal immigrants, possibly cutting into whatever benefit that might exist. Arent schools for the most part paid by property taxes? Illegal immigrants or their land lords pay those no? It varies. At most (Connecticut) local taxes pay for ~57% of the school budget. At least (Hawaii) local taxes pay for ~ 3%. ( source Figure 9) On September 05 2014 02:10 IgnE wrote:
Immigrants easily add more to the GDP as a percentage of their income than millionaires do. They get paid far less than their work is worth and spend far more of their income in the local economy. Well, unless you're talking about a short run situation where more spending and less saving is helpful, a dollar is a dollar. One method to calculate GDP is to add up all income. So $10,000 in income adds $10,000 to GDP, $1,000,000 in income adds $1,000,000 to GDP. As far as the local economy goes, it depends. Someone with a high income may save a lot and have that money invested outside of the local community. But migrants and immigrants typically send a lot 'back home' by way of remittances. I'm not really sure how that washes out. And if the guy with $10k spends it on other goods, that an additional $10k in GDP. If the millionaire only spends $750k, hes only added an additional 75% of his income to GDP. You can either add it up via income or add it up via spending. You can't do both, that would be double counting. If you want to go with spending you'd need to know how much of the millionaire's savings is spent by someone else. And if, as is argued in this thread, many illegal immigrants are not getting paid on the books, then the income their employer pays them won't show up on his books as a loss, but they will still be able to spend the money again in the economy. Right? Well, in that situation the farmer's income would be artificially high and the workers' would be artificially low and they'd net out. If you're trying to say "what if we count the black market" than yes, GDP as an economic statistic would be higher. Who says we are using an income method to calculate GDP? Is that what the original article uses?
It doesn't really matter which method you use. They are all getting at the same thing.
|
On September 05 2014 15:35 Introvert wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On September 05 2014 15:15 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2014 11:34 Introvert wrote:On September 05 2014 11:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 05 2014 10:51 Introvert wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On September 05 2014 10:29 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2014 09:31 Introvert wrote:On September 05 2014 02:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 05 2014 02:04 Sub40APM wrote:On September 04 2014 16:10 Introvert wrote:On September 04 2014 15:48 Sub40APM wrote:On September 04 2014 14:54 Introvert wrote:On September 04 2014 13:50 Danglars wrote:A report released Wednesday by researchers at USC found that immigrants who are in California illegally make up nearly 10% of the state's workforce and contribute $130 billion annually to its gross domestic product.
The study, which was conducted in conjunction with the California Immigrant Policy Center, was based on census data and other statistics, including data from the Department of Labor and the Department of Homeland Security. It looked at a variety of ways the estimated 2.6 million immigrants living in California without permission participate in state life.[...]
Among the study's findings:
Immigrants who are in California illegally make up 38% of the agriculture industry and 14% of the construction industry statewide.
Half of the immigrants in the state illegally have been here for at least 10 years.
Roughly 58% do not have health insurance.
Nearly three in four live in households that include U.S. citizens. LA TimesThis drink's to immigration laws! I'm just blown away my state's governor will tell Mexicans they are "Welcome in California", but of course he'd be tarred and feathered if he ever came out in favor of enforcing current federal immigration law. I don't understand this place. I can only hope that our craziness can serve as a warning to other states- "see, this is how you ruin a once great state!" If it weren't for the higher education and natural beauty.... I'd try to leave. What exactly did the immigrants ruin in California? Should have been more clear- I was speaking generally. This story displays what must be a symptom of insanity. That and supporting a failed high speed rail project with billions from taxpayers and magical outside investors who don't appear. Second, the post was about illegal immigrants. Not legal immigrants- I know in the liberal mind they are all the same. Brown certainly think so- he's such a panderer. There's pretty much no major Democrat constituency that he will confront, though he tires to make that impression. Hence the president of Mexico, who I hear isn't even so nice about immigration laws in his own country, comes here and praises us for our "immigrant friendly" laws. Like letting illegal immigrants get driver's licenses. Arizona can't enforce federal immigration law when it wants to, but politicians in California get away with ignoring the law over here. We should get some federal agency on that! We need a lawsuit! It's all just so silly. I'm sure Caesar Chavez would be proud... You'll have to excuse me. Seeing this insanity so close