Should The Rich Be Required To Pay Higher Taxes In the US?

[David_42]

As Alex Nowrasteh, a former immigration policy analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and currently a Cato Institute immigration policy analyst, pointed out, FAIR's study is riddled with errors and based on "poor methodology" that "fatally undermine this study":


FAIR's numerous errors, poor methodology, and failure to address criticisms of its previous work on this issue fatally undermine this study. FAIR's methodology is so flawed that it leads to absurd conclusions. Applying its study's reasoning to studying the children of American citizens, one could conclude that it never pays to have children because the fiscal costs will always outweigh the benefits. That is prima facie absurd.

FAIR ignores the benefits of unauthorized immigration by claiming that other people, namely American citizens who are unemployed or underemployed, would step into the void. That conclusion ignores economic reality. Those who are unemployed or underemployed do not live in a state of economic hibernation cut off from all activity. Even if the jobs and businesses left vacant after deporting all unauthorized immigrants were somehow filled by Americans, the economic activity of those millions of people is still lost.

FAIR has a long history of making anti-immigrant remarks and is connected to white nationalist organizations. The group's founder, John Tanton, is the modern day architect of the anti-immigrant, nativist movement and also has a history of making anti-immigrant and racially charged remarks.


Fox Borrows "Fact" On Immigration Costs From Hate Group's Debunked Study




Immigration Expert: Passing Comprehensive Immigration Reform Would Add At Least $1.5 Trillion To The U.S. Economy Over 10 Years. In a 2012 report about the economic benefits of comprehensive immigration reform published by the Cato Institute, UCLA professor and immigration expert Raúl Hinojosa-Ojeda found that passing immigration reform "would raise wages, increase consumption, create jobs, and generate additional tax revenue."

http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj32n1/cj32n1-12.pdf




Bush Administration Report Found That Immigration Adds $37 Billion To The U.S. Economy Annually. A report by the Bush-era White House Council of Economic Advisers found that immigrants increase gross domestic product "by roughly $37 billion each year because immigrants increase the size of the total labor force, complement the native-born workforce in terms of skills and education, and stimulate capital investment by adding workers to the labor pool."

http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/Strength in Diversity updated 061912.pdf#page=2


Bloomberg BusinessWeek: "By 2030, Nearly 70 Percent Of Latinos Who Came To The U.S. During The 1990s Are Expected To Own A Home."

Bush Administration Report Found That Immigration Adds $37 Billion To The U.S. Economy Annually.

Excellent! Losing $37 billion in GDP is a small price to pay.
Build a wall, deport the illegals.

LOL. Immigrants do more then just that bub. Sure, like a wall will stop immigrants, and you want to deport millions of human beings.. What, do you want land mines?

Sure, like a wall will stop immigrants

Why can't a wall stop millions of illegals?

you want to deport millions of human beings.

Yes I do.

What, do you want land mines?

Probably won't be needed.

Because immigrants are usually desperate people looking for a better life? Oh, modern day nazi. Probably won't be needed? LOL.

Because immigrants are usually desperate people looking for a better life?

And they can magically fly over a serious wall, if we built it?

Oh, modern day Nazi.

LOL!

I rest my case.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Bush Administration Report Found That Immigration Adds $37 Billion To The U.S. Economy Annually.

Excellent! Losing $37 billion in GDP is a small price to pay.
Build a wall, deport the illegals.

LOL. Immigrants do more then just that bub. Sure, like a wall will stop immigrants, and you want to deport millions of human beings.. What, do you want land mines?

Sure, like a wall will stop immigrants

Why can't a wall stop millions of illegals?

you want to deport millions of human beings.

Yes I do.

What, do you want land mines?

Probably won't be needed.

Because immigrants are usually desperate people looking for a better life? Oh, modern day nazi. Probably won't be needed? LOL.

Because immigrants are usually desperate people looking for a better life?

And they can magically fly over a serious wall, if we built it?

Oh, modern day Nazi.

LOL!

I rest my case.

You had a case? LOL!

 

[hadit]

So, what's your number? You do realize, don't you, that you perfectly illustrate my point? You're yelling that they need to pay more. Okay, how much more? What figure would satisfy your envy?

Envy huh? lol

Weird how the "job creators" pre Reaganomics loved our nation enough to pay enough of a tax "burden' that we not only built the best infrastructure in the world, but had almost no debt, THEN we decided this Punishing" the "job creators" was somehow not only unfair, but held our economy back? lol

AGAIN, LETS GO BACK TO THE TAX RATES WHERE THE TOP 1/10TH OF 1% OF US PAID 50%-70% (EFFECTIVE) FROM 1932-1980?

Okay, so, since that won't do anything to the Obama deficit, what, beyond spite, will be accomplished by doing so? And what will you do when they avoid paying a lot of taxes and are still rich? Demand more?

