Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The curious part is that these figures exist, but no solid figures exist for other aspects of this demographic group.
To be honest though your figures aren't very convincing. Illegals use state services, who says they don't? Why do we discount how much they pay in though? Yes, illegals have their children attend tax payer funded schools. Illegals also however pay property taxes. Why do we presume the two are mutually exclusive? All I see is an emotional appeal with your links.
The curious part is that these figures exist, but no solid figures exist for other aspects of this demographic group.
To be honest though your figures aren't very convincing. Illegals use state services, who says they don't? Why do we discount how much they pay in though? Yes, illegals have their children attend tax payer funded schools. Illegals also however pay property taxes. Why do we presume the two are mutually exclusive? All I see is an emotional appeal with your links.
Think about it, if illegals actually paid even close to their fair share of taxes, don't you think the government would want to tout those figures? Can you think of a better way to convince citizens that they are not a burden? They could easily require immigration status when filing with an ITIN to have a better estimate of their tax contributions. They could also easily require proof of immigration status for public school enrollment without violating Plyler v Doe. Just as they are now allowing illegals to identify themselves as having illegal status to qualify for DACA, they could do the same for school enrollment, with the understanding that their status is for accounting purposes only, and will not lead to the deportation of the parents. Likewise, they could require immigration status for hospital registrations, to enable hospitals to maintain an accurate accounting of those costs. No one would be denied treatment. The same is true for prison costs. There is absolutely no logical reason not to identify and separate incarceration costs for legal immigrants from illegal aliens.
For obvious reasons, the government doesn't want us to know the true magnitude of this invasion. Regardless, as you stated, at least 40% of U.S. citizens do not pay taxes. What makes you believe even a small percent of illegal aliens do? Even if legalized, they would not add an appreciable amount to our tax base.
But, back on-topic. How do you think the on-line university will be funded?
The online university is being backed by UCLA. Whether it'll be funded by UCLA or other means is unclear yet though. I think a more interesting thing is how someone intends to burn an online university.
The online university is being backed by UCLA. Whether it'll be funded by UCLA or other means is unclear yet though. I think a more interesting thing is how someone intends to burn an online university.
Errrr, you claim they are taxpayers. I asked if that would be city tax, the tax that is unavoidable when you make a purchase.
There is no way you or anyone else can prove that the taxes (federal and state) that the few pay offsets what is taken out of the system by all. How many don't pay into the federal piggy bank, yet get a nice return each year, which would include, without any proof, claiming their "children" that are still in Mexico and have never set foot in the US? How much federal and state revenue could be collected from all those low paying, minimum wage jobs that they hold that Americans apparently don't want to do? As for property tax, I didn't realize that there was a huge population of illegals that own property. How does someone making minimum wage, supporting a family of 4/5, or working off the books qualify them for mortages?
UCLA is a state funded university. State funded = taxpayer funded. Who do you think would be paying? Maybe they will raise the tuition on paying students who are citizens to cover the cost?
Errrr, you claim they are taxpayers. I asked if that would be city tax, the tax that is unavoidable when you make a purchase.
There is no way you or anyone else can prove that the taxes (federal and state) that the few pay offsets what is taken out of the system by all. How many don't pay into the federal piggy bank, yet get a nice return each year, which would include, without any proof, claiming their "children" that are still in Mexico and have never set foot in the US? How much federal and state revenue could be collected from all those low paying, minimum wage jobs that they hold that Americans apparently don't want to do? As for property tax, I didn't realize that there was a huge population of illegals that own property. How does someone making minimum wage, supporting a family of 4/5, or working off the books qualify them for mortages?
UCLA is a state funded university. State funded = taxpayer funded. Who do you think would be paying? Maybe they will raise the tuition on paying students who are citizens to cover the cost?
The curious part is that these figures exist, but no solid figures exist for other aspects of this demographic group.
To be honest though your figures aren't very convincing. Illegals use state services, who says they don't? Why do we discount how much they pay in though? Yes, illegals have their children attend tax payer funded schools. Illegals also however pay property taxes. Why do we presume the two are mutually exclusive? All I see is an emotional appeal with your links.
