|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
seonsengnimble
Joined: 02 Jun 2009
Location: taking a ride on the magic English bus
|
 Posted: Mon Apr 19, 2010 5:27 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| mises wrote: |
| Should I pay for the health care of some guy who I never met and who completely refuses to change his behavior? No. No thanks. That isn't fair. |
Adventurer and fox have pretty much covered all of my arguments, but I'll throw my hat into the ring regardless.
No, this is not fair. Paying anything because someone else was irresponsible is not fair.
Paying for someone who doesn't take care of his or herself is, in my opinion, considerably less unfair than dying because you can't afford treatment for a disease which was acquired through no fault of your own.
There are ways to address unhealthy lifestyles as well. If junk food, cigarette, alcohol and videogame use puts a burden on taxpayers, tax them. You want to join a gym and get into better shape? Allow this to be added as a deductible.
Yes, there will always be people who abuse social programs, but I'd much rather pay for these people than have others die because their insurance won't cover cancer.
As to the idea that everyone can eat, so poverty isn't that big of a deal, that's a pretty sad view to take in the 21st century. While most people can find something to eat, wouldn't you like a world where living at the subsistence level is not the only possible future for a significant portion of the population? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
geldedgoat
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 19, 2010 5:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Comprehensive immigration reform generates an increase in U.S. GDP of at least 0.84 percent. Summed over 10 years, this amounts to a cumulative $1.5 trillion in additional GDP. It also boosts wages for both native-born and newly legalized immigrant workers.
The temporary worker program generates an increase in U.S. GDP of 0.44 percent. This amounts to $792 billion of cumulative GDP over 10 years. Moreover, wages decline for both native-born and newly legalized immigrant workers.
Mass deportation reduces U.S. GDP by 1.46 percent. This amounts to $2.6 trillion in cumulative lost GDP over 10 years, not including the actual cost of deportation.2 Wages would rise for less-skilled native-born workers, but would diminish for higher-skilled natives, and would lead to widespread job loss. |
This makes less than good sense to me. Currently the only benefit to turning a blind eye to this mass immigration of illegal, unskilled, unintegrating workers is the exploitation of them as dirt-cheap day-laborers. If we allow them to legally become citizens, thus moving out of the legal limbo they currently enjoy, their wages will increase, yes. But what does that mean for everyone else? The cost of production for their employers will increase, the cost of the goods they produce will increase, and the average American consumer will end up paying more. Now add to that the loss of revenue from declining international sales of these goods as a result of the increased prices.
...And that's just one problem. Now consider the cost of employing additional immigration agents to handle the workload of naturalizing millions of people. And do you think these millions will all show up on their own to become part of a system that has treated them as a lower class for so long? I doubt it. The more likely scenario is we will have to spend more to track them down.
Also worth considering is where the wages paid to the immigrants end up. With our current unemployment rate of, what is it now, over 12%(?), we are not lacking the resource of an available workforce. And this legal pool of potentional workers mostly have family and friends living here. This means that the vast majority of the money they would spend would end up circulating within the American economy. This is not the case with illegal immigrants. Much of the money they spend ends up going back to families outside of America, meaning that money is bleeding out of our economy.
=====
Now, all that having been said, I don't think we should seriously consider deporting millions of people 'just because.' They definitely should be pulled out their legal limbo and either allowed to become citizens if they're productive and law-abiding or sent back home if they're not. I only question the numbers this study has produced because, again, I don't see how the process of naturalizing these millions would not be costly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zilong
Joined: 17 Apr 2010
Location: Broseidon's Lair
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 19, 2010 5:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| seonsengnimble wrote: |
Yes, there will always be people who abuse social programs, but I'd much rather pay for these people than have others die because their insurance won't cover cancer.
|
QFT. I think this is the long and short of it. In a perfect world, discussion would be over. This is why a rational humanistic society provides care. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Senior
Joined: 31 Jan 2010
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 19, 2010 5:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Zilong wrote: |
| seonsengnimble wrote: |
Yes, there will always be people who abuse social programs, but I'd much rather pay for these people than have others die because their insurance won't cover cancer.
|
QFT. I think this is the long and short of it. In a perfect world, discussion would be over. This is why a rational humanistic society provides care. |
How many people die without care now? People still die from lack of care in countries with socialised medicine. It's called a waiting list. And only the poor are on them because people, those who can afford it, buy private insurance. So, reality doesn't quite match your perfect world. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 19, 2010 6:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| Quote: |
Comprehensive immigration reform generates an increase in U.S. GDP of at least 0.84 percent. Summed over 10 years, this amounts to a cumulative $1.5 trillion in additional GDP. It also boosts wages for both native-born and newly legalized immigrant workers.
The temporary worker program generates an increase in U.S. GDP of 0.44 percent. This amounts to $792 billion of cumulative GDP over 10 years. Moreover, wages decline for both native-born and newly legalized immigrant workers.
