The Wall

[JKDS]

I'm not speaking to what people get upset about.

According to that link, the average amount of taxes paid by illegal immigrant households is higher than the rate paid by legal citizens. The article says that is true even when it is taken into account that half of illegal immigrants avoid paying income taxes.

Unless you're prepared to argue with that statistic, the link actually belies your deeper point.

I'll argue it. The article relies on the second link jack posted. The 2nd paragraph of the 2nd page says illegal immigrants would pay significantly more taxes if granted a pathway to citizenship. More taxes. Not less.

What you, and perhaps the article, are confused is the reference to the effective tax rate of the 1%, who pay less than everybody cuz repiblicans.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I'll argue it. The article relies on the second link jack posted. The 2nd paragraph of the 2nd page says illegal immigrants would pay significantly more taxes if granted a pathway to citizenship. More taxes. Not less.

This is a separate point from what the Salon article says, then. The Salon article makes no predictions or even time-dependent statements that I saw.
If that is a misconstruction of what the other link says (and that other link was the sole reference of the Salon article), then I'm again at a loss, since I now need to read that link, too.

At any rate, I understood the point of the article differently than you and that's all I was discussing.

What you, and perhaps the article, are confused is the reference to the effective tax rate of the 1%, who pay less than everybody cuz repiblicans.

What did I say which indicated a misunderstanding?
What is the missing information which will eradicate my confusion?

Please be careful not to attribute ideas to me which I have not supported.
Just because I understand what someone has said, and can repeat it w/o distortion, doesn't mean that I agree with them.
It means I understand them.

[JKDS]

This is a separate point from what the Salon article says, then. The Salon article makes no predictions or even time-dependent statements that I saw.
If that is a misconstruction of what the other link says (and that other link was the sole reference of the Salon article), then I'm again at a loss, since I now need to read that link, too.

At any rate, I understood the point of the article differently than you and that's all I was discussing.


What did I say which indicated a misunderstanding?
What is the missing information which will eradicate my confusion?

Please be careful not to attribute ideas to me which I have not supported.
Just because I understand what someone has said, and can repeat it w/o distortion, doesn't mean that I agree with them.
It means I understand them.

What a waste of time, you got to be trolling at this point.

[MadMojoMonkey]

What a waste of time, you got to be trolling at this point.

You should know me better than this after all these years.
I'm not intentionally trolling you. When I troll, I claim it in the same post as the troll.

***
I don't get why you're upset.

You asked questions about what the Salon article says, and I was doing my best to figure out the same.

You went to question whether or not those claims are based on data, and I agree with your analysis that it doesn't have the trademarks of unbiased reporting.


IDK what you expect from the conversation if not that we are joining our super powers together to seek understanding of what this mad world is throwing at us.