What Happens When You Tax Billionaires At 90%

[Toddsterpatriot]

Ah, I see we're now setting the benchmark for employment success at “slightly better than eating stale government cheese”. Bravo on the ambition! Yes, having a job is better than not having a job. But we’re not talking about mere employment here; we’re talking about a living wage.

You whined about a few thousand in government aid per Walmart worker, but give
no credit for the $24k in salary? You're funny.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I brought up the poverty line to point out that skirting just above it isn't exactly a crowning achievement. It's like getting a participation trophy and declaring yourself the MVP. Let's not pop the champagne over "barely making it".

It's true, low-skilled workers aren't going to make a huge income.
Are you surprised?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Oh, good heavens, no tears here, my friend. Just a slight facepalm at the sight of another attempt to dodge the actual issue. I brought up the poverty line to point out that skirting just above it isn't exactly a crowning achievement. It's like getting a participation trophy and declaring yourself the MVP. Let's not pop the champagne over "barely making it".

What we're discussing is the ability to not just survive, but to thrive. To not have to choose between medicine or groceries. To be able to have a little safety net for when life throws curveballs, because it will.

The idea is not just to allow people to scrape by, but to build a society where working full-time means you can live with a modicum of security and dignity. If that concept is making someone cry, maybe it's tears of frustration at the sheer resistance to basic human empathy. Or maybe they're tears of joy for the day when “well above the poverty line” means something more than "still struggling to make ends meet." One can hope.

The idea is not just to allow people to scrape by, but to build a society where working full-time means you can live with a modicum of security and dignity.

Working does give more dignity than living on welfare. More people should try it.

 

[TruthNotBS]

Oh, we're back to the “immigrants are the source of all our troubles” chapter, I see.

We're back to the, "millions of low-skilled illegal aliens competing for jobs will reduce the wages for low-skilled Americans" chapter. I realize, as a commie, you're clueless when it comes to economics and incentives, but I'll still try to educate you.

It’s like a magical potion: more money for workers means more spending, which translates into more demand and growth. Economics 101.

Less money for owners means less spending, which translates into less demand and growth. Economics 101.

So instead of channeling energies into rounding up millions of people (which, by the way, is logistically impossible and morally dubious),

Impossible? Ike did it in the 50s, can’t we aspire for a little more?
Besides, after you deport the first 10 or 15 million, they start to deport themselves.

"We're back to the, 'millions of low-skilled illegal aliens competing for jobs will reduce the wages for low-skilled Americans' chapter. I realize, as a commie, you're clueless when it comes to economics and incentives, but I'll still try to educate you."

Ah, the sweet blend of name-calling and oversimplification, served with a pinch of condescension. Divine! But let's take a gander down Reality Lane. Numerous studies have shown that the effect of immigration on the wages of native-born workers is quite small and can even be positive. For instance, a report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine found that immigration has an overall positive effect on native-born workers. It’s like adding jalapenos to your burger; a little spice can be good for you.

"Less money for owners means less spending, which translates into less demand and growth. Economics 101."

Oh, absolutely! But when the owners are stashing billions while their employees are rationing ramen, it's not quite the same. It's like saying, “If I have one less yacht, the economy will crumble.” When workers have more disposable income, they spend it mostly locally, spurring demand. Owners? Not so much. It’s not rocket science; it’s not even Economics 101 – it’s the pre-requisite, “Introduction to Having a Heart.”

"Impossible? Ike did it in the 50s, can’t we aspire for a little more? Besides, after you deport the first 10 or 15 million, they start to deport themselves."

Ah yes, Eisenhower's "Operation Wetback". Let’s bask in the glory of a program that was marked by severe civil rights abuses and inhumane conditions, shall we? Striving to repeat a dark chapter of history isn’t exactly the aspiration most compassionate humans would aim for. We've come a long way since the 1950s; I'd like to think we've evolved past seeing people as mere economic statistics and would rather work towards inclusive, sustainable solutions that reflect the values of a civilized society. But hey, if time travel to the 50s is your thing, don’t forget your moral compass; it’ll come in handy. PBS article on the human toll of Operation Wetback.

 

[TruthNotBS]

The idea is not just to allow people to scrape by, but to build a society where working full-time means you can live with a modicum of security and dignity.

Working does give more dignity than living on welfare. More people should try it.

"Working does give more dignity than living on welfare. More people should try it."

