Why does the left believe a corporate tax break "steals" money from the taxpayers?

[AntonToo]

antonoo, perhaps now you will understand this analogy I posted on the forum a long time ago to explain how tax expenditures are theft:

If a feudal lord had 20 serfs under him, and his annual expenditures came to $1000, he would have to tax each serf $50.

If he then took $200 of this money and returned it to 5 of his favorite serfs, he would have $800 left. Not enough to cover his $1000 in expenses. And so he needs to tax everyone an additional $10 to balance his books. In short, he would have to raise the tax rates by 20 percent on everyone to come out even and to give the $200 gift to his five favorites.

This is the system we have today.

Those 5 inner circle serfs tell themselves, "Woo hoo! I get to keep more of my money! Yay!", completely oblivious to the fact everyone is paying higher tax rates because of them, including themselves.

Instead of paying $50 in taxes, everyone is paying $60 in taxes.

Bad for the economy. And wealth begins to concentrate up to the favored five.

I dont think serfs would necessarily have a problem with that if those 200 dollars went to help serfs with children to feed.

Your story insinuates some sort of injustice based on personal favors, but that not how taxation works - it's not personal, it's based on what we as a society value. We want to reduce the burdens of having children and owning your own home and we do that by lowering the taxes on such households and yes increasing tax rate on everyone.

That isn't theft.

 

[g5000]

antonoo, perhaps now you will understand this analogy I posted on the forum a long time ago to explain how tax expenditures are theft:

If a feudal lord had 20 serfs under him, and his annual expenditures came to $1000, he would have to tax each serf $50.

If he then took $200 of this money and returned it to 5 of his favorite serfs, he would have $800 left. Not enough to cover his $1000 in expenses. And so he needs to tax everyone an additional $10 to balance his books. In short, he would have to raise the tax rates by 20 percent on everyone to come out even and to give the $200 gift to his five favorites.

This is the system we have today.

Those 5 inner circle serfs tell themselves, "Woo hoo! I get to keep more of my money! Yay!", completely oblivious to the fact everyone is paying higher tax rates because of them, including themselves.

Instead of paying $50 in taxes, everyone is paying $60 in taxes.

Bad for the economy. And wealth begins to concentrate up to the favored five.

I dont think serfs wouldn't necessarily have a problem with that is those 200 dollars went to help serfs with children to feed.

That's the same argument made to defend food stamps! But you don't hear the whiners who defend tax expenditure theft agreeing to it. They demand we CUT welfare.

Besides, most tax expenditures benefit the wealthy.

Theft is theft is theft.

 

[AntonToo]

antonoo, perhaps now you will understand this analogy I posted on the forum a long time ago to explain how tax expenditures are theft:

If a feudal lord had 20 serfs under him, and his annual expenditures came to $1000, he would have to tax each serf $50.

If he then took $200 of this money and returned it to 5 of his favorite serfs, he would have $800 left. Not enough to cover his $1000 in expenses. And so he needs to tax everyone an additional $10 to balance his books. In short, he would have to raise the tax rates by 20 percent on everyone to come out even and to give the $200 gift to his five favorites.

This is the system we have today.

Those 5 inner circle serfs tell themselves, "Woo hoo! I get to keep more of my money! Yay!", completely oblivious to the fact everyone is paying higher tax rates because of them, including themselves.

Instead of paying $50 in taxes, everyone is paying $60 in taxes.

Bad for the economy. And wealth begins to concentrate up to the favored five.

I dont think serfs wouldn't necessarily have a problem with that is those 200 dollars went to help serfs with children to feed.

That's the same argument made to defend food stamps! But you don't hear the whiners who defend tax expenditure theft agreeing to it. They demand we CUT welfare.

Besides, most tax expenditures benefit the wealthy.

Theft is theft is theft.

You are barking up the wrong tree - I completely agree, that same argument justifies food stamps.

We should help people get minimal sustenance financed with public tax revenues.

 

[Dragonlady]

To repeat myself:

The MID results in higher tax rates. But it does even more damage than that. It actually causes home prices to increase.

Well duh - ANY write-off is offset with general rate increase, but as a mortgage payer it does make owning a house more affordable for me.

More affordable real estate increases demand ok, but only by a small fraction of the benefit to me from MIT.

We get no MID in Canada for our homeowners mortgage interest. But we pay no capital gains tax on the appreciation in the value of our homes when we sell them. This applies to our principle residences only. If you own multiple properties, you have to designate one as your principle residence.