Top 1% are taxed at 23% EFFECTIVE rates. Go to 46% and the deficit IS wiped out Bubs

AND still leaves them VASTLY wealthy. Weird right Bubs?


AGI ($ millions)

Top 1% income $1,976,738 (trillion)


Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data

I cant remember the exact figures.......but I once calculated out that if the top 20% paid something like 5% more...........and if we remained revenue neutral,...........then the bottom 80% would have to pay NOTHING.

but of course I guess I'm and old school conservative in some ways cause I think deficits and debt matter and I would want that paid down rather than continue to grow.

Well yes, that would be on income taxes, not all federal taxes

Bottom 80% of US own less than 11% of ALL US wealth



What gets me is the "rights" rant against the bottom 50% of US who went from almost 18% of the entire pie in 1980 to 11% today, a drop of almost $5,000 PER family. The bottom HALF OF US make as much income as JUST the top 1/10th of 1% of US, yet the bottom half of US average less than $15,000 PER family

But I agree with you,I prefer not to run large deficits or create the debt that can be traced back to Reagan/Dubya's policies, like cutting federal revenues AS they ramped up spending. If we just decided to go with the Buffett rule (min 30% fed tax on $1,000,000+ incomes), it cuts the deficits by almost 25%


Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data

Remind us again why Obama didn't fix all that when he had total control of the government?

 

[dcraelin]

Undocumented Immigrants Taking Jobs From US Citizens? Most Americans Believe Immigration Is Bad For Economy

Uncontrolled illegal immigration of low-skilled workers is bad for the economy.
Expensive too.

Sorry, you'll need to back up your claim.
Immigration helps American workers: The definitive argument
Show a correlation.

Low-skilled illegals compete for jobs with low skilled Americans. Pretty clear.
As far as expensive, about $11000 per illegal kid per year for education in Illinois.
Add the costs of increased crime, increased police/prison expenses and emergency room expenses....just more spending we can't afford.

No correlation, and you fail to understand the situation, as shown by your failure to refute my article. Yes, children deserve a education.

I consider myself of the left but disagree on immigration. Your link was just an overview of the study.....and as far as I could see had a lot of establishment double-speak within the points listed.

one point actually said that immigrants dont take jobs because those jobs would go overseas anyway. Which fails to address the policy option of trade barriers tariffs etc.

surely everyone could agree that at some point a rising amount of immigrants would negatively effect wage rates, and again the study does not seem to correlate immigrant numbers with anything......

 

[Dad2three]

Envy huh? lol

Weird how the "job creators" pre Reaganomics loved our nation enough to pay enough of a tax "burden' that we not only built the best infrastructure in the world, but had almost no debt, THEN we decided this Punishing" the "job creators" was somehow not only unfair, but held our economy back? lol

AGAIN, LETS GO BACK TO THE TAX RATES WHERE THE TOP 1/10TH OF 1% OF US PAID 50%-70% (EFFECTIVE) FROM 1932-1980?

Okay, so, since that won't do anything to the Obama deficit, what, beyond spite, will be accomplished by doing so? And what will you do when they avoid paying a lot of taxes and are still rich? Demand more?

Top 1% are taxed at 23% EFFECTIVE rates. Go to 46% and the deficit IS wiped out Bubs

AND still leaves them VASTLY wealthy. Weird right Bubs?


AGI ($ millions)

Top 1% income $1,976,738 (trillion)


Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data

I cant remember the exact figures.......but I once calculated out that if the top 20% paid something like 5% more...........and if we remained revenue neutral,...........then the bottom 80% would have to pay NOTHING.

but of course I guess I'm and old school conservative in some ways cause I think deficits and debt matter and I would want that paid down rather than continue to grow.

Well yes, that would be on income taxes, not all federal taxes

Bottom 80% of US own less than 11% of ALL US wealth



What gets me is the "rights" rant against the bottom 50% of US who went from almost 18% of the entire pie in 1980 to 11% today, a drop of almost $5,000 PER family. The bottom HALF OF US make as much income as JUST the top 1/10th of 1% of US, yet the bottom half of US average less than $15,000 PER family

But I agree with you,I prefer not to run large deficits or create the debt that can be traced back to Reagan/Dubya's policies, like cutting federal revenues AS they ramped up spending. If we just decided to go with the Buffett rule (min 30% fed tax on $1,000,000+ incomes), it cuts the deficits by almost 25%


Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data

Remind us again why Obama didn't fix all that when he had total control of the government?

Oh right, in right wing world EVERYTHING should be fixed AFTER Dubya/GOP put US on the edge of the cliff? lol



DECEMBER 1, 2012






Debunking the Myth: Obama's Two-Year Supermajority


A supermajority is a filibuster-proof 60 or more Senate seats, allowing one party to pass legislation without votes from the other,

Don't forget: the president needed a supermajority because of the Republicans' unprecedented use of the filibuster as an obstruction tactic -- they've used it more than 400 times.