Hark! I think we've struck a chord of agreement – work does confer dignity. But here’s the rub: when someone works full-time and still has to lean on welfare to make ends meet, the plot thickens. We're not advocating for people to lounge in the opulent halls of welfare; we're saying let's pay them enough so they don't need to juggle between the cash register and food stamps. Let's be the society that says, “Hey, if you work a full week, you should be able to pay your rent and buy groceries without a crisis.” The Wizard of Oz had it wrong; you don’t need a wizard to find a heart – just some decent wages.

Everyone who works fulltime, should have enough to live on, without relying on government welfare.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Numerous studies have shown that the effect of immigration on the wages of native-born workers is quite small and can even be positive.

Not for low-skilled and unskilled American citizens.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

"We're back to the, 'millions of low-skilled illegal aliens competing for jobs will reduce the wages for low-skilled Americans' chapter. I realize, as a commie, you're clueless when it comes to economics and incentives, but I'll still try to educate you."

Ah, the sweet blend of name-calling and oversimplification, served with a pinch of condescension. Divine! But let's take a gander down Reality Lane. Numerous studies have shown that the effect of immigration on the wages of native-born workers is quite small and can even be positive. For instance, a report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine found that immigration has an overall positive effect on native-born workers. It’s like adding jalapenos to your burger; a little spice can be good for you.

"Less money for owners means less spending, which translates into less demand and growth. Economics 101."

Oh, absolutely! But when the owners are stashing billions while their employees are rationing ramen, it's not quite the same. It's like saying, “If I have one less yacht, the economy will crumble.” When workers have more disposable income, they spend it mostly locally, spurring demand. Owners? Not so much. It’s not rocket science; it’s not even Economics 101 – it’s the pre-requisite, “Introduction to Having a Heart.”

"Impossible? Ike did it in the 50s, can’t we aspire for a little more? Besides, after you deport the first 10 or 15 million, they start to deport themselves."

Ah yes, Eisenhower's "Operation Wetback". Let’s bask in the glory of a program that was marked by severe civil rights abuses and inhumane conditions, shall we? Striving to repeat a dark chapter of history isn’t exactly the aspiration most compassionate humans would aim for. We've come a long way since the 1950s; I'd like to think we've evolved past seeing people as mere economic statistics and would rather work towards inclusive, sustainable solutions that reflect the values of a civilized society. But hey, if time travel to the 50s is your thing, don’t forget your moral compass; it’ll come in handy. PBS article on the human toll of Operation Wetback.

Oh, absolutely! But when the owners are stashing billions while their employees are rationing ramen, it's not quite the same.

Are all of the hundreds of thousands of Walmart shareholders stashing billions?
What about everyone holding shares in a mutual fund? All sitting on their yacht?

When workers have more disposable income, they spend it mostly locally, spurring demand. Owners? Not so much.

I'm not spending my dividends locally? Why not?

Ah yes, Eisenhower's "Operation Wetback". Let’s bask in the glory of a program that was marked by severe civil rights abuses and inhumane conditions, shall we?

That's awful! Let's aspire to do better. We can use air-conditioned buses.

I'd like to think we've evolved past seeing people as mere economic statistics and would rather work towards inclusive, sustainable solutions that reflect the values of a civilized society.

If that's what it takes to boot 30 million illegal aliens, to start, let's do it!!!

 

[TruthNotBS]

Not for low-skilled and unskilled American citizens.

"Not for low-skilled and unskilled American citizens."

. Low-skilled and unskilled workers are indeed often hit harder, but that's not the whole story. Immigrants also create demand, start businesses, and contribute to innovation and economic growth. According to a report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, while first-generation immigrants may be more costly to governments, the second generation is among the strongest fiscal and economic contributors in the U.S.

Now, let’s get back to the noble Walmart employee. Low-skilled doesn’t mean less human. You see, it's not about who deserves a living wage; it’s about the very principle of a living wage. If someone’s giving their time and labor full-time, isn’t it fair that they make enough to, you know, live?

And here's the twist: if Walmart pays their employees more, and they don’t need welfare, guess what shrinks? Government spending on public assistance! You should be throwing confetti – Walmart paying a living wage could be the golden ticket to reducing government intervention you seem to crave.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

"Working does give more dignity than living on welfare. More people should try it."

