(10-24-2018 03:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-24-2018 02:24 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-24-2018 12:44 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(10-24-2018 10:50 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-24-2018 10:08 AM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  Making them legal seems like it would help.

In what way?

Seriously, how would that help?

Sorry - were you not implying that their undocumented status makes it more difficult to extract federal income taxes from them? If not, then it seems we're talking like a tax evasion problem, not an "illegals" problem.

Their undocumented status helps them avoid taxes, sure, but making them legal will not motivate them to stop avoiding taxes and start paying. Not one penny worth.

If you want a better life for your family, which will help your family more, paying more taxes or having more money to send home?

By that logic, we’d have a mass tax evasion problem in this country. But we don’t.

My guess is that legalizing illegal immigrants and bringing them into the light would result in them lying taxes. Same way that legalizing weed results in people buying it legally as opposed to continuing to use their dealer.

That would make sense -- except for the fact that every person who is born in the United States or emigrates here is issued a SSN. And 90 per cent of anything financial transacted has something sent back to the government in the form of a w2 or 1099 documenting that payment.

So, only by ignoring all those things in place would your logic hold.

As for the second portion, how would you magically encompass everyone that ran the Rio without a corresponding SSN?

The secret sauce is that *anyone* born here has to get a SSN (a magic tracking number) -- otherwise mom and pop cant use your 1 - 17 year old hunk of flesh as a tax deduction.

I guess Jose and Maria are going to say 'golly gee willikers, we need to give up 20 per cent of our pay and get tracked, when we can otherwise go under the radar and keep that 20 per cent or more'. Got it.

By the way, you *are* aware of the still serious rate of 'bootleg' pot in otherwise 'legal states', right? Kind of tracks 'bootleg' liquor and 'bootleg' cigs all over the place. Anytime there is a transaction cost in the form of a tax, it really does very little impact to streams of items that are the same yet lacking that transaction cost. Or do you think that the magic elixir of 'legalizing' and 'taxing' solves that problem and issue ipso facto?

(10-24-2018 03:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  My guess is that legalizing illegal immigrants and bringing them into the light would result in them lying taxes. Same way that legalizing weed results in people buying it legally as opposed to continuing to use their dealer.

The concepts are not exactly parallel. Proponents of "legalizing illegal immigrants" usually claim that it refers mainly to amnesty for those already here, not to removing limits on future immigration. "Legalizing marijuana", on the other hand, clearly refers to removing most limits on future use as well.

Do you advocate legalizing all future immigration?
If not:
- what restrictions should there be on future immigration?
- what penalties should be imposed for violating those restrictions? (obviously you can't have restrictions if you don't have penalties)
- once those future violations inevitably happen, what would be the rationale for not giving them the same amnesty that is currently advocated for past violations?

My impression is that the proponents of marijuana "legalization" are generally fairly honest about what types of regulations they would put in place -- e.g. excise taxes (that's a big one), age restrictions for buyers, licensing requirements for sellers, and fines for violating those rules. In contrast, the proponents of "legalizing illegal immigration" often seem to be deliberately dishonest about what limits they would put in place. That failure, more than anything, is why they have such a hard time achieving support.

(10-24-2018 03:56 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(10-24-2018 03:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  My guess is that legalizing illegal immigrants and bringing them into the light would result in them lying taxes. Same way that legalizing weed results in people buying it legally as opposed to continuing to use their dealer.

The concepts are not exactly parallel. Proponents of "legalizing illegal immigrants" usually claim that it refers mainly to amnesty for those already here, not to removing limits on future immigration. "Legalizing marijuana", on the other hand, clearly refers to removing most limits on future use as well.

Do you advocate legalizing all future immigration?
If not:
- what restrictions should there be on future immigration?
- what penalties should be imposed for violating those restrictions? (obviously you can't have restrictions if you don't have penalties)
- once those future violations inevitably happen, what would be the rationale for not giving them the same amnesty that is currently advocated for past violations?

My impression is that the proponents of marijuana "legalization" are generally fairly honest about what types of regulations they would put in place -- e.g. excise taxes (that's a big one), age restrictions for buyers, licensing requirements for sellers, and fines for violating those rules. In contrast, the proponents of "legalizing illegal immigration" often seem to be deliberately dishonest about what limits they would put in place. That failure, more than anything, is why they have such a hard time achieving support.

I’m only comparing the actions post-legalization. I don’t see any reason why someone granted amnesty would stay in the shadows the same way there’s no reason a person who smokes weed would stay in the shadows if it was legalized.

(10-24-2018 03:45 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-24-2018 03:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-24-2018 02:24 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-24-2018 12:44 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(10-24-2018 10:50 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  In what way?