But here's the deal -- the real deal -- there actually wasn't a two year supermajority.

This timeline shows the facts.

President Obama was sworn in on January 20, 2009 with just 58 Senators to support his agenda.

He should have had 59, but Republicans contested Al Franken's election in Minnesota and he didn't get seated for seven months.

The President's cause was helped in April when Pennsylvania's Republican Senator Arlen Specter switched parties.

That gave the President 59 votes -- still a vote shy of the super majority.

But one month later, Democratic Senator Byrd of West Virginia was hospitalized and was basically out of commission.

So while the President's number on paper was 59 Senators -- he was really working with just 58 Senators.

Then in July, Minnesota Senator Al Franken was finally sworn in, giving President Obama the magic 60 -- but only in theory, because Senator Byrd was still out.

In August, Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts died and the number went back down to 59 again until Paul Kirk temporarily filled Kennedy's seat in September.

Any pretense of a supermajority ended on February 4, 2010 when Republican Scott Brown was sworn into the seat Senator Kennedy once held. Do you see a two-year supermajority?

I didn't think so.


Debunking the Myth: Obama's Two-Year Supermajority



A fleeting, illusory supermajority

 

[hadit]

Okay, so, since that won't do anything to the Obama deficit, what, beyond spite, will be accomplished by doing so? And what will you do when they avoid paying a lot of taxes and are still rich? Demand more?

Top 1% are taxed at 23% EFFECTIVE rates. Go to 46% and the deficit IS wiped out Bubs

AND still leaves them VASTLY wealthy. Weird right Bubs?


AGI ($ millions)

Top 1% income $1,976,738 (trillion)


Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data

I cant remember the exact figures.......but I once calculated out that if the top 20% paid something like 5% more...........and if we remained revenue neutral,...........then the bottom 80% would have to pay NOTHING.

but of course I guess I'm and old school conservative in some ways cause I think deficits and debt matter and I would want that paid down rather than continue to grow.

Well yes, that would be on income taxes, not all federal taxes

Bottom 80% of US own less than 11% of ALL US wealth



What gets me is the "rights" rant against the bottom 50% of US who went from almost 18% of the entire pie in 1980 to 11% today, a drop of almost $5,000 PER family. The bottom HALF OF US make as much income as JUST the top 1/10th of 1% of US, yet the bottom half of US average less than $15,000 PER family

But I agree with you,I prefer not to run large deficits or create the debt that can be traced back to Reagan/Dubya's policies, like cutting federal revenues AS they ramped up spending. If we just decided to go with the Buffett rule (min 30% fed tax on $1,000,000+ incomes), it cuts the deficits by almost 25%


Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data

Remind us again why Obama didn't fix all that when he had total control of the government?

Oh right, in right wing world EVERYTHING should be fixed AFTER Dubya/GOP put US on the edge of the cliff? lol



DECEMBER 1, 2012






Debunking the Myth: Obama's Two-Year Supermajority


A supermajority is a filibuster-proof 60 or more Senate seats, allowing one party to pass legislation without votes from the other,

Don't forget: the president needed a supermajority because of the Republicans' unprecedented use of the filibuster as an obstruction tactic -- they've used it more than 400 times.

But here's the deal -- the real deal -- there actually wasn't a two year supermajority.

This timeline shows the facts.

President Obama was sworn in on January 20, 2009 with just 58 Senators to support his agenda.

He should have had 59, but Republicans contested Al Franken's election in Minnesota and he didn't get seated for seven months.

The President's cause was helped in April when Pennsylvania's Republican Senator Arlen Specter switched parties.

That gave the President 59 votes -- still a vote shy of the super majority.

But one month later, Democratic Senator Byrd of West Virginia was hospitalized and was basically out of commission.

So while the President's number on paper was 59 Senators -- he was really working with just 58 Senators.

Then in July, Minnesota Senator Al Franken was finally sworn in, giving President Obama the magic 60 -- but only in theory, because Senator Byrd was still out.

In August, Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts died and the number went back down to 59 again until Paul Kirk temporarily filled Kennedy's seat in September.

Any pretense of a supermajority ended on February 4, 2010 when Republican Scott Brown was sworn into the seat Senator Kennedy once held. Do you see a two-year supermajority?

I didn't think so.


Debunking the Myth: Obama's Two-Year Supermajority



A fleeting, illusory supermajority

Apparently, it wasn't enough of a priority for him to even try to "fix", or more likely it didn't need "fixing". Anyone recall a fight where super powerful Republicans in the minority successfully thwarted Obama's grand plan with huge majority numbers to "fix" the Reagan era tax cuts? I don't. Instead, I remember a massive stool sample (we have to pass it to see what's in it) of legislation getting rammed through (oh, wait, I thought Republicans could stop anything Obama wanted to do. Guess not).