up causes me a large amount of annoyance. But other than describing the fact that there are a lot of illegal immigrants in California and not that many in Mexico you havent explained exactly what the illegal immigrants have done to 'ruin california' Well 'they' didn't and even Californians know that...They do make a great scapegoat though... I find it especially ironic that every once in a while the 'illegal immigrants' sometimes have family ties to the land that go back long before any white people were here to forcibly take it. The US sometimes reminds me of the kid from Big Daddy... Once we gain the advantage, change the rules to prevent anyone from obtaining a similar advantage in a similar way (domestic and foreign). http://youtu.be/8HUvTp8ZcJs?t=7sLike families still on the Forbes list today who sold heroin and cocaine to help build that fortune. Or the people who use the historical ties to Israel to justify Jewish occupation but then turn around and say Mexicans historic claims mean nothing... Well, there are the costs of public services for illegals, who don't pay taxes for those services. Things such as education (which the state is required to provide), hospitals (same), etc... but I won't post the data because it wasn't really my point. It's easy to google. Granted, I don't know if it amounts to 130 billion. I could just make the Caesar Chavez argument that importing lower wage illegal immigrants harms the citizen/legal immigrant workers by driving wages down (and in Chavez's day, they were used as strike breakers). But I'm no economist. I do, however, value the citizen/legal worker more than the illegal one. But I was making a general point that actually tied into what GH said about scapegoats. You do realize that in California they are used as political pawns, right? You think Republicans are the only ones who use illegal immigration as an issue? What do you think these laws giving them driver's licenses are? It's not the illegals who can vote for or against that! Nevermind the fact that it gives the perverse incentive for more to come and break the law. So... I saw you agree with xDaunt's simple "close the backdoor, open the front door." This is not what states like CA do. By the way, if your family has roots here, and has stayed here, then you were made a citizen... CA became a state in 1850. Not exactly yesterday. There's more to it than that, but it needn't be said. It wasn't really the point. So are you still (or were you in the first place?) suggesting illegal immigrants ruined California because I didn't really see that argument made? How the hell do you come to the distorted idea that they don't pay taxes towards those services? I just actually have no idea how you could come to that conclusion...? Well making the distinction between the two based purely on their legal status implies that we have a practical/functional way for them to legally immigrate/work in the first place, which I think everyone on all sides of the spectrum agrees doesn't exist. I would agree that immigrants are used as political pawns on both sides, it just so happens one side happens to be arguing to give them a better more American life and the other is just arguing why/how to deny them such. Finally I was talking about most border states(not California exclusively) and as I'm sure you know it wasn't exactly the most hospitable place for people of Mexican heritage at various times. So are you still (or were you in the first place?) suggesting illegal immigrants ruined California because I didn't really see that argument made?
How the hell do you come to the distorted idea that they don't pay taxes towards those services? I just actually have no idea how you could come to that conclusion...? That wasn't the argument I was making, no. More is going wrong in this state than illegal immigration. We could devote an entire thread to the dysfunction and perhaps even criminality of the state government (4 of 40 state senators are currently suspended, pending criminal charges.) The Democrats in California take affirmative steps to open the "backdoor." The Republicans occasionally try to stop it. It's not like they are re-introducing school segregation. It's a reaction. If the democrats didn't try all this crap there wouldn't be a counter-push. It seems logical to believe that outside of overall GDP growth, that using cheaper laborers that work below the minimum wage probably reinforces the cycle. More Americans won't do those jobs for those wages. This hurts legal workers who need those jobs. I could be wrong here though, as I said. Why reduce their wages or opportunities (the "American life") for the sake of someone who crept over the border? What makes that immigrant more deserving of it than the one who spent the time and toil to follow the rules? Certain sectors are profiting from flat out breaking the law. That's not something I can support, and that's where a lot of my objection to this comes from.
Well making the distinction between the two based purely on their legal status implies that we have a practical/functional way for them to legally immigrate/work in the first place, which I think everyone on all sides of the spectrum agrees doesn't exist.
I would agree that immigrants are used as political pawns on both sides, it just so happens one side happens to be arguing to give them a better more American life and the other is just arguing why/how to deny them such.