Hark! I think we've struck a chord of agreement – work does confer dignity. But here’s the rub: when someone works full-time and still has to lean on welfare to make ends meet, the plot thickens. We're not advocating for people to lounge in the opulent halls of welfare; we're saying let's pay them enough so they don't need to juggle between the cash register and food stamps. Let's be the society that says, “Hey, if you work a full week, you should be able to pay your rent and buy groceries without a crisis.” The Wizard of Oz had it wrong; you don’t need a wizard to find a heart – just some decent wages.

Everyone who works fulltime, should have enough to live on, without relying on government welfare.

But here’s the rub: when someone works full-time and still has to lean on welfare to make ends meet, the plot thickens.

$4000 of welfare versus multiples of that......still sounds good to me.

“Hey, if you work a full week, you should be able to pay your rent and buy groceries without a crisis.”

With a couple of roommates and no frivolous spending, that is certainly possible.
Especially if rents come down after we boot 30 million illegal aliens, to start.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

"Not for low-skilled and unskilled American citizens."

. Low-skilled and unskilled workers are indeed often hit harder, but that's not the whole story. Immigrants also create demand, start businesses, and contribute to innovation and economic growth. According to a report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, while first-generation immigrants may be more costly to governments, the second generation is among the strongest fiscal and economic contributors in the U.S.

Now, let’s get back to the noble Walmart employee. Low-skilled doesn’t mean less human. You see, it's not about who deserves a living wage; it’s about the very principle of a living wage. If someone’s giving their time and labor full-time, isn’t it fair that they make enough to, you know, live?

And here's the twist: if Walmart pays their employees more, and they don’t need welfare, guess what shrinks? Government spending on public assistance! You should be throwing confetti – Walmart paying a living wage could be the golden ticket to reducing government intervention you seem to crave.

Low-skilled and unskilled workers are indeed often hit harder, but that's not the whole story. Immigrants also create demand, start businesses, and contribute to innovation and economic growth.

That sounds awesome!
I look forward to them succeeding back in their home country.

Now, let’s get back to the noble Walmart employee. Low-skilled doesn’t mean less human.

You bet. Low-skilled American citizens are human.

And here's the twist: if Walmart pays their employees more, and they don’t need welfare, guess what shrinks? Government spending on public assistance!

I agree, the government will save on public assistance after we boot 30 million illegal aliens, to start.

 

[TruthNotBS]

Oh, absolutely! But when the owners are stashing billions while their employees are rationing ramen, it's not quite the same.

Are all of the hundreds of thousands of Walmart shareholders stashing billions?
What about everyone holding shares in a mutual fund? All sitting on their yacht?

When workers have more disposable income, they spend it mostly locally, spurring demand. Owners? Not so much.

I'm not spending my dividends locally? Why not?

Ah yes, Eisenhower's "Operation Wetback". Let’s bask in the glory of a program that was marked by severe civil rights abuses and inhumane conditions, shall we?

That's awful! Let's aspire to do better. We can use air-conditioned buses.

I'd like to think we've evolved past seeing people as mere economic statistics and would rather work towards inclusive, sustainable solutions that reflect the values of a civilized society.

If that's what it takes to boot 30 million illegal aliens, to start, let's do it!!!

"Are all of the hundreds of thousands of Walmart shareholders stashing billions? What about everyone holding shares in a mutual fund? All sitting on their yacht?"

Ah, clever twist, but let’s not jumble the deck. There's a cosmic chasm between the majority of shareholders and the Waltons of the world. By the way, the Walton family – you know, the ones who still own over 50% of Walmart shares – are worth a whopping $238.2 billion as of August 2021, according to Forbes. There's no armada of yachts, but they could probably buy a pretty nice one, or a few hundred.

"I'm not spending my dividends locally? Why not?"

Sure, you might spend your dividends locally, but let’s take it to scale. When a low-income person gets an extra dollar, they’re more likely to spend it immediately on goods and services. For a billionaire, that extra dollar might as well join its pals in the savings account or go on a vacation to an offshore account. The marginal propensity to consume is a nifty term that means the proportion of an additional income that a consumer spends on consumption. Spoiler alert: it's higher for those with lower incomes.

So, it's not that you are a problem, it’s the system that lets companies pay wages so low that the rest of us have to pitch in for their employees’ basic needs. While we’re funding their worker-bees, the top brass is making honey like there’s no tomorrow.

 

[TruthNotBS]

Low-skilled and unskilled workers are indeed often hit harder, but that's not the whole story. Immigrants also create demand, start businesses, and contribute to innovation and economic growth.

That sounds awesome!
I look forward to them succeeding back in their home country.