 

[Boss]

The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United States Taxpayers (2013)

As Alex Nowrasteh, a former immigration policy analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and currently a Cato Institute immigration policy analyst, pointed out, FAIR's study is riddled with errors and based on "poor methodology" that "fatally undermine this study":


FAIR's numerous errors, poor methodology, and failure to address criticisms of its previous work on this issue fatally undermine this study. FAIR's methodology is so flawed that it leads to absurd conclusions. Applying its study's reasoning to studying the children of American citizens, one could conclude that it never pays to have children because the fiscal costs will always outweigh the benefits. That is prima facie absurd.

FAIR ignores the benefits of unauthorized immigration by claiming that other people, namely American citizens who are unemployed or underemployed, would step into the void. That conclusion ignores economic reality. Those who are unemployed or underemployed do not live in a state of economic hibernation cut off from all activity. Even if the jobs and businesses left vacant after deporting all unauthorized immigrants were somehow filled by Americans, the economic activity of those millions of people is still lost.

FAIR has a long history of making anti-immigrant remarks and is connected to white nationalist organizations. The group's founder, John Tanton, is the modern day architect of the anti-immigrant, nativist movement and also has a history of making anti-immigrant and racially charged remarks.


Fox Borrows "Fact" On Immigration Costs From Hate Group's Debunked Study




Immigration Expert: Passing Comprehensive Immigration Reform Would Add At Least $1.5 Trillion To The U.S. Economy Over 10 Years. In a 2012 report about the economic benefits of comprehensive immigration reform published by the Cato Institute, UCLA professor and immigration expert Raúl Hinojosa-Ojeda found that passing immigration reform "would raise wages, increase consumption, create jobs, and generate additional tax revenue."

http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj32n1/cj32n1-12.pdf




Bush Administration Report Found That Immigration Adds $37 Billion To The U.S. Economy Annually. A report by the Bush-era White House Council of Economic Advisers found that immigrants increase gross domestic product "by roughly $37 billion each year because immigrants increase the size of the total labor force, complement the native-born workforce in terms of skills and education, and stimulate capital investment by adding workers to the labor pool."

http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/Strength in Diversity updated 061912.pdf#page=2


Bloomberg BusinessWeek: "By 2030, Nearly 70 Percent Of Latinos Who Came To The U.S. During The 1990s Are Expected To Own A Home."

Bush Administration Report Found That Immigration Adds $37 Billion To The U.S. Economy Annually.

Excellent! Losing $37 billion in GDP is a small price to pay.
Build a wall, deport the illegals.

No one is talking about immigration. Do we need to make a new word to define illegal immigrants? It seems you keep getting them confused with immigrants. An illegal immigrant is not an immigrant. They are criminals who violated our law and entered our nation illegally. Potentially, they are a national security risk because we don't know who they are or where they came from.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Okay, so, since that won't do anything to the Obama deficit, what, beyond spite, will be accomplished by doing so? And what will you do when they avoid paying a lot of taxes and are still rich? Demand more?

Top 1% are taxed at 23% EFFECTIVE rates. Go to 46% and the deficit IS wiped out Bubs

AND still leaves them VASTLY wealthy. Weird right Bubs?


AGI ($ millions)

Top 1% income $1,976,738 (trillion)


Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data

I cant remember the exact figures.......but I once calculated out that if the top 20% paid something like 5% more...........and if we remained revenue neutral,...........then the bottom 80% would have to pay NOTHING.

but of course I guess I'm and old school conservative in some ways cause I think deficits and debt matter and I would want that paid down rather than continue to grow.

Well yes, that would be on income taxes, not all federal taxes

Bottom 80% of US own less than 11% of ALL US wealth



What gets me is the "rights" rant against the bottom 50% of US who went from almost 18% of the entire pie in 1980 to 11% today, a drop of almost $5,000 PER family. The bottom HALF OF US make as much income as JUST the top 1/10th of 1% of US, yet the bottom half of US average less than $15,000 PER family

But I agree with you,I prefer not to run large deficits or create the debt that can be traced back to Reagan/Dubya's policies, like cutting federal revenues AS they ramped up spending. If we just decided to go with the Buffett rule (min 30% fed tax on $1,000,000+ incomes), it cuts the deficits by almost 25%


Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data

Remind us again why Obama didn't fix all that when he had total control of the government?

Oh right, in right wing world EVERYTHING should be fixed AFTER Dubya/GOP put US on the edge of the cliff? lol



DECEMBER 1, 2012






Debunking the Myth: Obama's Two-Year Supermajority


A supermajority is a filibuster-proof 60 or more Senate seats, allowing one party to pass legislation without votes from the other,

Don't forget: the president needed a supermajority because of the Republicans' unprecedented use of the filibuster as an obstruction tactic -- they've used it more than 400 times.