Young people can make serious tax free money by buying and renovating a house, living in it for one year (required for principle residence designation), and flipping it. Since the mortgage is paid for in "after tax" dollars, the appreciation on the property is tax free.

Property appreciation values are greater than the value of the tax savings. Americans get a tax break on mortgage interest but pay capital gains on the property appreciation when they sell.

Once again, Americans are picking up the peanuts while being trampled by the elephants.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Of course they should, otherwise you have a political party who constantly keeps the poor, poor, but gives them FREE STUFF, so they will have to be enslaved to that very government that keeps them poor. Liberalism is all about equality, everyone will be equally poor and equally miserable, that is called FAIRNESS.

Unlike the other party which lowers taxes on the rich and cuts social benefits for the poor? Why do the poor even vote red instead of blue.

Why do poor keep voting for the party that keeps them poor? FREE STUFF and lack of education, that is why they vote Dumbocrat.

Typical liberal voter....

lol. to try to get better benefits for the poor instead of simply giving tax breaks for the rich at the expense of the poor.

Got an example of a tax break that hurts the poor?

Tax cuts reduce revenues, increase deficits and down the line makes more likely spending cuts on programs that help the poor like food stamps, Medicaid and etc.

Tax cuts reduce revenues, increase deficits and down the line makes more likely spending cuts on programs that help the poor like food stamps, Medicaid and etc.

So in other words, keep the fucking poor , poor. Keep them enslaved to the government so those poor vote Democrap. Yep, liberal are all about equality, when everyone is equally poor and miserable, the liberals have succeeded in FAIRNESS.

 

[depotoo]

Seriously?? The less you tax a corporation the more ends up in the economy as well. IF you don't stifle them with overbearing regulations, and red tape.

How many times have you heard "Corporate tax breaks are being subsidized by the tax-paying public" or "The tax payers are having to foot the bill for a private company"?

Those are ignorant statements. A tax break given to a corporation isn't existing money the government has already collected from taxpayers, it's some of the money those corporations have earned on their own. Money which they don't have to pay to the government. They earned it, and they own it.

That would be equivalent to saying that the general public has some right to a corporation's earnings which anyone can tell you, is socialism.

Every dollar a corporation doesn't pay in taxes has to be paid by someone else,

all else being equal.

Notice how the dipshit, talks about taxes in, but never reduction of the FAILED government agencies? I just showed a video of illegal anchors scamming billions from US tax payers ( #5 ), but hey, those evil corps need to pay more. Why? So those future illegal Democrat voters will vote Democrat. Just cant get more stupid than a liberal.

The topic is taxes, retard.

If you are too stupid not to know how to avoid paying taxes, then you deserve to pay all those taxes you pay to the government. It isn't my fault but yours and your failed ideologue that DEMANDS that everyone be equally poor and equally miserable. That is why liberal tax people to death. Dumbass....

To collect a hundred dollars in revenue:

You tax the individual, the corporation. If you give the corporation a tax break, you have to increase taxes on the individual in order to get the same hundred in revenue,

or you have to run a deficit.

Get it?

 

[Dragonlady]

antonoo, perhaps now you will understand this analogy I posted on the forum a long time ago to explain how tax expenditures are theft:

If a feudal lord had 20 serfs under him, and his annual expenditures came to $1000, he would have to tax each serf $50.

If he then took $200 of this money and returned it to 5 of his favorite serfs, he would have $800 left. Not enough to cover his $1000 in expenses. And so he needs to tax everyone an additional $10 to balance his books. In short, he would have to raise the tax rates by 20 percent on everyone to come out even and to give the $200 gift to his five favorites.

This is the system we have today.

Those 5 inner circle serfs tell themselves, "Woo hoo! I get to keep more of my money! Yay!", completely oblivious to the fact everyone is paying higher tax rates because of them, including themselves.

Instead of paying $50 in taxes, everyone is paying $60 in taxes.

Bad for the economy. And wealth begins to concentrate up to the favored five.

I dont think serfs wouldn't necessarily have a problem with that is those 200 dollars went to help serfs with children to feed.

That's the same argument made to defend food stamps! But you don't hear the whiners who defend tax expenditure theft agreeing to it. They demand we CUT welfare.

Besides, most tax expenditures benefit the wealthy.

Theft is theft is theft.

You are barking up the wrong tree - I completely agree, that same argument justifies food stamps.

We should help people get minimal sustenance financed with public tax revenues.

