The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on U.S. Taxpayers

[boomerang]

Why is there always talk about the illegals rather than those who employ them? Would it not make sense to jail and/or heavily fine the employers? Kill the demand and the supply will go away.

I say we do both. Imagine the cost of jailing and/or heavily fining employers that have illegals working under the table? You've got to find those employers and then prove what it is they're doing. Well, at least in the case of jail time. The IRS has no problems assessing fines, freezing bank accounts and seizing assets without a burden of proof. They're the enforcement arm of the current regime so I suspect they'd be in charge of the fines. A two pronged approach would be best. Make it totally unpalatable to all parties involved.

 

[Vic]

Does the $135 billion include the court costs of contested deportations? Or does it just assume that every illegal that ICE attempts to deport is actually an illegal and that they will go quietly?

 

[Vic]

I say we do both. Imagine the cost of jailing and/or heavily fining employers that have illegals working under the table? You've got to find those employers and then prove what it is they're doing. Well, at least in the case of jail time. The IRS has no problems assessing fines, freezing bank accounts and seizing assets without a burden of proof. They're the enforcement arm of the current regime so I suspect they'd be in charge of the fines. A two pronged approach would be best. Make it totally unpalatable to all parties involved.

How do you post shit like this and yet still pretend to be an advocate of small government?

 

[boomerang]

How do you post shit like this and yet still pretend to be an advocate of small government?

Well that's an accusation that you have yet to provide proof for. Feel free. I am a fiscal conservative. If it costs less to deport every illegal in the nation that to support them, the path for me is clear.

 

[boomerang]

Does the $135 billion include the court costs of contested deportations? Or does it just assume that every illegal that ICE attempts to deport is actually an illegal and that they will go quietly?

I don't know. Is overtime figured into any of that? Holiday pay, bereavement and maternity leave?

I thought you were smarter than to attack something based in straw grasping minutia. Not so sure now.

 

[Vic]

Well that's an accusation that you have yet to provide proof for. Feel free. I am a fiscal conservative. If it costs less to deport every illegal in the nation that to support them, the path for me is clear.

That's a false dilemma. If granted citizenship and allowed employment, the vast majority of these 'illegals' would not require government support.

But I was referring to your comments in favor of government abuse of power as long as it served your agenda. That's not small government no matter how fiscally conservative you are.

 

[Vic]

I don't know. Is overtime figured into any of that? Holiday pay, bereavement and maternity leave?

I thought you were smarter than to attack something based in straw grasping minutia. Not so sure now.

Are you really that stupid? Deportation is a legal process, and not every person that ICE attempts to deport will actually be an illegal. The burden of proof will lie on the government to prove the lack of citizenship, in the courts if necessary, one by one, and that will be very costly.
Your own ad-infested link said that the $135 billion was a 'conservative' estimate, and I'm just trying to find out how rosy it in fact is.

 

[K1052]

I don't know. Is overtime figured into any of that? Holiday pay, bereavement and maternity leave?

I thought you were smarter than to attack something based in straw grasping minutia. Not so sure now.

Due process is not a straw.

 

[Zaap]

You know, if we converted the income tax to a sales tax, nobody would be able to avoid it. Illegals would be much less of a tax burden and rich people would be paying "their share".

I'm always curious where people come up with this notion, and based on what?

Just because a person is rich, doesn't mean they HAVE to consume more. A rich single person doesn't *have* to buy more food, more TVs, more cars, more of anything than a poor family of 5.

A pure sales-tax only scheme would hammer the poor, and the rich would love it. The rich can afford to travel wherever they need to to bypass it, or set up tax-exempt businesses to purchase most things they need, while the poor and middle class that's not nearly so saavy or mobile would get hammered with the entire tax burden.

 

[smackababy]

I'm always curious where people come up with this notion, and based on what?

Just because a person is rich, doesn't mean they HAVE to consume more. A rich single person doesn't *have* to buy more food, more TVs, more cars, more of anything than a poor family of 5.

A pure sales-tax only scheme would hammer the poor, and the rich would love it. The rich can afford to travel wherever they need to to bypass it, or set up tax-exempt businesses to purchase most things they need, while the poor and middle class that's not nearly so saavy or mobile would get hammered with the entire tax burden.

I was really joking about the rich people paying their share, as if they already don't. The average tax rate of all persons in the US is around 18%. Funny, the average for the top 1% is 29%, the highest of any bracket. The only people "hammered" would be people already not paying income tax due to poverty. And, those people can easily be part of programs that limit how much they actually spend (food stamps, etc) that, since they aren't paying it, would be tax free (for them).

