You're mischaracterizing the statement a bit, I think; DOR's point was that more tax *evasion* goes on with the rich than with illegal immigrants. I think that's a fair point although I have no info to prove/disprove it.
They also can't take any advantage of the taxes they pay, which obviously the rich can.
There are statistics out there about what dollar value of government services each economic group receives for each tax dollar they pay.
The idea that illegals don't pay taxes is complete and other nonsense.
illegals pay sales tax but not income tax.
That's not true in all case. Plenty have fake SS # and pay taxes from their jobs. In fact, I'm will to bet that some even pay more tax than some rich people who are able to avoid paying taxes through loopholes and hiding their money in tax shelters.
And yes, they pay state taxes as well.
So you don't believe the statistics that state the top 20% of wage earners pay 60+% of all the federal taxes collected??
Hell NO!
Glenn Beck made 32 million last year and he's the one riling up the distraught white middle class with this sort of rhetoric.
EXXON/MOBILE got a mutherfucking TAX refund! That is a way bigger issue for our country than a bunch of poor us.
Fuck Glenn Beck.....go look up the numbers for yourself.
I'm not talking about who didn't pay taxes, I'm talking about who DID pay taxes.
Find a source you trust and see for yourself.
Statistics don't lie, statisticians do.
So what's your point? They shoudln't pay more in scale becasue they have more?
From a USC study:
In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.7%. Table 1 and Figure 1 present further details drawn from the careful work of economist Edward N. Wolff at New York University (2009).
The richer are richer than they have ever been in the history of America. If 1% own 34% of ALL THE WEALTH in america, well then of course the top 20% shoudl pay 60% of the taxes. what exactly is your point and how is this relevent to immigration? Do you believe they SHOULD CUT OUR GOD DAMN TAXES!
Thes, you've got it wrong. The urban poor benefit from tax dollars that rich people pay. So take your shitty public schools and hospitals, your spotty garbage collection and bus service, your abusive, underpaid and disaffected police force, and be damn happy about it. GO USA
The idea that illegals don't pay taxes is complete and other nonsense.
illegals pay sales tax but not income tax.
That's not true in all case. Plenty have fake SS # and pay taxes from their jobs. In fact, I'm will to bet that some even pay more tax than some rich people who are able to avoid paying taxes through loopholes and hiding their money in tax shelters.
And yes, they pay state taxes as well.
So you don't believe the statistics that state the top 20% of wage earners pay 60+% of all the federal taxes collected??
Hell NO!
Glenn Beck made 32 million last year and he's the one riling up the distraught white middle class with this sort of rhetoric.
EXXON/MOBILE got a mutherfucking TAX refund! That is a way bigger issue for our country than a bunch of poor us.
Fuck Glenn Beck.....go look up the numbers for yourself.
I'm not talking about who didn't pay taxes, I'm talking about who DID pay taxes.
Find a source you trust and see for yourself.
Statistics don't lie, statisticians do.
So what's your point? They shoudln't pay more in scale becasue they have more?
From a USC study:
In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.7%. Table 1 and Figure 1 present further details drawn from the careful work of economist Edward N. Wolff at New York University (2009).
The richer are richer than they have ever been in the history of America. If 1% own 34% of ALL THE WEALTH in america, well then of course the top 20% shoudl pay 60% of the taxes. what exactly is your point and how is this relevent to immigration? Do you believe they SHOULD CUT OUR GOD DAMN TAXES!
Look....I believe the government statistics that say the top 20% incomes pay more than 60% of all federal taxes.
You apparently don't believe it and think that it's bullshit spread by Glenn Beck.
If you DID believe that 20% pay 60% we wouldn't have any disagreement whatsoever.
I just said I of course I DO believe that they do pay that and that they fucking absolutely should be because the goddamn top 1% own 34% of ALL PRIVATELY HELD WEALTH IN THE US. And that in itself is another problem. s If you look at the disbursement statistics it only leave 15% for the bottom 80% of americans.
So to answer your question, again, i agree and i think they should pay more. There is no disagreement over the statistic. I disagree if you think that that is wrong.
I just said I of course I DO believe that they do pay that and that they fucking absolutely should be because the goddamn top 1% own 34% of ALL PRIVATELY HELD WEALTH IN THE US. And that in itself is another problem. s If you look at the disbursement statistics it only leave 15% for the bottom 80% of americans.
So to answer your question, again, i agree and i think they should pay more. There is no disagreement over the statistic. I disagree if you think that that is wrong.
So I just misunderstood the below.....cool....