WRONG. You should be ensuring that every corporation is paying sufficient wages that they don't qualify for food stamps. No one who works a 40 hour week should be receiving government assistance. Corporations whose wages are below that level, should not be getting tax cuts unless and until NONE of their workers are receiving means tested government assistance.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

antonoo, perhaps now you will understand this analogy I posted on the forum a long time ago to explain how tax expenditures are theft:

If a feudal lord had 20 serfs under him, and his annual expenditures came to $1000, he would have to tax each serf $50.

If he then took $200 of this money and returned it to 5 of his favorite serfs, he would have $800 left. Not enough to cover his $1000 in expenses. And so he needs to tax everyone an additional $10 to balance his books. In short, he would have to raise the tax rates by 20 percent on everyone to come out even and to give the $200 gift to his five favorites.

This is the system we have today.

Those 5 inner circle serfs tell themselves, "Woo hoo! I get to keep more of my money! Yay!", completely oblivious to the fact everyone is paying higher tax rates because of them, including themselves.

Instead of paying $50 in taxes, everyone is paying $60 in taxes.

Bad for the economy. And wealth begins to concentrate up to the favored five.

I dont think serfs wouldn't necessarily have a problem with that is those 200 dollars went to help serfs with children to feed.

That's the same argument made to defend food stamps! But you don't hear the whiners who defend tax expenditure theft agreeing to it. They demand we CUT welfare.

Besides, most tax expenditures benefit the wealthy.

Theft is theft is theft.

You are barking up the wrong tree - I completely agree, that same argument justifies food stamps.

We should help people get minimal sustenance financed with public tax revenues.

WRONG. You should be ensuring that every corporation is paying sufficient wages that they don't qualify for food stamps. No one who works a 40 hour week should be receiving government assistance. Corporations whose wages are below that level, should not be getting tax cuts unless and until NONE of their workers are receiving means tested government assistance.

So someone who is a burger flipper at McDonalds, should get how much money? The same as a Hollywood actor, or liberal elite like Warren Buffet?

 

[Brain357]

antonoo, perhaps now you will understand this analogy I posted on the forum a long time ago to explain how tax expenditures are theft:

If a feudal lord had 20 serfs under him, and his annual expenditures came to $1000, he would have to tax each serf $50.

If he then took $200 of this money and returned it to 5 of his favorite serfs, he would have $800 left. Not enough to cover his $1000 in expenses. And so he needs to tax everyone an additional $10 to balance his books. In short, he would have to raise the tax rates by 20 percent on everyone to come out even and to give the $200 gift to his five favorites.

This is the system we have today.

Those 5 inner circle serfs tell themselves, "Woo hoo! I get to keep more of my money! Yay!", completely oblivious to the fact everyone is paying higher tax rates because of them, including themselves.

Instead of paying $50 in taxes, everyone is paying $60 in taxes.

Bad for the economy. And wealth begins to concentrate up to the favored five.

I dont think serfs wouldn't necessarily have a problem with that is those 200 dollars went to help serfs with children to feed.

That's the same argument made to defend food stamps! But you don't hear the whiners who defend tax expenditure theft agreeing to it. They demand we CUT welfare.

Besides, most tax expenditures benefit the wealthy.

Theft is theft is theft.

You are barking up the wrong tree - I completely agree, that same argument justifies food stamps.

We should help people get minimal sustenance financed with public tax revenues.

WRONG. You should be ensuring that every corporation is paying sufficient wages that they don't qualify for food stamps. No one who works a 40 hour week should be receiving government assistance. Corporations whose wages are below that level, should not be getting tax cuts unless and until NONE of their workers are receiving means tested government assistance.

So someone who is a burger flipper at McDonalds, should get how much money? The same as a Hollywood actor, or liberal elite like Warren Buffet?

Enough they don't need assistance. Until that happens, welfare will keep growing.

 

[Dragonlady]

antonoo, perhaps now you will understand this analogy I posted on the forum a long time ago to explain how tax expenditures are theft:

If a feudal lord had 20 serfs under him, and his annual expenditures came to $1000, he would have to tax each serf $50.

If he then took $200 of this money and returned it to 5 of his favorite serfs, he would have $800 left. Not enough to cover his $1000 in expenses. And so he needs to tax everyone an additional $10 to balance his books. In short, he would have to raise the tax rates by 20 percent on everyone to come out even and to give the $200 gift to his five favorites.

This is the system we have today.