And while rich people would find ways to "skirt" the tax, they still have to purchase things here. We'd also get all the people who otherwise evade paying taxes (illegals, drug dealers, etc) adding additional taxes paid by simply buying things. We could cut down on IRS employees and overhead (don't need to go through all those tax filings anymore) and simply require all business that sell goods or services in any form to report their earners from goods sold and tax that at the same rate. The taxes would be pushed down to the consumer. Sure, the cost of goods would increase by that amount, but the amount of money you take home would as well.

I suppose that would ruin the poor person savings plan (give the government a loan and get a bunch back in February to buy that new TV). But, that is a stupid practice.

 

[ivwshane]

I was really joking about the rich people paying their share, as if they already don't. The average tax rate of all persons in the US is around 18%. Funny, the average for the top 1% is 29%, the highest of any bracket. The only people "hammered" would be people already not paying income tax due to poverty. And, those people can easily be part of programs that limit how much they actually spend (food stamps, etc) that, since they aren't paying it, would be tax free (for them).

And while rich people would find ways to "skirt" the tax, they still have to purchase things here. We'd also get all the people who otherwise evade paying taxes (illegals, drug dealers, etc) adding additional taxes paid by simply buying things. We could cut down on IRS employees and overhead (don't need to go through all those tax filings anymore) and simply require all business that sell goods or services in any form to report their earners from goods sold and tax that at the same rate. The taxes would be pushed down to the consumer. Sure, the cost of goods would increase by that amount, but the amount of money you take home would as well.

I suppose that would ruin the poor person savings plan (give the government a loan and get a bunch back in February to buy that new TV). But, that is a stupid practice.

This is based on what?

 

[smackababy]

This is based on what?

The first result in a google search.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=456

 

[BoberFett]

How much do you think the US citizenry saves by overworking and underpaying a huge, easily available labor force?

Let the record show that TreVader supports slavery of brown people.

 

[Zaap]

I was really joking about the rich people paying their share, as if they already don't. The average tax rate of all persons in the US is around 18%. Funny, the average for the top 1% is 29%, the highest of any bracket. The only people "hammered" would be people already not paying income tax due to poverty. And, those people can easily be part of programs that limit how much they actually spend (food stamps, etc) that, since they aren't paying it, would be tax free (for them).

Of course I know all that "fair share" nonsense is jibberish from the left's stupidity playbook.

But I still disagree with a sales-only tax. It's quite easy to hide consumption, and therefore live absolutely tax free on a gargantuan income. (Income can of course be hidden from taxes too, but it's harder to do.)

The taxes would have to be high enough to replace income taxes that they'd be both:
1. WELL worth skirting for those rich enough to be able to easily, and
2. Hammer the poor and middle class.

They'd also create black markets for both rich and poor alike, because again, the incentive would be there. All the so-called savings on enforcement would just get thrown into trying to keep a lid on the black market activity.

 

[smackababy]

Of course I know all that "fair share" nonsense is jibberish from the left's stupidity playbook.

But I still disagree with a sales-only tax. It's quite easy to hide consumption, and therefore live absolutely tax free on a gargantuan income. (Income can of course be hidden from taxes too, but it's harder to do.)

The taxes would have to be high enough to replace income taxes that they'd be both:
1. WELL worth skirting for those rich enough to be able to easily, and
2. Hammer the poor and middle class.

They'd also create black markets for both rich and poor alike, because again, the incentive would be there. All the so-called savings on enforcement would just get thrown into trying to keep a lid on the black market activity.

I doubt much skirting would be done. Rich people have to buy goods and services just as poor people. They could fly their helicopter to Canada to buy groceries once a week, but that seems rather silly. And, make things like registering a car the time when you pay the taxes, not on the sale itself. Although, if a person making a huge income simply didn't consume much or spend much of that money, it would go largely untaxed.

 

[Zaap]

I doubt much skirting would be done. Rich people have to buy goods and services just as poor people.

You're missing the point though. Because someone is 'rich' doesn't mean they need 1,000x the groceries per-person as the poor person does. Or anything else. Therefore, you're not really soaking the rich person and having them pay anything close to a 'fair share' unless the person is just a glutton with everything and enjoys buying 1000x more of everything than everyone else.

People just have this weird automatic assumption that being rich= buying 1000x more of everything than you need, but the reality is many are just as frugal as anyone else, even more so. For many, that's a good part of how they got to be rich in the first place.