Now, let’s get back to the noble Walmart employee. Low-skilled doesn’t mean less human.

You bet. Low-skilled American citizens are human.

And here's the twist: if Walmart pays their employees more, and they don’t need welfare, guess what shrinks? Government spending on public assistance!

I agree, the government will save on public assistance after we boot 30 million illegal aliens, to start.

"That sounds awesome! I look forward to them succeeding back in their home country."

Oh, but wait – there's more! You see, immigrants are already contributing enormously to the U.S. economy. In fact, according to a report from the National Academy of Sciences, immigrants are integral to the country’s economic growth. They’re not just creating jobs, they’re also paying taxes – even the undocumented ones, who contributed about $11.74 billion in state and local taxes in 2014, according to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy.

"You bet. Low-skilled American citizens are human."

Glad we’re on the same page here. So, as fellow humans, let’s ensure they have the means to live decently. Seems pretty reasonable, right?

"I agree, the government will save on public assistance after we boot 30 million, to start."

A penny for your thoughts, but that one might not even be worth a penny. It's like trying to kill a fly with a bazooka. Mass deportation isn’t just inhumane; it’s an economic catastrophe waiting to happen. As per the American Action Forum, deporting millions of undocumented immigrants would cost between $400 billion and $600 billion and reduce real GDP by over $1 trillion. Walmart can just share a bit of their pie, and we all live happily ever after. Or at least without the pitchforks at each other’s doors.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

"Are all of the hundreds of thousands of Walmart shareholders stashing billions? What about everyone holding shares in a mutual fund? All sitting on their yacht?"

Ah, clever twist, but let’s not jumble the deck. There's a cosmic chasm between the majority of shareholders and the Waltons of the world. By the way, the Walton family – you know, the ones who still own over 50% of Walmart shares – are worth a whopping $238.2 billion as of August 2021, according to Forbes. There's no armada of yachts, but they could probably buy a pretty nice one, or a few hundred.

"I'm not spending my dividends locally? Why not?"

Sure, you might spend your dividends locally, but let’s take it to scale. When a low-income person gets an extra dollar, they’re more likely to spend it immediately on goods and services. For a billionaire, that extra dollar might as well join its pals in the savings account or go on a vacation to an offshore account. The marginal propensity to consume is a nifty term that means the proportion of an additional income that a consumer spends on consumption. Spoiler alert: it's higher for those with lower incomes.

So, it's not that you are a problem, it’s the system that lets companies pay wages so low that the rest of us have to pitch in for their employees’ basic needs. While we’re funding their worker-bees, the top brass is making honey like there’s no tomorrow.

There's a cosmic chasm between the majority of shareholders and the Waltons of the world.

Obviously. So why do you want to shrink my dividends?

Sure, you might spend your dividends locally, but let’s take it to scale. When a low-income person gets an extra dollar, they’re more likely to spend it immediately on goods and services

Me too!

The marginal propensity to consume is a nifty term that means the proportion of an additional income that a consumer spends on consumption. Spoiler alert: it's higher for those with lower incomes.

So those with Walmart jobs, instead of just welfare, spend more? That's awesome!

So, it's not that you are a problem, it’s the system that lets companies pay wages so low that the rest of us have to pitch in for their employees’ basic needs.

$24K in Walmart salary certainly reduces the amount we have to pitch in.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Oh, but wait – there's more! You see, immigrants are already contributing enormously to the U.S. economy. In fact, according to a report from the National Academy of Sciences, immigrants are integral to the country’s economic growth. They’re not just creating jobs, they’re also paying taxes – even the undocumented ones, who contributed about $11.74 billion in state and local taxes in 2014, according to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy.

Just think of all they can do to lift the economy of their home country.
It's awful that we're taking their best and brightest and leaving the rest to suffer.
Send them home already!!!!

 

[TruthNotBS]

There's a cosmic chasm between the majority of shareholders and the Waltons of the world.

Obviously. So why do you want to shrink my dividends?

Sure, you might spend your dividends locally, but let’s take it to scale. When a low-income person gets an extra dollar, they’re more likely to spend it immediately on goods and services

Me too!

The marginal propensity to consume is a nifty term that means the proportion of an additional income that a consumer spends on consumption. Spoiler alert: it's higher for those with lower incomes.

So those with Walmart jobs, instead of just welfare, spend more? That's awesome!

So, it's not that you are a problem, it’s the system that lets companies pay wages so low that the rest of us have to pitch in for their employees’ basic needs.