Illegal immigrants don't pay the same taxes that go to things like medical, local taxes that pay for schools, etc. At least not in the same way. Of course they don't avoid ALL taxes, e.g. sales taxes. If this has to be explained to you yet again then there is no point. Let's just say that a broken system isn't an excuse to break the law. If they want to have the "American life" then come in the front. Seriously, if you actually agreed with the closed back door open front then you wouldn't support doing things that open the backdoor wider. Ok I didn't comment on California specifically but I guess I would support having them get licenses. I see a lot of positives and not a lot of negatives. Other policies I guess would have to be evaluated on their own merits. Also you said "I'm not an economist" so I'm not going to go into the wage argument. I'm also not commenting on the value of either sides argument (narrative) just that one sounds pretty scroogy (It could be true that basically 'we can't afford it' [I don't buy it, but it could be true]). As for the tax argument since you admitted/clarified that illegal immigrants do pay taxes to pay for the services you mentioned it seems it would be easier to understand what you are trying to say by explaining which taxes, towards which services, you think they are not paying? Numbers/percentages (even estimates) would be nice but I don't expect them. I'm actually far right of most here on immigration in general. My problem is our hypocrisy more than our policy (though I see it's broken). I used to say tear down the statue of liberty, but now my frugality has kicked in and I say just change the inscription. But having that message and our immigration policy at the same time is far more shameful, than hearing that message and coming here, legally or not... I see the granting of driver's licenses as perverse incentives, if you don't want to go into numbers (wasn't my intention either). Unless you are an economist and could enlighten me As far as I'm aware though, that used to be the union position- at least in California. And during the time of Chavez it was undeniably true, since illegals were used as strike breakers more than once. The stuff he said and did about illegal Mexican immigrants... it wouldn't be allowed today, lol. I have seen no proof that they pay (to borrow a liberal phrase) their "fair share." Google quickly leads to groups claiming both sides, but it seems logical that when you have people who are (again, in the words of the Democrat party) "undocumented" that they would pay less in taxes than the average citizen in their position. This is before benefits for citizens, of course. My main point is that we have politicians, instead of doing something to discourage illegal immigration and fix legal immigration (whatever may be broken), that they just advocate skirting existing law with new, BS laws. This offends my sensibilities towards law and order IF you come here to play the game, then you have to play by the rules. On September 05 2014 11:37 Sub40APM wrote:On September 05 2014 11:34 Introvert wrote:On September 05 2014 11:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 05 2014 10:51 Introvert wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On September 05 2014 10:29 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2014 09:31 Introvert wrote:On September 05 2014 02:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 05 2014 02:04 Sub40APM wrote:On September 04 2014 16:10 Introvert wrote:On September 04 2014 15:48 Sub40APM wrote:On September 04 2014 14:54 Introvert wrote:On September 04 2014 13:50 Danglars wrote:A report released Wednesday by researchers at USC found that immigrants who are in California illegally make up nearly 10% of the state's workforce and contribute $130 billion annually to its gross domestic product.
The study, which was conducted in conjunction with the California Immigrant Policy Center, was based on census data and other statistics, including data from the Department of Labor and the Department of Homeland Security. It looked at a variety of ways the estimated 2.6 million immigrants living in California without permission participate in state life.[...]
Among the study's findings:
Immigrants who are in California illegally make up 38% of the agriculture industry and 14% of the construction industry statewide.
Half of the immigrants in the state illegally have been here for at least 10 years.
Roughly 58% do not have health insurance.