I don't think anybody is discounting that they pay usage taxes, the issue is: is what they pay in enough to cover their costs of the service. I've asked before if there are enough single illegal workers and illegals in all to cover the costs of the education of the children of illegals when the costs are $9 - $12K per year before ESL classes are even counted. Lets use an avg of $10K per year per child; from K - 12 that's at least $120K in education costs. If the parents rent or own, doesn't matter, property tax at best is $800 - $1200 per year for a single family dwelling. That looks to leave a whole lot of money they aren't covering, roughly $9K+ per year. Many economists agree that each illegal costs the taxpayers -$89K over their lifetime. (you can search the info here on city-data; linked many times already by me).
But they're already tax payers. How many illegals are there protesting against themselves?
You're attempting to use the words "tax payers" in a very broad sense. Many non-immigrants may pay usage taxes while here, but once they depart they can get their usage taxes back at customs simply by showing receipts of items purchased while here where they are then refunded.
You're attempting to use the words "tax payers" in a very broad sense. Many non-immigrants may pay usage taxes while here, but once they depart they can get their usage taxes back at customs simply by showing receipts of items purchased while here where they are then refunded.
I must say I've yet to hear of any illegal who goes to customs and gets their money back. Illegal aliens are tax payers. They're possibly net tax recipients as individuals, but they are just as equally net tax payers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns
I don't think anybody is discounting that they pay usage taxes, the issue is: is what they pay in enough to cover their costs of the service. I've asked before if there are enough single illegal workers and illegals in all to cover the costs of the education of the children of illegals when the costs are $9 - $12K per year before ESL classes are even counted. Lets use an avg of $10K per year per child; from K - 12 that's at least $120K in education costs. If the parents rent or own, doesn't matter, property tax at best is $800 - $1200 per year for a single family dwelling. That looks to leave a whole lot of money they aren't covering, roughly $9K+ per year. Many economists agree that each illegal costs the taxpayers -$89K over their lifetime. (you can search the info here on city-data; linked many times already by me).
I've also met many economists who believe that illegals pay far more into the state coffers than they ever receive in benefits. I have seen both arguments in regards to the number crunching, and honestly I don't give weight to either side. The nature of the demographic group simply makes it near impossible to get accurate numbers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by softblueyz
Errrr, you claim they are taxpayers. I asked if that would be city tax, the tax that is unavoidable when you make a purchase.
I specified which taxes I was discussing.
They pay sales tax, which funds both states and localities; whether the localities being funded is the city, county, or different region is dependent on where you live.
They pay property tax. Even as renters the inelastic nature of housing makes it so that the burden of property tax falls more or less evenly between them and the property owners. The more elastic the supply of housing is, the greater portion of the tax burden that falls on renters.
They pay payroll taxes if they are employed, even if they are working under another's name. No, I'm not talking about the amount of tax withheld and later reimbursed. I'm talking about employer tax contributions for employees. These are discounted from the would-be wages of workers, and as such an illegal employee bears the burden of lower wages just like anyone else.
They also pay consumption taxes, such as taxes on gasoline or cigarettes. Etc. Etc.
The only major tax that is unclear is income tax. Tax is withheld in their paychecks, but they are also eligible for a partial reimbursement in the end of the year like other tax payers.
Quote:
There is no way you or anyone else can prove that the taxes (federal and state) that the few pay offsets what is taken out of the system by all. How many don't pay into the federal piggy bank, yet get a nice return each year, which would include, without any proof, claiming their "children" that are still in Mexico and have never set foot in the US? How much federal and state revenue could be collected from all those low paying, minimum wage jobs that they hold that Americans apparently don't want to do? As for property tax, I didn't realize that there was a huge population of illegals that own property. How does someone making minimum wage, supporting a family of 4/5, or working off the books qualify them for mortages?
Very well. Let's say that there isn't a way for me to prove that illegal aliens, on the whole, pay more taxes than they receive in benefits. Why though is it in fact possible to prove that illegal aliens do receive more in taxes than they receive in benefits? The latter presumes we know what their tax benefits are. Obviously though we don't or we could in fact prove in theory that illegal aliens paid more in taxes than they received.
Or, if you prefer:
A - B = X
A being the amount of money being paid by illegals in taxes.
B being the amount of money receive by illegals in state benefits.
X being whether the amount if positive or negative.