Those 5 inner circle serfs tell themselves, "Woo hoo! I get to keep more of my money! Yay!", completely oblivious to the fact everyone is paying higher tax rates because of them, including themselves.

Instead of paying $50 in taxes, everyone is paying $60 in taxes.

Bad for the economy. And wealth begins to concentrate up to the favored five.

I dont think serfs wouldn't necessarily have a problem with that is those 200 dollars went to help serfs with children to feed.

That's the same argument made to defend food stamps! But you don't hear the whiners who defend tax expenditure theft agreeing to it. They demand we CUT welfare.

Besides, most tax expenditures benefit the wealthy.

Theft is theft is theft.

You are barking up the wrong tree - I completely agree, that same argument justifies food stamps.

We should help people get minimal sustenance financed with public tax revenues.

WRONG. You should be ensuring that every corporation is paying sufficient wages that they don't qualify for food stamps. No one who works a 40 hour week should be receiving government assistance. Corporations whose wages are below that level, should not be getting tax cuts unless and until NONE of their workers are receiving means tested government assistance.

So someone who is a burger flipper at McDonalds, should get how much money? The same as a Hollywood actor, or liberal elite like Warren Buffet?

Why are conservatives deliberately stupid? No one is asking that low wage employees be given executive level wages. But they shouldn't qualify for government assistance either. McDonalds executives should be paid 8 figure salaries while the government gives food stamp money to the workers making their burgers.

And before you talk about store owners having to absorb those costs, remember that store owners are paying head office franchise fees, advertising fees, and redecorating their stores when head office says to do it - buying new store fixtures from head office. McDonalds head office makes all of the money and is one of America's most profitable corporations.

Why do you think that instead of paying 50 cents more for a burger at McDonalds that it is better for you to pay income taxes, a portion of which is used pay a government worker to process an application for food stamps, conduct a means test, issue an ED card, send money to the state the worker lives in where another government worker sends money to the ED card? Wouldn't it be cheaper to tell McDonalds to pay their workers an additional $130 a month (average food stamp payment) and eliminate those all those administration costs?

Furthermore, since McDonalds can claim the additional wages as an expense, thereby decreasing their profits and hence their taxable income, that raise will only cost them $84.50 (assuming a 35% tax rate), while reducing the size of government by the number of workers it takes to process applications and pay food stamps to eligible working Americans.

Call it "personal responsibility, the corporate version". Instead of government sudsidizing the wages of corporate employees, tell corporations to pay their own damn workers.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Booting illegal aliens won't raise the wages of workers? Why not?

You are booting the people who make the very least, trying to get water from a rock. There will be no noticeable change in wages. Immigrants are just the new scapegoat. It used to be Unions, now that they are gone it is immigrants. Remember when Republicans talked about how bad Unions were and how good it would be without them? Where is that prosperity? The rich get richer, inequality grows, and the economy slows. We need a strong middle class again, not more inequality.

You are booting the people who make the very least, trying to get water from a rock.

Nope, I'm trying to raise the wages of Americans.

Remember when Republicans talked about how bad Unions were

Yes, unions suck. Big time.

and how good it would be without them?

Yes, now if we could only outlaw public worker unions......

Well there is no money with the immigrants to raise wages. They make about nothing.

So there is no prosperity with the Unions pretty much gone. Go figure. And wages are stagnant...

Well there is no money with the immigrants to raise wages.

No money with the immigrants? Can you translate that into English?

They make about nothing.

It's true, they drag down the wages of Americans they compete with.

So there is no prosperity with the Unions pretty much gone.

Americans are making more than ever.

You are making the worst paying jobs available. That will not do anything to increase the wages of decent paying jobs. At best it will very slightly increase wages for other very poorly paying jobs.

Wages are stagnant. The prosperity claims after getting rid of unions were false like your claims for immigrants. Just scapegoats. Want to increase wages? Go to the money!

You are making the worst paying jobs available.

Millions of jobs. Removing millions of workers has no impact on the supply of workers? Are you sure?

That will not do anything to increase the wages of decent paying jobs.

Removing millions of illegal aliens will not raise the wages of computer programmers. So what?

At best it will very slightly increase wages for other very poorly paying jobs

Excellent! Git 'er done!!!

Wages are stagnant.

Especially at the low end, eh?

The prosperity claims after getting rid of unions were false

What prosperity claims? Kill the unions, because they're evil.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Of course they should, otherwise you have a political party who constantly keeps the poor, poor, but gives them FREE STUFF, so they will have to be enslaved to that very government that keeps them poor. Liberalism is all about equality, everyone will be equally poor and equally miserable, that is called FAIRNESS.