So you don't believe the statistics that state the top 20% of wage earners pay 60+% of all the federal taxes collected??
Hell NO!
and no, I don't think it's wrong that the 20% pay 60+%...can't imagine what I wrote to make you think otherwise.
I spent jr high through undergrad in AZ. Ever since I grew-up and began to critically look at the world around me, I've wanted no part. We later moved from L.A. to PHX looking to buy a home and start a family, but while we were surrounded by friends, it just wasn't working for us. I'm probably as "anglo" as they come, and typically abide by the law, but there was a constant uneasy feeling in that city. Cops everywhere, bad attitudes (the heat doesn't help), and ALOT of meth. I can't see myself happily living in that (police) state.
They were dealing with MLK decades after the rest of the country was at least honoring the man. SAD.
The cops and officials who disagree with this in AZ better show some guts and stand against this. And if we all bring the ruckus hard enough we will win this one. Now they got CA mad and that is a mobilized force to be wreckoned with.
It's just tough to move from surviving racism and injustice towards real change. I really hope that the movements coming out of this are really about something and not just dodging another racist bullet in the form of legislation. If this is the catalyst for more action then bring it, blessing in disguise.
I will add that Obama has been a wimp on nearly all immigration issues and needs to man up.
By far the most tired argument I hear people of all races, incomes, etc perpetrating is the "but they do the dirty jobs" one, that somehow the fact that our domestic economy is propped up by immigrant workers is the reason immigrants are tolerable, that somehow supporting the status quo is a liberal view. Immigrants deserve rights because they are human and live here where we value these rights, point blank end of story - their economic utility is manipulated as an insulting justification. thes I know this is part of what you were getting at with Reagan but it's so much more subversive to the point where it IS the core argument behind union protests and activists, unfortunately Latinos included. B particularly non-Latino folk who claim the side of justice need to wake the fuck up and realize that immigrants are people not economic units.
Does anybody else hate the term "Illegals". Call the anti PC police but I prefer "undocumented". It's a less dehumanizing term.
Shit, just the way many American's say the word "Mexican" has negative enough connotations.
Illegals is a thoroughly human term. Who as ever heard of a pig or a piece of crockery being castigated for the illegality of its actions? Not only does the term illegals not dehumanize anybody it precludes the possibility of them being anything else.
The truth of it is that illegals is simply far too accurate and precise a term for you. Certainly more so than undocumented; an illegal is undocumented because he is illegal. It is an effect of his or her illegality and preferring undocumented to illegals is rather like preferring uncoordinated to drunk or attire challenged to stripper.
It is a deliberately vague and misleading term on a subject which liberals know they need to be vague and misleading about. Liberals know they would never get the required public support for the introduction of immigration laws they would like to see so instead they strive to make the enforcement of current immigration laws as ineffective as possible. Plain speaking is always the ally of truth and as such an enemy to this ignoble strategy.
the term "illegal" denotes someone's status not their character or nature. there is nothing racist, dehumanizing or offensive about the term whatsoever; whereas the term "undocumented" is entirely misleading in the context of this conversation since we are also talking about a group that are documented but incorrectly or fraudulently.
Actually financial reform appears be at hand first, assuming republicans can put partisan asshurtedness aside and do what's right for the people.
And dolo - liberals, really? Did you miss the part about Reagan starting this whole mess with amnesty? I'll say it again - the rich want laws in the books AND no enforcement, because it keeps "illegals" illegal and scared. Enforce the laws with EMPLOYERS but don't blame the workers for fulfilling the role the wealthy want them in.
The US media should prepare now for the NON speedy Gonzalez/gay/gangster/lover/migrant US Latino
Did you miss the part about Reagan starting this whole mess with amnesty?
Ed Meese replies in 2006......
Perhaps I can shed some light. Two decades ago, while serving as attorney general under President Ronald Reagan, I was in the thick of things as Congress debated the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. The situation today bears uncanny similarities to what we went through then.
In the mid-80's, many members of Congress ? pushed by the Democratic majority in the House and the Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy ? advocated amnesty for long-settled illegal immigrants. President Reagan considered it reasonable to adjust the status of what was then a relatively small population, and I supported his decision.
In exchange for allowing aliens to stay, he decided, border security and enforcement of immigration laws would be greatly strengthened ? in particular, through sanctions against employers who hired illegal immigrants. If jobs were the attraction for illegal immigrants, then cutting off that option was crucial.
Beyond this, most illegal immigrants who could establish that they had resided in America continuously for five years would be granted temporary resident status, which could be upgraded to permanent residency after 18 months and, after another five years, to citizenship.