But here's the deal -- the real deal -- there actually wasn't a two year supermajority.

This timeline shows the facts.

President Obama was sworn in on January 20, 2009 with just 58 Senators to support his agenda.

He should have had 59, but Republicans contested Al Franken's election in Minnesota and he didn't get seated for seven months.

The President's cause was helped in April when Pennsylvania's Republican Senator Arlen Specter switched parties.

That gave the President 59 votes -- still a vote shy of the super majority.

But one month later, Democratic Senator Byrd of West Virginia was hospitalized and was basically out of commission.

So while the President's number on paper was 59 Senators -- he was really working with just 58 Senators.

Then in July, Minnesota Senator Al Franken was finally sworn in, giving President Obama the magic 60 -- but only in theory, because Senator Byrd was still out.

In August, Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts died and the number went back down to 59 again until Paul Kirk temporarily filled Kennedy's seat in September.

Any pretense of a supermajority ended on February 4, 2010 when Republican Scott Brown was sworn into the seat Senator Kennedy once held. Do you see a two-year supermajority?

I didn't think so.


Debunking the Myth: Obama's Two-Year Supermajority



A fleeting, illusory supermajority

Debunking the Myth: Obama's Two-Year Supermajority

He had 58 Senators and a huge majority in the House for 2 years.
Why was he so weak? He's supposed to be so smart.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United States Taxpayers (2013)

As Alex Nowrasteh, a former immigration policy analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and currently a Cato Institute immigration policy analyst, pointed out, FAIR's study is riddled with errors and based on "poor methodology" that "fatally undermine this study":


FAIR's numerous errors, poor methodology, and failure to address criticisms of its previous work on this issue fatally undermine this study. FAIR's methodology is so flawed that it leads to absurd conclusions. Applying its study's reasoning to studying the children of American citizens, one could conclude that it never pays to have children because the fiscal costs will always outweigh the benefits. That is prima facie absurd.

FAIR ignores the benefits of unauthorized immigration by claiming that other people, namely American citizens who are unemployed or underemployed, would step into the void. That conclusion ignores economic reality. Those who are unemployed or underemployed do not live in a state of economic hibernation cut off from all activity. Even if the jobs and businesses left vacant after deporting all unauthorized immigrants were somehow filled by Americans, the economic activity of those millions of people is still lost.

FAIR has a long history of making anti-immigrant remarks and is connected to white nationalist organizations. The group's founder, John Tanton, is the modern day architect of the anti-immigrant, nativist movement and also has a history of making anti-immigrant and racially charged remarks.


Fox Borrows "Fact" On Immigration Costs From Hate Group's Debunked Study




Immigration Expert: Passing Comprehensive Immigration Reform Would Add At Least $1.5 Trillion To The U.S. Economy Over 10 Years. In a 2012 report about the economic benefits of comprehensive immigration reform published by the Cato Institute, UCLA professor and immigration expert Raúl Hinojosa-Ojeda found that passing immigration reform "would raise wages, increase consumption, create jobs, and generate additional tax revenue."

http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj32n1/cj32n1-12.pdf




Bush Administration Report Found That Immigration Adds $37 Billion To The U.S. Economy Annually. A report by the Bush-era White House Council of Economic Advisers found that immigrants increase gross domestic product "by roughly $37 billion each year because immigrants increase the size of the total labor force, complement the native-born workforce in terms of skills and education, and stimulate capital investment by adding workers to the labor pool."

http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/Strength in Diversity updated 061912.pdf#page=2


Bloomberg BusinessWeek: "By 2030, Nearly 70 Percent Of Latinos Who Came To The U.S. During The 1990s Are Expected To Own A Home."

Bush Administration Report Found That Immigration Adds $37 Billion To The U.S. Economy Annually.

Excellent! Losing $37 billion in GDP is a small price to pay.
Build a wall, deport the illegals.

No one is talking about immigration. Do we need to make a new word to define illegal immigrants? It seems you keep getting them confused with immigrants. An illegal immigrant is not an immigrant. They are criminals who violated our law and entered our nation illegally. Potentially, they are a national security risk because we don't know who they are or where they came from.

It seems you keep getting them confused with immigrants.

Not me.

Potentially, they are a national security risk because we don't know who they are or where they came from.

Exactly. God forbid ISIS attacks us by sneaking over the border. We will use minefields if that happens.

 

[Dad2three]

The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United States Taxpayers (2013)

As Alex Nowrasteh, a former immigration policy analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and currently a Cato Institute immigration policy analyst, pointed out, FAIR's study is riddled with errors and based on "poor methodology" that "fatally undermine this study":


FAIR's numerous errors, poor methodology, and failure to address criticisms of its previous work on this issue fatally undermine this study. FAIR's methodology is so flawed that it leads to absurd conclusions. Applying its study's reasoning to studying the children of American citizens, one could conclude that it never pays to have children because the fiscal costs will always outweigh the benefits. That is prima facie absurd.