$24K in Walmart salary certainly reduces the amount we have to pitch in.

"Obviously. So why do you want to shrink my dividends?"

Oh, dear, the anguish! But, fear not – a slight reduction in dividends to ensure that the backbone of the company doesn't have to rely on government cheese isn't going to shatter the champagne glasses on the yacht. Dividends can still flow, albeit perhaps not in torrents akin to Niagara Falls.

"Me too!"

Well, isn’t this delightful. However, there’s a difference – while you might go for an extra bottle of Pinot Noir, the Walmart worker might finally be able to afford both heating and food. Slight difference in the crisis scale, wouldn’t you agree?

"So those with Walmart jobs, instead of just welfare, spend more? That's awesome!"

It's almost as if paying people enough to live on is a good thing! Who would have thought? But hold on to your monocle because here's the kicker – if Walmart pays a living wage, then not only do people spend more, but they also rely less on government subsidies, meaning taxpayers save money. It's an economic double whammy!

"$24K in Walmart salary certainly reduces the amount we have to pitch in."

Ah, but what if I told you – imagine this in Morpheus’ voice for dramatic effect – that if we pitch in a bit more now by ensuring fair wages, we’d have to pitch in a lot less later in public assistance? Mind-boggling, I know! People being able to sustain themselves without needing to constantly turn to welfare? It's like an economic plot twist that benefits literally everyone. Even the dividends might survive the ordeal!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Mass deportation isn’t just inhumane; it’s an economic catastrophe waiting to happen. As per the American Action Forum, deporting millions of undocumented immigrants would cost between $400 billion and $600 billion and reduce real GDP by over $1 trillion.

We're rich, we can afford it.
And think of all the good it will do for our poor citizens.
Higher incomes, lower rents, less CO2 emissions.
Save our poor AND the planet!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

"Obviously. So why do you want to shrink my dividends?"

Oh, dear, the anguish! But, fear not – a slight reduction in dividends to ensure that the backbone of the company doesn't have to rely on government cheese isn't going to shatter the champagne glasses on the yacht. Dividends can still flow, albeit perhaps not in torrents akin to Niagara Falls.

"Me too!"

Well, isn’t this delightful. However, there’s a difference – while you might go for an extra bottle of Pinot Noir, the Walmart worker might finally be able to afford both heating and food. Slight difference in the crisis scale, wouldn’t you agree?

"So those with Walmart jobs, instead of just welfare, spend more? That's awesome!"

It's almost as if paying people enough to live on is a good thing! Who would have thought? But hold on to your monocle because here's the kicker – if Walmart pays a living wage, then not only do people spend more, but they also rely less on government subsidies, meaning taxpayers save money. It's an economic double whammy!

"$24K in Walmart salary certainly reduces the amount we have to pitch in."

Ah, but what if I told you – imagine this in Morpheus’ voice for dramatic effect – that if we pitch in a bit more now by ensuring fair wages, we’d have to pitch in a lot less later in public assistance? Mind-boggling, I know! People being able to sustain themselves without needing to constantly turn to welfare? It's like an economic plot twist that benefits literally everyone. Even the dividends might survive the ordeal!

Well, isn’t this delightful. However, there’s a difference – while you might go for an extra bottle of Pinot Noir,

Sam Adams.

the Walmart worker might finally be able to afford both heating and food. Slight difference in the crisis scale, wouldn’t you agree?

I agree, the quicker we boot the illegals, the more the American Walmart worker will earn & save.

It's almost as if paying people enough to live on is a good thing!

Boot enough illegals, Walmart will be forced to pay more. Stick it to those Waltons!

 

[TruthNotBS]

We're rich, we can afford it.
And think of all the good it will do for our poor citizens.
Higher incomes, lower rents, less CO2 emissions.
Save our poor AND the planet!

"We're rich, we can afford it. And think of all the good it will do for our poor citizens. Higher incomes, lower rents, less CO2 emissions. Save our poor AND the planet!"

To start, the assumption that mass deportation will lead to higher incomes and lower rents for the poor is as shaky as a house of cards in a tornado. When you remove millions of workers and consumers from the economy, you're also stripping away their economic contributions. They are not just workers; they're also consumers, renters, and taxpayers. Less demand could mean less business, which could lead to job losses and economic decline for everyone.

And about the CO2 emissions, let’s not pretend that deportation is the glorious knight coming to rescue the planet. I mean, if we want to get into environmental policies, we can have a ball discussing how certain business magnates and policies are playing Jenga with our ecosystem. But let’s not clutch onto the deportation cape like it's the green superhero we've been waiting for.

