4 ms·

A major flaw in your argument is the implication that undocumented individuals in CA (or the US in general) do not pay for the services they use. While in certa

• davidf18 10y ago
  The amount of money spent for K-12 education people who live in California illegally as well as university education and healthcare far, far exceeds the < $800 million federal grant for the train. > "I also think you're making a fairly inflammatory argument..." I don't believe I'm an inflammatory argument. Fiscally responsible politicians would not spend tax money on people who are not legally in the country except on law enforcement. The solution to the train and other fiscal problems is simply electing fiscally responsible politicians. The newspaper article mentioned the problem of federal funding and I mentioned a levitate and proper solution. If Californians don't elect politicians who are fiscally responsible and who feel that it is OK to spend taxpayer money on people living here illegally, they only have themselves to blame. I don't see any argument that says that the Federal gov. (again because money is fungible) should be funding people who are living in the country illegally.
  • entee 10y ago
    Bandying about terms like "living here illegally" and the tone of how you're putting it is very much inflammatory. Fiscally responsible politicians should carefully consider the larger questions and tradeoffs including costs of enforcements, larger contributions to the economy, and how much those immigrants actually pay in taxes. How about sales taxes? Or approaching the question from the other direction, how about the larger benefits of the electrification project? By withholding money this way (and I'm pretty sure nobody responsible for the withholding has been making the same arguments you are, but happy to be shown otherwise), are we cutting off our nose to spite our face?
    • davidf18 10y ago
      > "Bandying about terms like "living here illegally" and the tone of how you're putting it is very much inflammatory. Well, they are people living here illegally. I don't see that as inflammatory but a statement of fact. How else would you say that? > Fiscally responsible politicians should carefully consider the larger questions and tradeoffs including costs of enforcements, larger contributions to the economy, and how much those immigrants actually pay in taxes. No, fiscally responsible politicians should not be using taxpayer funds to fund people who are living in the country illegally -- against the law except for law enforcement.
• masonic 10y ago
  The February study by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy says that, on average, the nation’s estimated 11 million undocumented residents pay a total of about 8 percent of their incomes in state and local taxes each year[0]. That's total taxation, encompassing sales tax, and (for those not being paid "under the table"), income tax and FICA. Again, that's a national average; in CA, sales tax would make it higher). That's not remotely paying all of their own way overall. As for overall impact: "Ira Mehlman of the Federation for American Immigration Reform said the $11.74 billion tax contribution covers only a small fraction of what undocumented residents and their dependents use in government services. The Washington, D.C. organization, which favors stricter immigration enforcement, estimates it collectively costs state and local governments about $84 billion a year to provide education, health care, public safety and other services to undocumented residents and their dependents."[0] As for Social Security, they get that back as much as legal residents do, if they file for it. Quoting your source: "He calculates that undocumented immigrants paid $13 billion into the retirement trust fund that year, and only got about $1 billion in benefits." That's retirement benefits alone, being paid out already. As these payees age and retire, they'll collect far more than they paid in, and that will worsen as lifespans increase... hence it being referred to as a "Ponzi Scheme". "We lose money on every transaction, but we make it up in volume!" [0] SJ Mercury News, March 3, page B2, "Undocumented immigrants’ taxes calculated"
• davidf18 10y ago
  > "A major flaw in your argument is the implication that undocumented individuals in CA" "undocumented individuals" is a euphemism that does not help the discussion and tends to minimize and obfuscate the language so as to seemingly minimize the fact that they are living in the country against the law. The correct term is illegal alien (look it up if you don't believe me). My argument is a simple one that I think most people agree with which is this: people that live in this country illegally do not deserve taxpayer funds. I am not making any assumptions, just a statement.
  • anoonmoose 10y ago
    I am not sure that most people would agree with you on that; at least, I personally do not agree that people who are in this country illegally do not deserve taxpayer funds. I think that's very similar to saying that someone who pays no taxes does not deserve taxpayer funds, which I also disagree with. Since most people who are living in this country illegally are paying one form of tax or another, the only difference between the two groups is the amount they've paid.
    • davidf18 10y ago
      Receiving taxpayer funded benefits such as K-12 education or health benefits has nothing to do with whether someone pays taxes or not when (think retired or disabled people for example) but rather whether they are living in the country legally or not.