Note that this path to citizenship was not automatic. Indeed, the legislation stipulated several conditions: immigrants had to pay application fees, learn to speak English, understand American civics, pass a medical exam and register for military selective service. Those with convictions for a felony or three misdemeanors were ineligible. Sound familiar? These are pretty much the same provisions included in the new Senate proposal and cited by its supporters as proof that they have eschewed amnesty in favor of earned citizenship.
The difference is that President Reagan called this what it was: amnesty. Indeed, look up the term "amnesty" in Black's Law Dictionary, and you'll find it says, "the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act provided amnesty for undocumented aliens already in the country."
Like the amnesty bill of 1986, the current Senate proposal would place those who have resided illegally in the United States on a path to citizenship, provided they meet a similar set of conditions and pay a fine and back taxes. The illegal immigrant does not go to the back of the line but gets immediate legalized status, while law-abiding applicants wait in their home countries for years to even get here. And that's the line that counts. In the end, slight differences in process do not change the overriding fact that the 1986 law and today's bill are both amnesties.
There is a practical problem as well: the 1986 act did not solve our illegal immigration problem. From the start, there was widespread document fraud by applicants. Unsurprisingly, the number of people applying for amnesty far exceeded projections. And there proved to be a failure of political will in enforcing new laws against employers.
After a six-month slowdown that followed passage of the legislation, illegal immigration returned to normal levels and continued unabated. Ultimately, some 2.7 million people were granted amnesty, and many who were not stayed anyway, forming the nucleus of today's unauthorized population.
So here we are, 20 years later, having much the same debate and being offered much the same deal in exchange for promises largely dependent on the will of future Congresses and presidents.
Will history repeat itself? I hope not. In the post-9/11 world, secure borders are vital. We have new tools ? like biometric technology for identification, and cameras, sensors and satellites to monitor the border ? that make enforcement and verification less onerous. And we can learn from the failed policies of the past.
Congress would do better to start with securing the border and strengthening enforcement of existing immigration laws. We might also try improving on Ronald Reagan's idea of a pilot program for genuinely temporary workers.
The fair and sound policy is to give those who are here illegally the opportunity to correct their status by returning to their country of origin and getting in line with everyone else. This, along with serious enforcement and control of the illegal inflow at the border ? a combination of incentives and disincentives ? will significantly reduce over time our population of illegal immigrants.
America welcomes more immigrants than any other country. But in keeping open that door of opportunity, we also must uphold the rule of law and enhance a fair immigration process, as Ronald Reagan said, to "humanely regain control of our borders and thereby preserve the value of one of the most sacred possessions of our people: American citizenship."
How is it remotely possible to send the millions of people living illegally in this country back "to their country of origin [to get] in line with everyone else"??
the term "illegal" denotes someone's status not their character or nature. there is nothing racist, dehumanizing or offensive about the term whatsoever; whereas the term "undocumented" is entirely misleading in the context of this conversation since we are also talking about a group that are documented but incorrectly or fraudulently.
If it's misleading to you, I pray you improve you comprehension skills.
the term "illegal" denotes someone's status not their character or nature. there is nothing racist, dehumanizing or offensive about the term whatsoever; whereas the term "undocumented" is entirely misleading in the context of this conversation since we are also talking about a group that are documented but incorrectly or fraudulently.
If it's misleading to you, I pray you improve you comprehension skills.
Bank robbery should be called an undocumented withdrawal.
the term "illegal" denotes someone's status not their character or nature. there is nothing racist, dehumanizing or offensive about the term whatsoever; whereas the term "undocumented" is entirely misleading in the context of this conversation since we are also talking about a group that are documented but incorrectly or fraudulently.
If it's misleading to you, I pray you improve you comprehension skills.
Bank robbery should be called an undocumented withdrawal.
That comment should be called comically challenged.
the term "illegal" denotes someone's status not their character or nature. there is nothing racist, dehumanizing or offensive about the term whatsoever; whereas the term "undocumented" is entirely misleading in the context of this conversation since we are also talking about a group that are documented but incorrectly or fraudulently.
If it's misleading to you, I pray you improve you comprehension skills.
uh huh.
what is a "refugee"or "landed immigrant" or a "permanent resident" then? it speaks to immigration status and nothing else.
i know you'd like to turn everything into mush but some words have specific meanings.
the term "illegal" denotes someone's status not their character or nature. there is nothing racist, dehumanizing or offensive about the term whatsoever; whereas the term "undocumented" is entirely misleading in the context of this conversation since we are also talking about a group that are documented but incorrectly or fraudulently.