FAIR ignores the benefits of unauthorized immigration by claiming that other people, namely American citizens who are unemployed or underemployed, would step into the void. That conclusion ignores economic reality. Those who are unemployed or underemployed do not live in a state of economic hibernation cut off from all activity. Even if the jobs and businesses left vacant after deporting all unauthorized immigrants were somehow filled by Americans, the economic activity of those millions of people is still lost.

FAIR has a long history of making anti-immigrant remarks and is connected to white nationalist organizations. The group's founder, John Tanton, is the modern day architect of the anti-immigrant, nativist movement and also has a history of making anti-immigrant and racially charged remarks.


Fox Borrows "Fact" On Immigration Costs From Hate Group's Debunked Study




Immigration Expert: Passing Comprehensive Immigration Reform Would Add At Least $1.5 Trillion To The U.S. Economy Over 10 Years. In a 2012 report about the economic benefits of comprehensive immigration reform published by the Cato Institute, UCLA professor and immigration expert Raúl Hinojosa-Ojeda found that passing immigration reform "would raise wages, increase consumption, create jobs, and generate additional tax revenue."

http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj32n1/cj32n1-12.pdf




Bush Administration Report Found That Immigration Adds $37 Billion To The U.S. Economy Annually. A report by the Bush-era White House Council of Economic Advisers found that immigrants increase gross domestic product "by roughly $37 billion each year because immigrants increase the size of the total labor force, complement the native-born workforce in terms of skills and education, and stimulate capital investment by adding workers to the labor pool."

http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/Strength in Diversity updated 061912.pdf#page=2


Bloomberg BusinessWeek: "By 2030, Nearly 70 Percent Of Latinos Who Came To The U.S. During The 1990s Are Expected To Own A Home."

Bush Administration Report Found That Immigration Adds $37 Billion To The U.S. Economy Annually.

Excellent! Losing $37 billion in GDP is a small price to pay.
Build a wall, deport the illegals.

No one is talking about immigration. Do we need to make a new word to define illegal immigrants? It seems you keep getting them confused with immigrants. An illegal immigrant is not an immigrant. They are criminals who violated our law and entered our nation illegally. Potentially, they are a national security risk because we don't know who they are or where they came from.

Weird, you'd think the GOP/CONServatives would want to go after WHY they came here, you know JOBS? Oh yeah, can't touch those "job creators" right? lol

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United States Taxpayers (2013)

As Alex Nowrasteh, a former immigration policy analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and currently a Cato Institute immigration policy analyst, pointed out, FAIR's study is riddled with errors and based on "poor methodology" that "fatally undermine this study":


FAIR's numerous errors, poor methodology, and failure to address criticisms of its previous work on this issue fatally undermine this study. FAIR's methodology is so flawed that it leads to absurd conclusions. Applying its study's reasoning to studying the children of American citizens, one could conclude that it never pays to have children because the fiscal costs will always outweigh the benefits. That is prima facie absurd.

FAIR ignores the benefits of unauthorized immigration by claiming that other people, namely American citizens who are unemployed or underemployed, would step into the void. That conclusion ignores economic reality. Those who are unemployed or underemployed do not live in a state of economic hibernation cut off from all activity. Even if the jobs and businesses left vacant after deporting all unauthorized immigrants were somehow filled by Americans, the economic activity of those millions of people is still lost.

FAIR has a long history of making anti-immigrant remarks and is connected to white nationalist organizations. The group's founder, John Tanton, is the modern day architect of the anti-immigrant, nativist movement and also has a history of making anti-immigrant and racially charged remarks.


Fox Borrows "Fact" On Immigration Costs From Hate Group's Debunked Study




Immigration Expert: Passing Comprehensive Immigration Reform Would Add At Least $1.5 Trillion To The U.S. Economy Over 10 Years. In a 2012 report about the economic benefits of comprehensive immigration reform published by the Cato Institute, UCLA professor and immigration expert Raúl Hinojosa-Ojeda found that passing immigration reform "would raise wages, increase consumption, create jobs, and generate additional tax revenue."

http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj32n1/cj32n1-12.pdf




Bush Administration Report Found That Immigration Adds $37 Billion To The U.S. Economy Annually. A report by the Bush-era White House Council of Economic Advisers found that immigrants increase gross domestic product "by roughly $37 billion each year because immigrants increase the size of the total labor force, complement the native-born workforce in terms of skills and education, and stimulate capital investment by adding workers to the labor pool."

http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/Strength in Diversity updated 061912.pdf#page=2


Bloomberg BusinessWeek: "By 2030, Nearly 70 Percent Of Latinos Who Came To The U.S. During The 1990s Are Expected To Own A Home."