Unlike the other party which lowers taxes on the rich and cuts social benefits for the poor? Why do the poor even vote red instead of blue.

Why do poor keep voting for the party that keeps them poor? FREE STUFF and lack of education, that is why they vote Dumbocrat.

Typical liberal voter....

lol. to try to get better benefits for the poor instead of simply giving tax breaks for the rich at the expense of the poor.

Got an example of a tax break that hurts the poor?

A tax break that assists companies moving overseas.

There is no tax break for moving overseas.

 

[Dragonlady]

Unlike the other party which lowers taxes on the rich and cuts social benefits for the poor? Why do the poor even vote red instead of blue.

Why do poor keep voting for the party that keeps them poor? FREE STUFF and lack of education, that is why they vote Dumbocrat.

Typical liberal voter....

lol. to try to get better benefits for the poor instead of simply giving tax breaks for the rich at the expense of the poor.

Got an example of a tax break that hurts the poor?

A tax break that assists companies moving overseas.

There is no tax break for moving overseas.

Yes there is. The company gets deductions for shipping equipment overseas, for sending employees over to train the workers, and every trip they make to the offshore manufacturer to negotiate the deal, check on their manufacturing site and every phone call they make, as well as the costs of shipping the raw materials to the manufacturer and the finished goods to the customers.

W's changes to the tax code are credited with encouraging employers to offshore.

 

[g5000]

Seriously?? The less you tax a corporation ...

...the more you have to tax someone else.

It's that simple.

Theft is theft is theft.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why do poor keep voting for the party that keeps them poor? FREE STUFF and lack of education, that is why they vote Dumbocrat.

Typical liberal voter....

lol. to try to get better benefits for the poor instead of simply giving tax breaks for the rich at the expense of the poor.

Got an example of a tax break that hurts the poor?

A tax break that assists companies moving overseas.

There is no tax break for moving overseas.

Yes there is. The company gets deductions for shipping equipment overseas, for sending employees over to train the workers, and every trip they make to the offshore manufacturer to negotiate the deal, check on their manufacturing site and every phone call they make, as well as the costs of shipping the raw materials to the manufacturer and the finished goods to the customers.

W's changes to the tax code are credited with encouraging employers to offshore.

The company gets deductions for shipping equipment overseas

Excellent! Because that other claim is just moronic.
If IBM sends a new piece of equipment to their London plant, they get to deduct that shipping expense.
Just like they get to deduct all their legitimate business expenses.

W's changes to the tax code are credited with encouraging employers to offshore

Sounds awful! Any backup? Or is this just something you heard?

 

[Brain357]

You are booting the people who make the very least, trying to get water from a rock. There will be no noticeable change in wages. Immigrants are just the new scapegoat. It used to be Unions, now that they are gone it is immigrants. Remember when Republicans talked about how bad Unions were and how good it would be without them? Where is that prosperity? The rich get richer, inequality grows, and the economy slows. We need a strong middle class again, not more inequality.

You are booting the people who make the very least, trying to get water from a rock.

Nope, I'm trying to raise the wages of Americans.

Remember when Republicans talked about how bad Unions were

Yes, unions suck. Big time.

and how good it would be without them?

Yes, now if we could only outlaw public worker unions......

Well there is no money with the immigrants to raise wages. They make about nothing.

So there is no prosperity with the Unions pretty much gone. Go figure. And wages are stagnant...

Well there is no money with the immigrants to raise wages.

No money with the immigrants? Can you translate that into English?

They make about nothing.

It's true, they drag down the wages of Americans they compete with.

So there is no prosperity with the Unions pretty much gone.

Americans are making more than ever.

You are making the worst paying jobs available. That will not do anything to increase the wages of decent paying jobs. At best it will very slightly increase wages for other very poorly paying jobs.

Wages are stagnant. The prosperity claims after getting rid of unions were false like your claims for immigrants. Just scapegoats. Want to increase wages? Go to the money!

You are making the worst paying jobs available.

Millions of jobs. Removing millions of workers has no impact on the supply of workers? Are you sure?

That will not do anything to increase the wages of decent paying jobs.

Removing millions of illegal aliens will not raise the wages of computer programmers. So what?

At best it will very slightly increase wages for other very poorly paying jobs

Excellent! Git 'er done!!!