If it's misleading to you, I pray you improve you comprehension skills.
Bank robbery should be called an undocumented withdrawal.
That comment should be called comically challenged.
Comments
There are statistics out there about what dollar value of government services each economic group receives for each tax dollar they pay.
It might surprise you.
So what's your point? They shoudln't pay more in scale becasue they have more?
From a USC study:
In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.7%. Table 1 and Figure 1 present further details drawn from the careful work of economist Edward N. Wolff at New York University (2009).
The richer are richer than they have ever been in the history of America. If 1% own 34% of ALL THE WEALTH in america, well then of course the top 20% shoudl pay 60% of the taxes. what exactly is your point and how is this relevent to immigration? Do you believe they SHOULD CUT OUR GOD DAMN TAXES!
NO MORE HANDOUTS FOR THE POOR
NO MORE PUBLIC ROADS
NO MORE PUBLIC SCHOOLS
NO MORE NATIONAL PARKS
NO MORE FIRE DEPARTMENT
GODDAMN SOCIALSTS!
ONLY USA FOR MERICANS !!!!!!!
Look....I believe the government statistics that say the top 20% incomes pay more than 60% of all federal taxes.
You apparently don't believe it and think that it's bullshit spread by Glenn Beck.
If you DID believe that 20% pay 60% we wouldn't have any disagreement whatsoever.
s
If you look at the disbursement statistics it only leave 15% for the bottom 80% of americans.
So to answer your question, again, i agree and i think they should pay more. There is no disagreement over the statistic. I disagree if you think that that is wrong.
So I just misunderstood the below.....cool....
and no, I don't think it's wrong that the 20% pay 60+%...can't imagine what I wrote to make you think otherwise.
yeah - probably.
sitting in post waiting for our dvd to finish encoding. Spending way to much time on the internet.
SEE YALL IN OHIO!
oh and Roc, next time i'm in TX beer is on me.
Deal....you can get the first one.
I don't doubt the statistic. I just wonder where people like these fall in there?
These guys
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
oh and Roc, next time i'm in TX beer is on me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deal....you can get the first one.
awwww.....
Roc is generally correct. The top 1% of earners paid 40% of this country's tax base. And 36% of the lowest income folks paid no taxes.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125991138
Ya'll fucking knowing the real: if Mexican immigration resulted in a net BONUS to the tax base, people would still be trying to put the kibbosh on it.
I spent jr high through undergrad in AZ. Ever since I grew-up and began to critically look at the world around me, I've wanted no part. We later moved from L.A. to PHX looking to buy a home and start a family, but while we were surrounded by friends, it just wasn't working for us. I'm probably as "anglo" as they come, and typically abide by the law, but there was a constant uneasy feeling in that city. Cops everywhere, bad attitudes (the heat doesn't help), and ALOT of meth. I can't see myself happily living in that (police) state.
They were dealing with MLK decades after the rest of the country was at least honoring the man. SAD.
It's just tough to move from surviving racism and injustice towards real change. I really hope that the movements coming out of this are really about something and not just dodging another racist bullet in the form of legislation. If this is the catalyst for more action then bring it, blessing in disguise.
I will add that Obama has been a wimp on nearly all immigration issues and needs to man up.
By far the most tired argument I hear people of all races, incomes, etc perpetrating is the "but they do the dirty jobs" one, that somehow the fact that our domestic economy is propped up by immigrant workers is the reason immigrants are tolerable, that somehow supporting the status quo is a liberal view. Immigrants deserve rights because they are human and live here where we value these rights, point blank end of story - their economic utility is manipulated as an insulting justification. thes I know this is part of what you were getting at with Reagan but it's so much more subversive to the point where it IS the core argument behind union protests and activists, unfortunately Latinos included. B particularly non-Latino folk who claim the side of justice need to wake the fuck up and realize that immigrants are people not economic units.
Illegals is a thoroughly human term. Who as ever heard of a pig or a piece of crockery being castigated for the illegality of its actions? Not only does the term illegals not dehumanize anybody it precludes the possibility of them being anything else.
The truth of it is that illegals is simply far too accurate and precise a term for you. Certainly more so than undocumented; an illegal is undocumented because he is illegal. It is an effect of his or her illegality and preferring undocumented to illegals is rather like preferring uncoordinated to drunk or attire challenged to stripper.