Bush Administration Report Found That Immigration Adds $37 Billion To The U.S. Economy Annually.

Excellent! Losing $37 billion in GDP is a small price to pay.
Build a wall, deport the illegals.

No one is talking about immigration. Do we need to make a new word to define illegal immigrants? It seems you keep getting them confused with immigrants. An illegal immigrant is not an immigrant. They are criminals who violated our law and entered our nation illegally. Potentially, they are a national security risk because we don't know who they are or where they came from.

Weird, you'd think the GOP/CONServatives would want to go after WHY they came here, you know JOBS? Oh yeah, can't touch those "job creators" right? lol

The best way to get them to leave is to eliminate the cause. So let's do it.

 

[Papageorgio]

How did Henry Ford justify doing something similar in the early 1900s?

I don't know but the time to argue vociferously in favor of the CEOs plan seems to be over now. This is what is wrong with Socialists... they can never admit when their ideas fail.

Go read the article I posted and stop arguing this was a good idea... it FAILED!

ONLY in right wing world could losing 2 right wing employees OUT OF OVER 120+ , INCREASING BIZ BY 75% BE CONSIDERED "FAILING"

Seattle company copes with backlash on $70,000 minimum wage

Not seeing that the two employees were right wing. Also not seeing business increased by 75%. Can you show me from the article these two facts. Thanks.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How did Henry Ford justify doing something similar in the early 1900s?

I don't know but the time to argue vociferously in favor of the CEOs plan seems to be over now. This is what is wrong with Socialists... they can never admit when their ideas fail.

Go read the article I posted and stop arguing this was a good idea... it FAILED!

ONLY in right wing world could losing 2 right wing employees OUT OF OVER 120+ , INCREASING BIZ BY 75% BE CONSIDERED "FAILING"

Seattle company copes with backlash on $70,000 minimum wage

Not seeing that the two employees were right wing. Also not seeing business increased by 75%. Can you show me from the article these two facts. Thanks.

Also not seeing business increased by 75%. Can you show me from the article these two facts.

Dad is a liberal, he's really bad at math.

In an industry dominated by global banking giants and mammoth processors, the company last year processed $6.5 billion in sales for 12,000 clients, most of them small- and medium-size businesses......

The publicity surrounding the wage policy has generated benefits. Three months before the announcement, the firm had been adding 200 clients a month. In June, 350 signed up.

They added an extra 150 in June, based on their good publicity, supposedly, an extra 1.25%.

An extra 75% means they need to get up to 21,000. They have a ways to go before Dad's claim comes true.

 

[Boss]

The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United States Taxpayers (2013)

As Alex Nowrasteh, a former immigration policy analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and currently a Cato Institute immigration policy analyst, pointed out, FAIR's study is riddled with errors and based on "poor methodology" that "fatally undermine this study":


FAIR's numerous errors, poor methodology, and failure to address criticisms of its previous work on this issue fatally undermine this study. FAIR's methodology is so flawed that it leads to absurd conclusions. Applying its study's reasoning to studying the children of American citizens, one could conclude that it never pays to have children because the fiscal costs will always outweigh the benefits. That is prima facie absurd.

FAIR ignores the benefits of unauthorized immigration by claiming that other people, namely American citizens who are unemployed or underemployed, would step into the void. That conclusion ignores economic reality. Those who are unemployed or underemployed do not live in a state of economic hibernation cut off from all activity. Even if the jobs and businesses left vacant after deporting all unauthorized immigrants were somehow filled by Americans, the economic activity of those millions of people is still lost.

FAIR has a long history of making anti-immigrant remarks and is connected to white nationalist organizations. The group's founder, John Tanton, is the modern day architect of the anti-immigrant, nativist movement and also has a history of making anti-immigrant and racially charged remarks.


Fox Borrows "Fact" On Immigration Costs From Hate Group's Debunked Study




Immigration Expert: Passing Comprehensive Immigration Reform Would Add At Least $1.5 Trillion To The U.S. Economy Over 10 Years. In a 2012 report about the economic benefits of comprehensive immigration reform published by the Cato Institute, UCLA professor and immigration expert Raúl Hinojosa-Ojeda found that passing immigration reform "would raise wages, increase consumption, create jobs, and generate additional tax revenue."

http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj32n1/cj32n1-12.pdf




Bush Administration Report Found That Immigration Adds $37 Billion To The U.S. Economy Annually. A report by the Bush-era White House Council of Economic Advisers found that immigrants increase gross domestic product "by roughly $37 billion each year because immigrants increase the size of the total labor force, complement the native-born workforce in terms of skills and education, and stimulate capital investment by adding workers to the labor pool."

http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/Strength in Diversity updated 061912.pdf#page=2


Bloomberg BusinessWeek: "By 2030, Nearly 70 Percent Of Latinos Who Came To The U.S. During The 1990s Are Expected To Own A Home."