And unless a sale-tax scheme is going to eliminate B2B sales, wholesale rates, etc-ultra rich people will simply sell themselves everything they need via each other's businesses, completely skirting a sales tax that's large enough to be well worth skirting.

 

[boomerang]

That's a false dilemma. If granted citizenship and allowed employment, the vast majority of these 'illegals' would not require government support.

Well, it's a New Year and I've got a new attitude. How's the job market right now dumb ass? I've never seen more moronic logic than from leftists. There are not even remotely enough jobs for the people within our borders but by some magic, there will be if we grant citizenship to illegals.

We can't afford to humor this moronic thinking any longer.

 

[smackababy]

True, they don't buy 1000x the grocerices, but they also aren't driving around in Hondas and living in 1,500 square foot apartments either. They also have services (maids, trainers, etc) and expenses "poor people" don't have. They purchase higher end things that cost more money. If you really think people with more money don't consume more, you haven't seen anyone with money. A person buying a $100,000 car will pay 4x the taxes as a person paying a $25,000 car. And how often do you think someone who can afford an S class buys a new one vs someone happy to buy that Accord? Let's not even talk about those buying houses. You think their houses are filled with Vizio 36" TVs and the cheapest furniture? Sure, a few might, but for the most part that isn't the case.

This idea that we have to tax based on how successful someone is just as silly as expecting a "fair share" to be based on how much money you make. Especially, increasing the rates arbitrarily. Punishing people for being successful is dumb.

 

[Zaap]

True, they don't buy 1000x the grocerices, but they also aren't driving around in Hondas and living in 1,500 square foot apartments either. They also have services (maids, trainers, etc) and expenses "poor people" don't have. They purchase higher end things that cost more money. If you really think people with more money don't consume more, you haven't seen anyone with money. A person buying a $100,000 car will pay 4x the taxes as a person paying a $25,000 car. And how often do you think someone who can afford an S class buys a new one vs someone happy to buy that Accord? Let's not even talk about those buying houses. You think their houses are filled with Vizio 36" TVs and the cheapest furniture? Sure, a few might, but for the most part that isn't the case.

This idea that we have to tax based on how successful someone is just as silly as expecting a "fair share" to be based on how much money you make. Especially, increasing the rates arbitrarily. Punishing people for being successful is dumb.

Wait, sales taxes on trainers and maids?

No rich person drives a Honda? It's a requirement to buy a $100k car just because you're rich? I actually know quite a few wealthy people- most would laugh at that line of thinking. It's also as I say, why most of them are rich to begin with. Many are quite frugal. Even Bill Gates is famous for flying coach and not living that extra extravagantly compared to his gargantuan income.

Sure, richer people may have a larger houses and such, but what, are they tossing everything and re-furnishing every other month? And you're still missing the point: if a sales tax is going to wallop me for furnishing my den, then I'll dial up my business contacts and do it as an under the table business expense and pay NO taxes on it, or a lower B2B rate. Unless, as I say, you're going to attempt to eliminate all private and business transactions as well. (And good luck to anyone who even thinks that's remotely possible.)

A gargantuan income does not automatically translate into gargantuan taxable consumption, that's the 'rich people' that non-rich people think are the norm because they can only dream about all the 'bling' they'd buy all the time. (And be broke 6 months later.)

I agree it's not about punishing anyone for being successful- that again is an idiotic motivation of leftwing fucktards.

But just letting rich people out of nearly ALL tax burden (in this case FOR REAL) and smacking it upside the head of the poor and middle class? That'd be stupid IMO.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

True, they don't buy 1000x the grocerices, but they also aren't driving around in Hondas and living in 1,500 square foot apartments either.

It's funny, I've had a maid in life (growing up with my parents in the later years of high school+) and now that I'm in my own house we have one as well.

Basically boils down to get up at ~5:00AM, work till 5-7PM, sometimes into the weekend, come home and cook, go to bed. Little time to keep the house looking any decent. We don't want it to fall apart. Anyhow...

Both times
1) English is their 2nd language
2) They aren't exactly struggling for cash
3) They are driving pretty damn nice new cars... I drive a 2006 standard car vehicle... theirs is new, within the last 1-2 years. And yes, they were Honda's.

So, go figure.

Also, as far as taxes are concern, it's the burden of the provider to charge applicable taxes and report them to the state. Not the payer. So don't get started on that type of shit regarding taxes as if we're supposed to tell them to pay their taxes or something.

