The Wall

[MadMojoMonkey]

Thank you, but that isn't what I said. I havnt misled you about what the article says either. They argue that illegal immigrants DON'T avoid paying taxes. They simultaneously admit that only about 50%, maybe more, pay income taxes. Meaning near 50% don't pay income taxes. Meaning they avoid the income tax. Again, the article refers to households, so that 50% avoidance is 50% of households.

Or is dodging the tax which steals near 20% of every legal citizens paycheck somehow not avoidance?

That's not what the article says.

"A common misconception is that undocumented immigrants avoid paying taxes. In fact, undocumented individuals pay sales and excise taxes, property taxes and, in some instances, personal income taxes. The study determined that at least 50 percent of undocumented households currently file income tax returns through the use of individual tax identification numbers, and many have taxes automatically deducted from their paychecks."

They're not arguing that illegal immigrants don't avoid paying taxes. They're arguing that it's a misconception that all illegal immigrants pay no taxes.

[JKDS]

They're not arguing that illegal immigrants don't avoid paying taxes. They're arguing that it's a misconception that all illegal immigrants pay no taxes.

Well, of course some illegals pay some taxes. But that's never been the point. It is obvious that those who buy goods, in States with sales tax, would pay that tax. No one pictures illegal immigrants going into special checkout lines at Walmart where they click magic "no tax, I'm illegal" buttons.

What people get Sandy vaginas about is that their paycheck is cut into pieces, and the paychecks for illegals is not.

[JKDS]

That specifically said household too, btw. So its accounting for the elderly, the children, etc who wouldn't have jobs to pay taxes with.

It also tells you that the number is calculated using a "sophisticated program" (bullshit alert), based on numerous studies of illegals using phoney ssns

[wufwugy]

I know a guy, a real dummy, his rebuttal to a 10% flat tax was that it would benefit the rich by reducing their taxes. Then a little later he was up in arms over his belief that the rich pay next to no taxes.

[Savy]

Wuf let's set up our own country where we don't have taxes. Then we can invade other countries, take them over and make them better.

[wufwugy]

Just so long as Uncle Nige approves.

[Savy]

Just so long as Uncle Nige approves.

Of course, he's neve paid tax in his life.

[OngBonga]

Of course, he's neve paid tax in his life.

Of course he has. Have you seen how much ale the man gets through?

[Savy]

Of course he has. Have you seen how much ale the man gets through?

That's all party funded, his personal stash he gets off the coast.

We're also both white Wuf so I imagine he'd love that.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Patriotism to the nation, not the state.

JKDS just made me read an article that says you're basically a mooch off the illegal immigrants your (beautiful?) state attracts, who're paying their share and the share of half of their brethren and your share, too.


[/troll]

[JKDS]

Btw, I suspect the research article itself of heavy bias. When they do things like allege that States would take a big hit to tax revenue if illegals were all deported, they are engaging in dishonesty by omission. By ignoring that State costs would also drop simultaneously, they paint a one sided picture. We're left to guess whether the article accidently, through incompetence, painted that picture...or if they acted intentionally due to bias.

When they go on to explain their methodology with vagueness, and nice but meaningless words like "sophisticated", I gain further doubts

[wufwugy]

Btw, I suspect the research article itself of heavy bias. When they do things like allege that States would take a big hit to tax revenue if illegals were all deported, they are engaging in dishonesty by omission. By ignoring that State costs would also drop simultaneously, they paint a one sided picture. We're left to guess whether the article accidently, through incompetence, painted that picture...or if they acted intentionally due to bias.

When they go on to explain their methodology with vagueness, and nice but meaningless words like "sophisticated", I gain further doubts

Yep. It's so bad that the more I know about this stuff, the more I ignore projections regarding the macro economy. Getting anywhere close to reliable takes so much more than is put into estimates. Even then, projections would still likely be unreliable. A good macroeconomist discusses effects of policies regarding incentives and unintended consequences; a bad macroeconomist releases projections.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Btw, I suspect the research article itself of heavy bias. When they do things like allege that States would take a big hit to tax revenue if illegals were all deported, they are engaging in dishonesty by omission. By ignoring that State costs would also drop simultaneously, they paint a one sided picture. We're left to guess whether the article accidently, through incompetence, painted that picture...or if they acted intentionally due to bias.

When they go on to explain their methodology with vagueness, and nice but meaningless words like "sophisticated", I gain further doubts

All of this rings true to my sensibilities as a skeptic and a scientist.

I have yet to see data on this issue which doesn't scream of a foregone conclusion being confirmed through bias.
Both sides have yet to describe the situation in a way which isn't blind to the complexity and nuance in the whole situation with glaring omissions in the data they report.

[BananaStand]

Mr. 1% earns $1 million per year. He's only charged FICA taxes on the first $150K. 7.65% x $150K = $11,475

Mr. 99% earns 60,000 per year. He pays FICA taxes on all of his earnings under $150K. 7.65% x $60k = $4,590

Effective tax rate of Mr. 1% = $11,475/1,000,000 = 1.1%
Effective tax rate of Mr 99% = $4590/60,000 = 7.65%

That cap on FICA taxes is what's really fucking up the data in this study, and makes the whole thing worthless in my opinion. You need some really muddled math to demonstrate that the rich pay less than the poor.

FICA isn't really a tax either. It's an insurance. It's a contained system where you get out what you pay in. So if you want millionaires to pay more into the system, you're going to have to pay more out to them when they retire. I don't think anyone wants retired millionaires to get huge social security payments commensurate with their working income. Hence, the cap.

[Savy]

How about we just don't give that person any money?

Tbf though the assumption that people understand money, financing and such things on even a basic level just isn't true. In fact people who do understand such things tend to have incentive to exploit the people who don't so I don't imagine that changing any time soon.

[wufwugy]

How about we just don't give that person any money?

Tbf though the assumption that people understand money, financing and such things on even a basic level just isn't true. In fact people who do understand such things tend to have incentive to exploit the people who don't so I don't imagine that changing any time soon.

You are correct. A significant reason why so many people don't understand personal finance is they don't have much of a reason to anymore, largely due to government handouts, government mandated insurances, other regulations, and other cultural factors (like less cultural stigma to relying on others to take care of you).

People used to have a much more firm grasp of personal finance. Independence from government and adoption of Protestant ethics/communities made sure of that.