Nearly three in four live in households that include U.S. citizens. LA TimesThis drink's to immigration laws! I'm just blown away my state's governor will tell Mexicans they are "Welcome in California", but of course he'd be tarred and feathered if he ever came out in favor of enforcing current federal immigration law. I don't understand this place. I can only hope that our craziness can serve as a warning to other states- "see, this is how you ruin a once great state!" If it weren't for the higher education and natural beauty.... I'd try to leave. What exactly did the immigrants ruin in California? Should have been more clear- I was speaking generally. This story displays what must be a symptom of insanity. That and supporting a failed high speed rail project with billions from taxpayers and magical outside investors who don't appear. Second, the post was about illegal immigrants. Not legal immigrants- I know in the liberal mind they are all the same. Brown certainly think so- he's such a panderer. There's pretty much no major Democrat constituency that he will confront, though he tires to make that impression. Hence the president of Mexico, who I hear isn't even so nice about immigration laws in his own country, comes here and praises us for our "immigrant friendly" laws. Like letting illegal immigrants get driver's licenses. Arizona can't enforce federal immigration law when it wants to, but politicians in California get away with ignoring the law over here. We should get some federal agency on that! We need a lawsuit! It's all just so silly. I'm sure Caesar Chavez would be proud... You'll have to excuse me. Seeing this insanity so close up causes me a large amount of annoyance. But other than describing the fact that there are a lot of illegal immigrants in California and not that many in Mexico you havent explained exactly what the illegal immigrants have done to 'ruin california' Well 'they' didn't and even Californians know that...They do make a great scapegoat though... I find it especially ironic that every once in a while the 'illegal immigrants' sometimes have family ties to the land that go back long before any white people were here to forcibly take it. The US sometimes reminds me of the kid from Big Daddy... Once we gain the advantage, change the rules to prevent anyone from obtaining a similar advantage in a similar way (domestic and foreign). http://youtu.be/8HUvTp8ZcJs?t=7sLike families still on the Forbes list today who sold heroin and cocaine to help build that fortune. Or the people who use the historical ties to Israel to justify Jewish occupation but then turn around and say Mexicans historic claims mean nothing... Well, there are the costs of public services for illegals, who don't pay taxes for those services. Things such as education (which the state is required to provide), hospitals (same), etc... but I won't post the data because it wasn't really my point. It's easy to google. Granted, I don't know if it amounts to 130 billion. I could just make the Caesar Chavez argument that importing lower wage illegal immigrants harms the citizen/legal immigrant workers by driving wages down (and in Chavez's day, they were used as strike breakers). But I'm no economist. I do, however, value the citizen/legal worker more than the illegal one. But I was making a general point that actually tied into what GH said about scapegoats. You do realize that in California they are used as political pawns, right? You think Republicans are the only ones who use illegal immigration as an issue? What do you think these laws giving them driver's licenses are? It's not the illegals who can vote for or against that! Nevermind the fact that it gives the perverse incentive for more to come and break the law. So... I saw you agree with xDaunt's simple "close the backdoor, open the front door." This is not what states like CA do. By the way, if your family has roots here, and has stayed here, then you were made a citizen... CA became a state in 1850. Not exactly yesterday. There's more to it than that, but it needn't be said. It wasn't really the point. So are you still (or were you in the first place?) suggesting illegal immigrants ruined California because I didn't really see that argument made? How the hell do you come to the distorted idea that they don't pay taxes towards those services? I just actually have no idea how you could come to that conclusion...? Well making the distinction between the two based purely on their legal status implies that we have a practical/functional way for them to legally immigrate/work in the first place, which I think everyone on all sides of the spectrum agrees doesn't exist. I would agree that immigrants are used as political pawns on both sides, it just so happens one side happens to be arguing to give them a better more American life and the other is just arguing why/how to deny them such. Finally I was talking about most border states(not California exclusively) and as I'm sure you know it wasn't exactly the most hospitable place for people of Mexican heritage at various times. So are you still (or were you in the first place?) suggesting illegal immigrants ruined California because I didn't really see that argument made?
How the hell do you come to the distorted idea that they don't pay taxes towards those services? I just actually have no idea how you could come to that conclusion...? That wasn't the argument I was making, no. More is going wrong in this state than illegal immigration. We could devote an entire thread to the dysfunction and perhaps even criminality of the state government (4 of 40 state senators are currently suspended, pending criminal charges.) The Democrats in California take affirmative steps to open the "backdoor." The Republicans occasionally try to stop it. It's not like they are re-introducing school segregation. It's a reaction. If the democrats didn't try all this crap there wouldn't be a counter-push. It seems logical to believe that outside of overall GDP growth, that using cheaper laborers that work below the minimum wage probably reinforces the cycle. More Americans won't do those jobs for those wages. This hurts legal workers who need those jobs. I could be wrong here though, as I said. Why reduce their wages or opportunities (the "American life") for the sake of someone who crept over the border? What makes that immigrant more deserving of it than the one who spent the time and toil to follow the rules? Certain sectors are profiting from flat out breaking the law. That's not something I can support, and that's where a lot of my objection to this comes from.
Well making the distinction between the two based purely on their legal status implies that we have a practical/functional way for them to legally immigrate/work in the first place, which I think everyone on all sides of the spectrum agrees doesn't exist.
I would agree that immigrants are used as political pawns on both sides, it just so happens one side happens to be arguing to give them a better more American life and the other is just arguing why/how to deny them such.