It's also a touch bewildering that in this vision of saving the poor, there’s money for a deportative extravaganza, but somehow raising the minimum wage is where the coffers dry up?

One must wonder, if we’re as rich as Croesus and as philanthropic as you portray, could not this treasure be wielded for education, infrastructure, health, and – brace yourself – aiding the living conditions of all Americans?

 

[TruthNotBS]

Well, isn’t this delightful. However, there’s a difference – while you might go for an extra bottle of Pinot Noir,

Sam Adams.

the Walmart worker might finally be able to afford both heating and food. Slight difference in the crisis scale, wouldn’t you agree?

I agree, the quicker we boot the illegals, the more the American Walmart worker will earn & save.

It's almost as if paying people enough to live on is a good thing!

Boot enough illegals, Walmart will be forced to pay more. Stick it to those Waltons!

"Sam Adams."

Ah, an American classic! Well, tip your Sam Adams to this: we’ve got a socio-economic puzzle on our hands, and plugging our ears and blaming immigrants ain’t solving it. It’s like trying to fix a leaky dam with a Band-Aid.

"I agree, the quicker we boot the illegals, the more the American Walmart worker will earn & save."

Ah, the simple solutions are always so beguiling, aren't they? Except the world has a pesky habit of being a tad more complicated. There’s a panoply of studies showing the positive impacts of immigration on economies. Immigrants – both legal and undocumented – have been found to be a net benefit to the economy. According to a report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, immigrants are “integral to the nation’s economic growth.”1

"Boot enough illegals, Walmart will be forced to pay more. Stick it to those Waltons!"

So, the master plan is to boot millions, twiddle thumbs, and hope that the Waltons feel the pinch and graciously open their coffers? It’s almost poetic in its idealism. But a little dig into history shows us that corporate generosity is as rare as hen's teeth.

Instead of setting up an Olympic-sized hurdle course for immigrants, maybe, just maybe, redirect that ardor towards policies that encourage fair wages and wealth distribution. The funny thing about money is, it doesn’t do much good hoarded in dragon-sized piles by a select few. Spreading it around a bit tends to make the whole village flourish.

I know it’s tempting to find a scapegoat and believe that removing it will magically restore balance, but economies are not bedtime stories with fairy godmothers. They are intricate, delicate machines where rash moves can have cascading consequences. So maybe, instead of booting folks, we focus on lacing up the policies that can actually move the needle towards a fairer society.

Just a thought to mull over with that Sam Adams.

1. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press ↩

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

"We're rich, we can afford it. And think of all the good it will do for our poor citizens. Higher incomes, lower rents, less CO2 emissions. Save our poor AND the planet!"

To start, the assumption that mass deportation will lead to higher incomes and lower rents for the poor is as shaky as a house of cards in a tornado. When you remove millions of workers and consumers from the economy, you're also stripping away their economic contributions. They are not just workers; they're also consumers, renters, and taxpayers. Less demand could mean less business, which could lead to job losses and economic decline for everyone.

And about the CO2 emissions, let’s not pretend that deportation is the glorious knight coming to rescue the planet. I mean, if we want to get into environmental policies, we can have a ball discussing how certain business magnates and policies are playing Jenga with our ecosystem. But let’s not clutch onto the deportation cape like it's the green superhero we've been waiting for.

It's also a touch bewildering that in this vision of saving the poor, there’s money for a deportative extravaganza, but somehow raising the minimum wage is where the coffers dry up?

One must wonder, if we’re as rich as Croesus and as philanthropic as you portray, could not this treasure be wielded for education, infrastructure, health, and – brace yourself – aiding the living conditions of all Americans?

To start, the assumption that mass deportation will lead to higher incomes and lower rents for the poor is as shaky as a house of cards in a tornado.

Poor unskilled illegals aren't competing for jobs and housing with poor Americans?
How do you figure?

And about the CO2 emissions, let’s not pretend that deportation is the glorious knight coming to rescue the planet.

Illegal aliens emit a lot more CO2 in the US than they did in their home country.
Why do you want to destroy the planet?

It's also a touch bewildering that in this vision of saving the poor, there’s money for a deportative extravaganza, but somehow raising the minimum wage is where the coffers dry up?

Deport 30 million illegal aliens, supply and demand will increase wages.
No government mandate needed.