Mass deportation reduces U.S. GDP by 1.46 percent. This amounts to $2.6 trillion in cumulative lost GDP over 10 years, not including the actual cost of deportation.2 Wages would rise for less-skilled native-born workers, but would diminish for higher-skilled natives, and would lead to widespread job loss. |
This makes less than good sense to me. Currently the only benefit to turning a blind eye to this mass immigration of illegal, unskilled, unintegrating workers is the exploitation of them as dirt-cheap day-laborers. If we allow them to legally become citizens, thus moving out of the legal limbo they currently enjoy, their wages will increase, yes. But what does that mean for everyone else? The cost of production for their employers will increase, the cost of the goods they produce will increase, and the average American consumer will end up paying more. Now add to that the loss of revenue from declining international sales of these goods as a result of the increased prices.
...And that's just one problem. Now consider the cost of employing additional immigration agents to handle the workload of naturalizing millions of people. And do you think these millions will all show up on their own to become part of a system that has treated them as a lower class for so long? I doubt it. The more likely scenario is we will have to spend more to track them down.
Also worth considering is where the wages paid to the immigrants end up. With our current unemployment rate of, what is it now, over 12%(?), we are not lacking the resource of an available workforce. And this legal pool of potentional workers mostly have family and friends living here. This means that the vast majority of the money they would spend would end up circulating within the American economy. This is not the case with illegal immigrants. Much of the money they spend ends up going back to families outside of America, meaning that money is bleeding out of our economy.
=====
Now, all that having been said, I don't think we should seriously consider deporting millions of people 'just because.' They definitely should be pulled out their legal limbo and either allowed to become citizens if they're productive and law-abiding or sent back home if they're not. I only question the numbers this study has produced because, again, I don't see how the process of naturalizing these millions would not be costly. |
These are some good points. I assume that the costs you list are meant to be offset by things like:
1) Money saved on immigration enforcement.
2) Tax revenue from newly legalized immigrant laborers.
3) Money spent in the economy by laborers who now actually have some money to spend on domestic products (which also adds more tax revenue due to sales tax).
But, you're right to question the specifics of the numbers, and I don't think that he's proven his case beyond a doubt. I'm not as skeptical of it as you are (since I think #1 and #2 alone can amount to a substantial revenue shift), but if I were a politician, I'd insist on far more detail before letting this inform my vote. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
geldedgoat
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 19, 2010 7:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
These are some good points. I assume that the costs you list are meant to be offset by things like:
1) Money saved on immigration enforcement.
2) Tax revenue from newly legalized immigrant laborers.
3) Money spent in the economy by laborers who now actually have some money to spend on domestic products (which also adds more tax revenue due to sales tax).
But, you're right to question the specifics of the numbers, and I don't think that he's proven his case beyond a doubt. I'm not as skeptical of it as you are (since I think #1 and #2 alone can amount to a substantial revenue shift), but if I were a politician, I'd insist on far more detail before letting this inform my vote. |
Those also seem a little questionable.
For #1: Immigration enforcement would still be necessary, wouldn't it? I mean, naturalizing the current illegal immigrants doesn't mean we should turn a blind-eye to our borders. And considering we have millions of illegal, undocumented people living in our country currently, I would say we probably need more immigration enforcement, not less.
For #2: How much (income) tax revenue can we expect from people living at or below the poverty line (which these workers undoubtedly do)?
For #3: I see your point here with the increase in revenue from sales tax, but I would think that the percentage of their income spent on goods and services here wouldn't increase much. They wouldn't forget about their families in their countries of origin, and I would expect them to send more money to them*.
*This might not happen, though. Perhaps they currently send enough to cover whatever costs their families incur. They also might be able to save enough to have their families move to the US with them, meaning all of that money would stop leaving our economy. But that would then probably be balanced by the increase tax-supported services dedicated to poverty-stricken individuals... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Happy Warrior
Joined: 10 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 19, 2010 8:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
US immigration policies favor immigrants with college degrees (or higher) for two reasons:
1) Its a perceived benefit for American universities
2) Degree-holding immigrants give back more in taxes over their lifetime than they exact; whereas this is not true for "working-class" immigrants |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 19, 2010 10:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| For #1: Immigration enforcement would still be necessary, wouldn't it? I mean, naturalizing the current illegal immigrants doesn't mean we should turn a blind-eye to our borders. And considering we have millions of illegal, undocumented people living in our country currently, I would say we probably need more immigration enforcement, not less. |
I don't think so. Give people an accessible path to be here legitimately and they're going to take it. People don't break the law for the Hell of it, after all.
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| For #2: How much (income) tax revenue can we expect from people living at or below the poverty line (which these workers undoubtedly do)? |
That's a complicated question, but I'd expect -- in an average year from a historic perspective -- the average immigrant laborer would pay relatively little Federal income tax, a varying amount of State income tax (depending on where they lived), pay into Social Security (while being less likely to benefit from it in the long run than an American citizen), pay more in sales tax than they do now (because their incomes are higher), be more likely to take advantage of U.S. based services than they are now (anything that required identification to sign up for is a potential ticket to deportation for an illegal, but for a legal worker, there's nothing stopping them from signing up), and so forth. I think all of this combined has the potential to be an asset rather than a loss to the U.S. government and economy. Whether it stands to be as much of an asset as the report claims, I'm unsure.