Illegal immigrants don't pay the same taxes that go to things like medical, local taxes that pay for schools, etc. At least not in the same way. Of course they don't avoid ALL taxes, e.g. sales taxes. If this has to be explained to you yet again then there is no point. Let's just say that a broken system isn't an excuse to break the law. If they want to have the "American life" then come in the front. Seriously, if you actually agreed with the closed back door open front then you wouldn't support doing things that open the backdoor wider. Ok I didn't comment on California specifically but I guess I would support having them get licenses. I see a lot of positives and not a lot of negatives. Other policies I guess would have to be evaluated on their own merits. Also you said "I'm not an economist" so I'm not going to go into the wage argument. I'm also not commenting on the value of either sides argument (narrative) just that one sounds pretty scroogy (It could be true that basically 'we can't afford it' [I don't buy it, but it could be true]). As for the tax argument since you admitted/clarified that illegal immigrants do pay taxes to pay for the services you mentioned it seems it would be easier to understand what you are trying to say by explaining which taxes, towards which services, you think they are not paying? Numbers/percentages (even estimates) would be nice but I don't expect them. I'm actually far right of most here on immigration in general. My problem is our hypocrisy more than our policy (though I see it's broken). I used to say tear down the statue of liberty, but now my frugality has kicked in and I say just change the inscription. But having that message and our immigration policy at the same time is far more shameful, than hearing that message and coming here, legally or not... but it seems that logical that when you have people who are (again, in the words of the Democrat party) "undocumented" that they would pay less in taxes than the average citizen in their position. This is before benefits for citizens, of course. What taxes dont illegals pay? Not social security or federal income ? They obviously must pay all the consumption taxes and probably local taxes like property right? Like I've said- they do pay taxes since there are certain things you buy for which you must pay taxes. Property, for one. I imagine income being payed under the table is a major player. So I'm not saying that they pay no taxes, but until it's shown to be false, it's probably less than they would were they legal citizens. I admit to having no hard and fast proof, however. Well my point was that when you start with completely fallacious and inflammatory statements like Show nested quote +Well, there are the costs of public services for illegals, who don't pay taxes for those services. Things such as education (which the state is required to provide), hospitals (same), etc... but I won't post the data because it wasn't really my point. It becomes really easy to tune out the rest of what may be a reasonable argument. You didn't post the data because you had never seen it. Going from "they don't pay taxes for the services they use" to "they probably pay less than a legal immigrant/native but I actually have no factual/data driven basis for that claim" is a lot closer to being caught red-handed using the same tired old rhetoric to advance the same tired, old, propaganda and trying to back track to save face than some sort of clarification. For me that's enough. I just can't stand ignorant (kinda racist) statements like you started with. Especially if you take off the privilege glasses and realize there is probably much larger sums of money dodging taxes from California's many millionaires (and just average people for that matter) than from the people picking their fruit and mowing their lawns (among other jobs). Until you prove my claim false it's true too than right....? So what taxes specifically are they avoiding again because you didn't mention any... Other than ones who are actually being dodged by their native/legal resident business owner...? You make it sound like the illegal immigrants are forcing businesses to pay illegal wages under the table at gunpoint or something. So besides the paychecks that their employers are writing off as lord knows what (more likely not paying taxes on cash jobs and pulling wages from them) what elaborate tax avoidance strategies do you imagine them doing? Because as of now it looks like they are paying as much taxes as anyone else in their income bracket. To bad, for a minute I thought you were actually understanding what I was saying. Show nested quote +Going from "they don't pay taxes for the services they use" to "they probably pay less than a legal immigrant/native but I actually have no factual/data driven basis for that claim" is a lot closer to being caught red-handed using the same tired old rhetoric to advance the same tired, old, propaganda and trying to back track to save face than some sort of clarification. I've seen lots of data, I have more bookmarks on these things than I could ever hope to use. I've actually looked this stuff up before. So yes, I've seen data. I've tried to correct that first statement like 3 or 4 times now. I'm hardly dodging. I've admitted mistakes before- I have no objection to it. Why would I? Show nested quote +For me that's enough. I just can't stand ignorant (kinda racist) statements like you started with. Especially if you take off the privilege glasses and realize there is probably much larger sums of money dodging taxes from California's many millionaires (and just average people for that matter) than from the people picking their fruit and mowing their lawns (among other jobs). There was nothing racist in it- that's pure projection on your part. I've been harping on people who play the system in every context. I even provided an example of a famed worker's rights champion who had the same intuition I did. He was a Mexican-American. Such a racist, huh? I just can't stand it when someone begins a lecture with "privilege." You know why I didn't talk about rich people? Because it wasn't the topic of discussion! I wasn't advocatiing two seperate standards. That's you. They are poor illegal immigrants, so they should get a pass compared to everyone else (including the legal immigrants). So i'm not even going to address if that comparison is accurate. (I'm sure the laborers hired day-by-day payed in straight cash send their money to the IRS with all haste). My contention was that it was a logical inference. It still seems logical. Having seen how inconclusive the data is, I'll lean towards the logic at this moment. Show nested quote +So what taxes specifically are they avoiding again because you didn't mention any... Other than ones who are actually being dodged by their native/legal resident business owner...? You make it sound like the illegal immigrants are forcing businesses to pay illegal wages under the table at gunpoint or something.