It is a deliberately vague and misleading term on a subject which liberals know they need to be vague and misleading about. Liberals know they would never get the required public support for the introduction of immigration laws they would like to see so instead they strive to make the enforcement of current immigration laws as ineffective as possible. Plain speaking is always the ally of truth and as such an enemy to this ignoble strategy.
i hope so
And dolo - liberals, really? Did you miss the part about Reagan starting this whole mess with amnesty? I'll say it again - the rich want laws in the books AND no enforcement, because it keeps "illegals" illegal and scared. Enforce the laws with EMPLOYERS but don't blame the workers for fulfilling the role the wealthy want them in.
The US media should prepare now for the NON speedy Gonzalez/gay/gangster/lover/migrant US Latino
b/w
theytookourjobs!
Ed Meese replies in 2006......
Perhaps I can shed some light. Two decades ago, while serving as attorney general under President Ronald Reagan, I was in the thick of things as Congress debated the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. The situation today bears uncanny similarities to what we went through then.
In the mid-80's, many members of Congress ? pushed by the Democratic majority in the House and the Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy ? advocated amnesty for long-settled illegal immigrants. President Reagan considered it reasonable to adjust the status of what was then a relatively small population, and I supported his decision.
In exchange for allowing aliens to stay, he decided, border security and enforcement of immigration laws would be greatly strengthened ? in particular, through sanctions against employers who hired illegal immigrants. If jobs were the attraction for illegal immigrants, then cutting off that option was crucial.
Beyond this, most illegal immigrants who could establish that they had resided in America continuously for five years would be granted temporary resident status, which could be upgraded to permanent residency after 18 months and, after another five years, to citizenship.
Note that this path to citizenship was not automatic. Indeed, the legislation stipulated several conditions: immigrants had to pay application fees, learn to speak English, understand American civics, pass a medical exam and register for military selective service. Those with convictions for a felony or three misdemeanors were ineligible. Sound familiar? These are pretty much the same provisions included in the new Senate proposal and cited by its supporters as proof that they have eschewed amnesty in favor of earned citizenship.
The difference is that President Reagan called this what it was: amnesty. Indeed, look up the term "amnesty" in Black's Law Dictionary, and you'll find it says, "the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act provided amnesty for undocumented aliens already in the country."
Like the amnesty bill of 1986, the current Senate proposal would place those who have resided illegally in the United States on a path to citizenship, provided they meet a similar set of conditions and pay a fine and back taxes. The illegal immigrant does not go to the back of the line but gets immediate legalized status, while law-abiding applicants wait in their home countries for years to even get here. And that's the line that counts. In the end, slight differences in process do not change the overriding fact that the 1986 law and today's bill are both amnesties.
There is a practical problem as well: the 1986 act did not solve our illegal immigration problem. From the start, there was widespread document fraud by applicants. Unsurprisingly, the number of people applying for amnesty far exceeded projections. And there proved to be a failure of political will in enforcing new laws against employers.
After a six-month slowdown that followed passage of the legislation, illegal immigration returned to normal levels and continued unabated. Ultimately, some 2.7 million people were granted amnesty, and many who were not stayed anyway, forming the nucleus of today's unauthorized population.
So here we are, 20 years later, having much the same debate and being offered much the same deal in exchange for promises largely dependent on the will of future Congresses and presidents.
Will history repeat itself? I hope not. In the post-9/11 world, secure borders are vital. We have new tools ? like biometric technology for identification, and cameras, sensors and satellites to monitor the border ? that make enforcement and verification less onerous. And we can learn from the failed policies of the past.
Congress would do better to start with securing the border and strengthening enforcement of existing immigration laws. We might also try improving on Ronald Reagan's idea of a pilot program for genuinely temporary workers.
The fair and sound policy is to give those who are here illegally the opportunity to correct their status by returning to their country of origin and getting in line with everyone else. This, along with serious enforcement and control of the illegal inflow at the border ? a combination of incentives and disincentives ? will significantly reduce over time our population of illegal immigrants.
America welcomes more immigrants than any other country. But in keeping open that door of opportunity, we also must uphold the rule of law and enhance a fair immigration process, as Ronald Reagan said, to "humanely regain control of our borders and thereby preserve the value of one of the most sacred possessions of our people: American citizenship."
This just seems like fantasy.
If it's misleading to you, I pray you improve you comprehension skills.
Bank robbery should be called an undocumented withdrawal.
That comment should be called comically challenged.
uh huh.
what is a "refugee"or "landed immigrant" or a "permanent resident" then? it speaks to immigration status and nothing else.
i know you'd like to turn everything into mush but some words have specific meanings.
I'm the first to admit I'm no Dane Cook.