Wages are stagnant.

Especially at the low end, eh?

The prosperity claims after getting rid of unions were false

What prosperity claims? Kill the unions, because they're evil.

Yes I am sure.

Immigration Doesn't Hurt Native Jobs or Wages: Report

Who will be your next scapegoat?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You are booting the people who make the very least, trying to get water from a rock.

Nope, I'm trying to raise the wages of Americans.

Remember when Republicans talked about how bad Unions were

Yes, unions suck. Big time.

and how good it would be without them?

Yes, now if we could only outlaw public worker unions......

Well there is no money with the immigrants to raise wages. They make about nothing.

So there is no prosperity with the Unions pretty much gone. Go figure. And wages are stagnant...

Well there is no money with the immigrants to raise wages.

No money with the immigrants? Can you translate that into English?

They make about nothing.

It's true, they drag down the wages of Americans they compete with.

So there is no prosperity with the Unions pretty much gone.

Americans are making more than ever.

You are making the worst paying jobs available. That will not do anything to increase the wages of decent paying jobs. At best it will very slightly increase wages for other very poorly paying jobs.

Wages are stagnant. The prosperity claims after getting rid of unions were false like your claims for immigrants. Just scapegoats. Want to increase wages? Go to the money!

You are making the worst paying jobs available.

Millions of jobs. Removing millions of workers has no impact on the supply of workers? Are you sure?

That will not do anything to increase the wages of decent paying jobs.

Removing millions of illegal aliens will not raise the wages of computer programmers. So what?

At best it will very slightly increase wages for other very poorly paying jobs

Excellent! Git 'er done!!!

Wages are stagnant.

Especially at the low end, eh?

The prosperity claims after getting rid of unions were false

What prosperity claims? Kill the unions, because they're evil.

Yes I am sure.

Immigration Doesn't Hurt Native Jobs or Wages: Report

Who will be your next scapegoat?

You should ask some American roofers how all the illegals impacted their wages.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Deductions, exemptions, and credits mean higher tax rates on EVERYONE.

I can't dumb it down any more than that for you, retards.

Your deductions, exemptions, and credits are coming out of the pockets of EVERY TAXPAYER.

YOU are the one who is stealing.

And just as I predicted, you are screaming like welfare queens to protect your theft. And just as I predicted, you are too fucking innumerate to see that you are a thief.

/----/ besides business expenses and home mortgages what deductions are you yapping about?

 

[g5000]

Deductions, exemptions, and credits mean higher tax rates on EVERYONE.

I can't dumb it down any more than that for you, retards.

Your deductions, exemptions, and credits are coming out of the pockets of EVERY TAXPAYER.

YOU are the one who is stealing.

And just as I predicted, you are screaming like welfare queens to protect your theft. And just as I predicted, you are too fucking innumerate to see that you are a thief.

/----/ besides business expenses and home mortgages what deductions are you yapping about?

All of them. They cost $1.4 trillion a year.

And those "business expense" tax expenditures are in no way evenly or fairly distributed. The whole process is completely corrupt.

 

[Brain357]

Well there is no money with the immigrants to raise wages. They make about nothing.

So there is no prosperity with the Unions pretty much gone. Go figure. And wages are stagnant...

Well there is no money with the immigrants to raise wages.

No money with the immigrants? Can you translate that into English?

They make about nothing.

It's true, they drag down the wages of Americans they compete with.

So there is no prosperity with the Unions pretty much gone.

Americans are making more than ever.

You are making the worst paying jobs available. That will not do anything to increase the wages of decent paying jobs. At best it will very slightly increase wages for other very poorly paying jobs.

Wages are stagnant. The prosperity claims after getting rid of unions were false like your claims for immigrants. Just scapegoats. Want to increase wages? Go to the money!

You are making the worst paying jobs available.

Millions of jobs. Removing millions of workers has no impact on the supply of workers? Are you sure?

That will not do anything to increase the wages of decent paying jobs.

Removing millions of illegal aliens will not raise the wages of computer programmers. So what?

At best it will very slightly increase wages for other very poorly paying jobs

Excellent! Git 'er done!!!

Wages are stagnant.

Especially at the low end, eh?

The prosperity claims after getting rid of unions were false

What prosperity claims? Kill the unions, because they're evil.

Yes I am sure.

Immigration Doesn't Hurt Native Jobs or Wages: Report

Who will be your next scapegoat?

You should ask some American roofers how all the illegals impacted their wages.

You have some stats on that?