 

[ivwshane]

The first result in a google search.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=456

Here is some better data for you:

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/13inwinbulratesshare.pdf

You will note that the top 1% went down and they paid less than (% wise) than the next bracket. You will also not that the top 10% average went down compared to 2009 rates while everyone else's rates went up.


http://www.forbes.com/sites/janetno...re-of-nations-income-and-paid-lower-tax-rate/

 

[smackababy]

Wait, sales taxes on trainers and maids?

Maids and trainers, cooks, landscapers and such would be a service, correct? What part of all providers of goods and services have to report and pay taxes based on sales excludes them?

No rich person drives a Honda? It's a requirement to buy a $100k car just because you're rich? I actually know quite a few wealthy people- most would laugh at that line of thinking. It's also as I say, why most of them are rich to begin with. Many are quite frugal. Even Bill Gates is famous for flying coach and not living that extra extravagantly compared to his gargantuan income.

Bill Gates has $123 million dollar house and at least one $200,000+ car. And a reported $80,000+ worth of computer monitors. Really bad example.

Sure, richer people may have a larger houses and such, but what, are they tossing everything and re-furnishing every other month? And you're still missing the point: if a sales tax is going to wallop me for furnishing my den, then I'll dial up my business contacts and do it as an under the table business expense and pay NO taxes on it, or a lower B2B rate. Unless, as I say, you're going to attempt to eliminate all private and business transactions as well. (And good luck to anyone who even thinks that's remotely possible.)

And yes, B2B sales would be taxed just the same. Companies pay a flat rate based on sales. They can choose to pass that rate on to the customer or eat it, who care either way.

A gargantuan income does not automatically translate into gargantuan taxable consumption, that's the 'rich people' that non-rich people think are the norm because they can only dream about all the 'bling' they'd buy all the time. (And be broke 6 months later.)

How much do you think the average "rich" person spends per month vs the average poor person?

I agree it's not about punishing anyone for being successful- that again is an idiotic motivation of leftwing fucktards.

But just letting rich people out of nearly ALL tax burden (in this case FOR REAL) and smacking it upside the head of the poor and middle class? That'd be stupid IMO.

We are already blaming rich people for dodging taxes, while expecting them to shoulder the burden of our government spending. People crying about Romney only paying 18% of this 20+ million in earnings one year is laughable when that 18% for just that year was more than the average person will pay in their entire life.

Sure, they would pay less than they do now, but why is that a bad thing?

Enforcement might be hard, but we just have to make rules that aren't filled with loop holes. Business could always report false numbers, but they could do that right now anyway. But, I guess having a tax code that didn't allow people to avoid it is just not the American way.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Here is some better data for you:

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/13inwinbulratesshare.pdf

You will note that the top 1% went down and they paid less than (% wise) than the next bracket. You will also not that the top 10% average went down compared to 2009 rates while everyone else's rates went up.


http://www.forbes.com/sites/janetno...re-of-nations-income-and-paid-lower-tax-rate/

You will note that EVERYONE went down.... Every... single... bracket... Especially the lowest bracket went down to paying jack shit.

So you don't have dick on the top 1% when everyone else went down just as much.

 

[smackababy]

You will note that EVERYONE went down.... Every... single... bracket... Especially the lowest bracket went down to paying jack shit.

So you don't have dick on the top 1% when everyone else went down just as much.

And, the top 1% still paid more on average (in percent) than everyone else.

 

[Zaap]

Maids and trainers, cooks, landscapers and such would be a service, correct? What part of all providers of goods and services have to report and pay taxes based on sales excludes them?

I'm paying sales taxes for my employees??

Bill Gates has $123 million dollar house and at least one $200,000+ car. And a reported $80,000+ worth of computer monitors. Really bad example.

Do you really think Gates went down to Best Buy and ordered $80k worth of monitors?

And yes, B2B sales would be taxed just the same.

Your scheme is really faltering here.

How much do you think the average "rich" person spends per month vs the average poor person?

Haven't we already established that? 1000x more. Because= rich means YOU MUST SPEND beyond your capacity as a single human being. Every time. On everything.

Enforcement might be hard, but we just have to make rules that aren't filled with loop holes.

Riiiight, all private transactions and business expenses are going to have a tax mechanism behind it, with no black market and no one with any incentive to skirt the added expenses...it'll be enforced (with little to no cost) because everyone is blazingly honest... and no loop holes.

Well, okay. I'm all for it. I'd be one who'd make out like a bandit cause you'd watch my visible (to you or anyone else) consumption drop to near nothing. Meanwhile, skys the limit on my income. Deal!