So besides the paychecks that their employers are writing off as lord knows what (more likely not paying taxes on cash jobs and pulling wages from them) what elaborate tax avoidance strategies do you imagine them doing?
Because as of now it looks like they are paying as much taxes as anyone else in their income bracket. I mentioned in passing income taxes, which can be dodged by being payed to daily, offsite laborers with cash after being picked up at certain places where, for instance, the farmers know to go. And make no mistake, the people who hire them also benefit greatly. But again, that wasn't the topic of discussion. Even sub40 acknowledged this possibility, but wonders if the net benefit offsets this. It's hardly a far-fetched idea. But I will give the leftist strategy of name calling the victory. Accusing people of racism is enough for me to lose the interest in this recreational pastime.
You don't have to be a card carrying racist or racist all the time to say something racist but that wasn't really my point.
'passed by paying' yeah see they have to be hired/payed by someone who is dodging the taxes before they even have a chance to 'dodge' them (as if they wouldn't prefer being a legal tax paying worker)...So no. Nothing. You have NO taxes they are avoiding that aren't first being avoided by a legal resident (offsetting most, if not all, net dodging).
Your indignant attitude at the evocation of privilege says more than you know, but again, not my point.
My point was that in talking about 'ruining California' you created this imaginary world where 'illegal immigrants pay no, some, less, taxes'. I was just pointing out far more tax revenue is lost from non-illegal immigrants dodging taxes (all of the illegal employers and then some) and that scapegoating the taxes of illegal immigrants was totally (even self-admittedly) unfounded other than your unnamed sources (who probably didn't account for the fact that their employers had to avoid taxes in order to pay them too).
And that specific rhetoric fits the undoubtedly racist narrative propaganda commonly used in the more extreme parts of the right (who tend not to admit to such clarifications)
So I am clear I wasn't calling you racist just the statement. But it's how wrong and baseless it was that bothered me, the racist part was just a reminder about how that exact rhetoric is commonly used.
|
On September 05 2014 15:52 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2014 15:41 coverpunch wrote:On September 05 2014 15:33 IgnE wrote:
That they can't afford cars isn't the whole argument. Um, no, it's not. I don't know why you would even say that. The main point is they don't have driver's licenses; "because" is a subordinating conjunction... So the other parts of the argument apply to identification cards given out at California DMV too.
"Although" is a conjunction that introduces a concessionary clause. So no, that wasn't the argument either...
|
On September 05 2014 15:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2014 15:50 IgnE wrote:On September 05 2014 15:44 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 05 2014 15:21 IgnE wrote:On September 05 2014 15:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 05 2014 14:59 IgnE wrote:On September 05 2014 14:46 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 05 2014 14:04 Sub40APM wrote:On September 05 2014 12:40 Introvert wrote:. There are services that they do use, however. Schools, for example. By law, children, regardless of status, are entitled to an education ( Or at least, "strongly advised"). And the state is on its way to opening up more things to illegal immigrants, possibly cutting into whatever benefit that might exist. Arent schools for the most part paid by property taxes? Illegal immigrants or their land lords pay those no? It varies. At most (Connecticut) local taxes pay for ~57% of the school budget. At least (Hawaii) local taxes pay for ~ 3%. ( source Figure 9) On September 05 2014 02:10 IgnE wrote:
Immigrants easily add more to the GDP as a percentage of their income than millionaires do. They get paid far less than their work is worth and spend far more of their income in the local economy. Well, unless you're talking about a short run situation where more spending and less saving is helpful, a dollar is a dollar. One method to calculate GDP is to add up all income. So $10,000 in income adds $10,000 to GDP, $1,000,000 in income adds $1,000,000 to GDP. As far as the local economy goes, it depends. Someone with a high income may save a lot and have that money invested outside of the local community. But migrants and immigrants typically send a lot 'back home' by way of remittances. I'm not really sure how that washes out. And if the guy with $10k spends it on other goods, that an additional $10k in GDP. If the millionaire only spends $750k, hes only added an additional 75% of his income to GDP. You can either add it up via income or add it up via spending. You can't do both, that would be double counting. If you want to go with spending you'd need to know how much of the millionaire's savings is spent by someone else. And if, as is argued in this thread, many illegal immigrants are not getting paid on the books, then the income their employer pays them won't show up on his books as a loss, but they will still be able to spend the money again in the economy. Right? Well, in that situation the farmer's income would be artificially high and the workers' would be artificially low and they'd net out. If you're trying to say "what if we count the black market" than yes, GDP as an economic statistic would be higher. Who says we are using an income method to calculate GDP? Is that what the original article uses? It doesn't really matter which method you use. They are all getting at the same thing.