If it's impossible for us to prove that X is a positive, why is it possible to prove it is a negative? Either both possibilities could be the answer, or neither can be answered.
Quote:
UCLA is a state funded university. State funded = taxpayer funded. Who do you think would be paying? Maybe they will raise the tuition on paying students who are citizens to cover the cost?
Taxpayers are not only citizens. In fact the burden of tariffs falls on foreign producers, and the USA receives a significant portion of tax money every year through tariffs. Taxpayers needn't ever set foot in the USA! Illegal aliens are tax payers.
And indeed, several students at UCLA are illegal aliens paying tuition.
Now do I believe tax payers should fund this program? No. Never. And I ask that no one presume that I do.
Let us not however fall into this ever prevalent fallacy that illegal aliens are not tax payers. They are.
I must say I've yet to hear of any illegal who goes to customs and gets their money back. Illegal aliens are tax payers. They're possibly net tax recipients as individuals, but they are just as equally net tax payers.
I've also met many economists who believe that illegals pay far more into the state coffers than they ever receive in benefits. I have seen both arguments in regards to the number crunching, and honestly I don't give weight to either side. The nature of the demographic group simply makes it near impossible to get accurate numbers.
I specified which taxes I was discussing.
They pay sales tax, which funds both states and localities; whether the localities being funded is the city, county, or different region is dependent on where you live.
They pay property tax. Even as renters the inelastic nature of housing makes it so that the burden of property tax falls more or less evenly between them and the property owners. The more elastic the supply of housing is, the greater portion of the tax burden that falls on renters.
They pay payroll taxes if they are employed, even if they are working under another's name. No, I'm not talking about the amount of tax withheld and later reimbursed. I'm talking about employer tax contributions for employees. These are discounted from the would-be wages of workers, and as such an illegal employee bears the burden of lower wages just like anyone else.
They also pay consumption taxes, such as taxes on gasoline or cigarettes. Etc. Etc.
The only major tax that is unclear is income tax. Tax is withheld in their paychecks, but they are also eligible for a partial reimbursement in the end of the year like other tax payers.
Very well. Let's say that there isn't a way for me to prove that illegal aliens, on the whole, pay more taxes than they receive in benefits. Why though is it in fact possible to prove that illegal aliens do receive more in taxes than they receive in benefits? The latter presumes we know what their tax benefits are. Obviously though we don't or we could in fact prove in theory that illegal aliens paid more in taxes than they received.
Or, if you prefer:
A - B = X
A being the amount of money being paid by illegals in taxes.
B being the amount of money receive by illegals in state benefits.
X being whether the amount if positive or negative.
If it's impossible for us to prove that X is a positive, why is it possible to prove it is a negative? Either both possibilities could be the answer, or neither can be answered.
Taxpayers are not only citizens. In fact the burden of tariffs falls on foreign producers, and the USA receives a significant portion of tax money every year through tariffs. Taxpayers needn't ever set foot in the USA! Illegal aliens are tax payers.
And indeed, several students at UCLA are illegal aliens paying tuition.
Now do I believe tax payers should fund this program? No. Never. And I ask that no one presume that I do.
Let us not however fall into this ever prevalent fallacy that illegal aliens are not tax payers. They are.
Their tax contributions, or lack thereof, will not change the fact that they are here in violation of our laws, are committing theft and fraud to remain (among other crimes), are costing taxpayers untold billions annually, and fuels an underground economy that does not pay into the system. Even if legalized, many illegal aliens will choose to remain in the underground economy, realizing their personal advantage as a non-taxpaying resident, while reaping the benefits from those of us forced to carry the load.
The following was several years ago. I hate to even think of the hundreds of billions that could be used to improve our economy, but instead, are pocketed by these crooks.
Quote:
The underground economy includes illegal businesses such as the narcotics and sex trades. But off-the-books immigrant labor is by far the biggest component.
The IRS estimates that $400 billion a year in federal tax obligations goes unpaid thanks to off-the-books business practices--a number that nearly matches the 2005 federal budget deficit.
Bottom line: There is absolutely no justification for their illegal presence, and we are well within our rights to demand their removal from OUR country. Moreover, if they were in fact net taxpayers, I doubt we would have such huge school budget deficits and hospital closures. Their fleecing of this nation must end.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