Bush Administration Report Found That Immigration Adds $37 Billion To The U.S. Economy Annually.

Excellent! Losing $37 billion in GDP is a small price to pay.
Build a wall, deport the illegals.

No one is talking about immigration. Do we need to make a new word to define illegal immigrants? It seems you keep getting them confused with immigrants. An illegal immigrant is not an immigrant. They are criminals who violated our law and entered our nation illegally. Potentially, they are a national security risk because we don't know who they are or where they came from.

Weird, you'd think the GOP/CONServatives would want to go after WHY they came here, you know JOBS? Oh yeah, can't touch those "job creators" right? lol

But they don't all come here to work. What about the ones who come here to be thieves and rapists? How do we go after why they came? What about the ones who come to be terrorists and commit terrorist acts? How do we go after why they came? What about the ones who just want to come here and live off the government handouts? Any ideas on how we can go after why they came?

I have always been in favor of strict penalties for companies who hire illegal aliens. I thought it was one of the worst arguments ever made by Bush regarding jobs Americans won't do. I don't have a problem with heavy fines or even jail time for people who knowingly hire illegal aliens... BUT... Houston, we have a problem here....

How do we hold companies accountable when we restrict them from even being able to ask Pedro for proper identification? How does a company comply without profiling, discriminating or violating rights to privacy? How can we hold them responsible for Pedro's clever ability to forge fake documentation? It's easy to say, punish employers who hire illegals, it's hard to enforce it in today's politically correct, over-litigious and hypersensitive environment. Not saying we shouldn't try, but it's going to take some understanding when it comes to verification processes and such.

 

[Boss]

It seems you keep getting them confused with immigrants.

Not me.

Sorry, that should have been directed at Dope2three.

 

[OnePercenter]

You're so full of shit your eyes are brown. Anyone who paid his workers twice the going rate would go bankrupt. How can you pay them twice the market rate if your company doesn't earn twice the market rate?

Anyone who paid his workers twice the going rate would go bankrupt.

Perhaps in Canada. Name one company in the US that went bankrupt because they paid their employees twice the going rate. In the US, how do you tell when a business owner is lying? When she/he tells you they're not making any money.

How can you pay them twice the market rate if your company doesn't earn twice the market rate?

Who says I don't? I don't pay for the leasing and maintenance of 300 pieces of equipment because I own the leasing company. I don't pay for supplies from two of the three supply companies because I own the suppliers. I'm the only company that provides on-going maintenance of towers as well as provides leasing of space which pays VERY WELL.

 

[OnePercenter]

Certificate applies to the NYFD sorry!

The rest of your rant is BS! You are talking out your ass once again.

Here's a trades reference. I sub members of what? The trades.

http://labor.alaska.gov/lss/forms/cof-regs.pdf

I have 20,000 more examples of how you are wrong.

Writing of 'you are wrong,'

How would you undo the deregulation of the HMO act which eliminated real competition in the healthcare insurance industry?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

You're so full of shit your eyes are brown. Anyone who paid his workers twice the going rate would go bankrupt. How can you pay them twice the market rate if your company doesn't earn twice the market rate?

Anyone who paid his workers twice the going rate would go bankrupt.

Perhaps in Canada. Name one company in the US that went bankrupt because they paid their employees twice the going rate. In the US, how do you tell when a business owner is lying? When she/he tells you they're not making any money.

How can you pay them twice the market rate if your company doesn't earn twice the market rate?

Who says I don't? I don't pay for the leasing and maintenance of 300 pieces of equipment because I own the leasing company. I don't pay for supplies from two of the three supply companies because I own the suppliers. I'm the only company that provides on-going maintenance of towers as well as provides leasing of space which pays VERY WELL.

Wow.. helluva business model.... I'm a CPA and have seen many business people "not make any money". That's where I come in. And you charge twice the market rate? That's like saying you sell Cheerios for $8 and Winn Dixie sells them for $4 and you sell just as much.

I wanna know your secret cause you just blew the notion of competition right out of the water!!!

 

[OnePercenter]

A "Certificate of Fitness" is issued by the fire department and says your building is in compliance with fire safety codes. It has nothing to do with business licenses, worker status or anything else that bears no relation to fire safety.

You're obviously a lying piece of shit.

Here's a trades reference.

http://labor.alaska.gov/lss/forms/cof-regs.pdf

 

[OnePercenter]

The issue is one percenter claims to pay his employees twice the wages of his competitors, charges his customers less than his competitors and has a wider profit margin than his competitors. There are fixed costs in every business. So, if you are paying employees more, charging customers less. His profit margin can't be twice the average. He can't explain it , never has. His story is bogus.

If you knew anything about business, how would you reduce or eliminate a 'fixed cost?'