Except that when you calculate it with people getting paid off the books and then spending the money the result is higher.
On September 05 2014 15:58 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2014 15:52 IgnE wrote:On September 05 2014 15:41 coverpunch wrote:On September 05 2014 15:33 IgnE wrote:
That they can't afford cars isn't the whole argument. Um, no, it's not. I don't know why you would even say that. The main point is they don't have driver's licenses; "because" is a subordinating conjunction... So the other parts of the argument apply to identification cards given out at California DMV too. "Although" is a conjunction that introduces a concessionary clause. So no, that wasn't the argument either...
What? You said it's weird that we use driver's licenses in voter ID laws because poor people can't afford cars, although they can get an ID card. I said, it's not just that they can't afford cars that they don't get a driver's license to fulfill (proposed) voter id laws.
|
On September 05 2014 16:01 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2014 15:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 05 2014 15:50 IgnE wrote:On September 05 2014 15:44 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 05 2014 15:21 IgnE wrote:On September 05 2014 15:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 05 2014 14:59 IgnE wrote:On September 05 2014 14:46 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 05 2014 14:04 Sub40APM wrote:On September 05 2014 12:40 Introvert wrote:. There are services that they do use, however. Schools, for example. By law, children, regardless of status, are entitled to an education ( Or at least, "strongly advised"). And the state is on its way to opening up more things to illegal immigrants, possibly cutting into whatever benefit that might exist. Arent schools for the most part paid by property taxes? Illegal immigrants or their land lords pay those no? It varies. At most (Connecticut) local taxes pay for ~57% of the school budget. At least (Hawaii) local taxes pay for ~ 3%. ( source Figure 9) On September 05 2014 02:10 IgnE wrote:
Immigrants easily add more to the GDP as a percentage of their income than millionaires do. They get paid far less than their work is worth and spend far more of their income in the local economy. Well, unless you're talking about a short run situation where more spending and less saving is helpful, a dollar is a dollar. One method to calculate GDP is to add up all income. So $10,000 in income adds $10,000 to GDP, $1,000,000 in income adds $1,000,000 to GDP. As far as the local economy goes, it depends. Someone with a high income may save a lot and have that money invested outside of the local community. But migrants and immigrants typically send a lot 'back home' by way of remittances. I'm not really sure how that washes out. And if the guy with $10k spends it on other goods, that an additional $10k in GDP. If the millionaire only spends $750k, hes only added an additional 75% of his income to GDP. You can either add it up via income or add it up via spending. You can't do both, that would be double counting. If you want to go with spending you'd need to know how much of the millionaire's savings is spent by someone else. And if, as is argued in this thread, many illegal immigrants are not getting paid on the books, then the income their employer pays them won't show up on his books as a loss, but they will still be able to spend the money again in the economy. Right? Well, in that situation the farmer's income would be artificially high and the workers' would be artificially low and they'd net out. If you're trying to say "what if we count the black market" than yes, GDP as an economic statistic would be higher. Who says we are using an income method to calculate GDP? Is that what the original article uses? It doesn't really matter which method you use. They are all getting at the same thing. Except that when you calculate it with people getting paid off the books and then spending the money the result is higher.
In the example you gave the spending and income methods take you to the same number.
|
How does the spending of the employer offset the spending of the paid illegal immigrants?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