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| For #3: I see your point here with the increase in revenue from sales tax, but I would think that the percentage of their income spent on goods and services here wouldn't increase much. They wouldn't forget about their families in their countries of origin, and I would expect them to send more money to them*. |
I think we'd still see some money getting sent back to people in Mexico, but I also think we'd see more people bringing their families here, since it would be legal to do so. I also think being paid more money would result in them spending more of it in the States; people with more money to spend quickly find they have more things they want to buy. You address some of this in your "*" entry. I wanted to talk about this specifically:
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| But that would then probably be balanced by the increase tax-supported services dedicated to poverty-stricken individuals... |
What in particular did you have in mind? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 19, 2010 10:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
2) Degree-holding immigrants give back more in taxes over their lifetime than they exact; whereas this is not true for "working-class" immigrants |
This may be true, but we're forced to choose between actively mass-deporting illegal immigrants, allowing them to be here legally, or tacitly ignoring them and allowing them to exist as an underclass with little legal protection. Which of these leads to the best overall economic outcome is not an easy question. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Happy Warrior
Joined: 10 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 20, 2010 8:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
2) Degree-holding immigrants give back more in taxes over their lifetime than they exact; whereas this is not true for "working-class" immigrants |
This may be true, but we're forced to choose between actively mass-deporting illegal immigrants, allowing them to be here legally, or tacitly ignoring them and allowing them to exist as an underclass with little legal protection. Which of these leads to the best overall economic outcome is not an easy question. |
I'm pretty much for giving visas (read: amnesty) to those already present in the country. Once they come into the light there will be more policy options available to the U.S. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zilong
Joined: 17 Apr 2010
Location: Broseidon's Lair
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 20, 2010 9:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Whoever made the point about remittance is dead on. Obviously we can't stop people from physically bringing cash out, at least not with the border we have at the moment, but a cap on what you can send out would make sense. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Senior
Joined: 31 Jan 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 20, 2010 4:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Zilong wrote: |
| Whoever made the point about remittance is dead on. Obviously we can't stop people from physically bringing cash out, at least not with the border we have at the moment, but a cap on what you can send out would make sense. |
Because they wouldn't find another way of sending money to their poor families back home? Don't be absurd. Stupid ideas like this are what got us into this situation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zilong
Joined: 17 Apr 2010
Location: Broseidon's Lair
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 20, 2010 5:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Senior wrote: |
| Zilong wrote: |
| Whoever made the point about remittance is dead on. Obviously we can't stop people from physically bringing cash out, at least not with the border we have at the moment, but a cap on what you can send out would make sense. |
Because they wouldn't find another way of sending money to their poor families back home? Don't be absurd. Stupid ideas like this are what got us into this situation. |
Judging by the logical quality of your posts, you are not qualified to determined which ideas are stupid and which are not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Senior
Joined: 31 Jan 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 20, 2010 5:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Zilong wrote: |
| Senior wrote: |
| Zilong wrote: |
| Whoever made the point about remittance is dead on. Obviously we can't stop people from physically bringing cash out, at least not with the border we have at the moment, but a cap on what you can send out would make sense. |
Because they wouldn't find another way of sending money to their poor families back home? Don't be absurd. Stupid ideas like this are what got us into this situation. |
Judging by the logical quality of your posts, you are not qualified to determined which ideas are stupid and which are not. |
What is not logical about my posts? You might think I'm wrong, but there is nothing illogical about anything I have said, in any conversation I have had with you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 21, 2010 1:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Senior wrote: |
| Zilong wrote: |
| seonsengnimble wrote: |
Yes, there will always be people who abuse social programs, but I'd much rather pay for these people than have others die because their insurance won't cover cancer.
|
QFT. I think this is the long and short of it. In a perfect world, discussion would be over. This is why a rational humanistic society provides care. |
How many people die without care now? People still die from lack of care in countries with socialised medicine. It's called a waiting list. And only the poor are on them because people, those who can afford it, buy private insurance. So, reality doesn't quite match your perfect world. |
Rational humanistic society provides care in the form of charity. Charity is a free market concept. Socialized medicine is nothing more than the state robbing the public (thereby increasing poverty), wasting the money on bureaucracy (or in the corporatist US, handing it over to insurance companies), and throwing a few crumbs back to the people they've caused to become dependent on state assistance. It's a total sham. TANSTAAFL.
Charity is a very viable option for helping the poor get the care they need. The only problem is that with gov't intervention and wasteful spending comes inflation and increased taxes. People get squeezed and have a lot less money to give away willingly, since it's already been taken from them by force. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