Seriously, how would that help?

Sorry - were you not implying that their undocumented status makes it more difficult to extract federal income taxes from them? If not, then it seems we're talking like a tax evasion problem, not an "illegals" problem.

Their undocumented status helps them avoid taxes, sure, but making them legal will not motivate them to stop avoiding taxes and start paying. Not one penny worth.

If you want a better life for your family, which will help your family more, paying more taxes or having more money to send home?

By that logic, we’d have a mass tax evasion problem in this country. But we don’t.

My guess is that legalizing illegal immigrants and bringing them into the light would result in them lying taxes. Same way that legalizing weed results in people buying it legally as opposed to continuing to use their dealer.

That would make sense -- except for the fact that every person who is born in the United States or emigrates here is issued a SSN. And 90 per cent of anything financial transacted has something sent back to the government in the form of a w2 or 1099 documenting that payment.

So, only by ignoring all those things in place would your logic hold.

As for the second portion, how would you magically encompass everyone that ran the Rio without a corresponding SSN?

The secret sauce is that *anyone* born here has to get a SSN (a magic tracking number) -- otherwise mom and pop cant use your 1 - 17 year old hunk of flesh as a tax deduction.

I guess Jose and Maria are going to say 'golly gee willikers, we need to give up 20 per cent of our pay and get tracked, when we can otherwise go under the radar and keep that 20 per cent or more'. Got it.

By the way, you *are* aware of the still serious rate of 'bootleg' pot in otherwise 'legal states', right? Kind of tracks 'bootleg' liquor and 'bootleg' cigs all over the place. Anytime there is a transaction cost in the form of a tax, it really does very little impact to streams of items that are the same yet lacking that transaction cost. Or do you think that the magic elixir of 'legalizing' and 'taxing' solves that problem and issue ipso facto?

What sort of serious rate are we talking about? 40%? Or 5%? Serious doesn’t really give me a lot of information.

(10-24-2018 04:31 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-24-2018 03:56 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(10-24-2018 03:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  My guess is that legalizing illegal immigrants and bringing them into the light would result in them lying taxes. Same way that legalizing weed results in people buying it legally as opposed to continuing to use their dealer.

The concepts are not exactly parallel. Proponents of "legalizing illegal immigrants" usually claim that it refers mainly to amnesty for those already here, not to removing limits on future immigration. "Legalizing marijuana", on the other hand, clearly refers to removing most limits on future use as well.

Do you advocate legalizing all future immigration?
If not:
- what restrictions should there be on future immigration?
- what penalties should be imposed for violating those restrictions? (obviously you can't have restrictions if you don't have penalties)
- once those future violations inevitably happen, what would be the rationale for not giving them the same amnesty that is currently advocated for past violations?

My impression is that the proponents of marijuana "legalization" are generally fairly honest about what types of regulations they would put in place -- e.g. excise taxes (that's a big one), age restrictions for buyers, licensing requirements for sellers, and fines for violating those rules. In contrast, the proponents of "legalizing illegal immigration" often seem to be deliberately dishonest about what limits they would put in place. That failure, more than anything, is why they have such a hard time achieving support.

I’m only comparing the actions post-legalization. I don’t see any reason why someone granted amnesty would stay in the shadows the same way there’s no reason a person who smokes weed would stay in the shadows if it was legalized.

I think that's right. The difference is that with marijuana legalization, creating an expectation that future use will not be punished is explicitly the point, whereas with immigration, the intent of legalization proponents regarding future immigration is unclear, which makes the advocacy hard to assess.

It would seem that the policy options are, in general terms:
(a) No amnesty for past violators + strict enforcement going forward.
--> This is the policy that most of the world follows.

(b) No amnesty for past violators + lax enforcement going forward.
--> This has been the unique U.S. approach for the decades. It is the worst or second-worst possible policy.

© Amnesty for past violators + strict enforcement going forward; or

(d) Amnesty for past violators + lax enforcement going forward.

On the right:
- some folks advocate (a), which would be a departure for the U.S. but at least has the virtue of aligning well with the rest of the world.
- others (going back decades) advocate ©.

On the left:
- options (a) and (b) are explicitly rejected.
- option © is at least implicitly rejected.
- option (d), while not openly endorsed, does not seem to be met with any qualms.

What, then, should a reasonable person conclude that the left is advocating?

Legalizing them just means open borders. as soon as an alien sets foot in the US,he is here legally.

So what is the incentive for them to give 15-20% of their income to the US? what do they get for that Money? I don’t know how stupid you think they are,to give up all that cash for nothing.

(10-24-2018 04:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-24-2018 03:45 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-24-2018 03:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-24-2018 02:24 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-24-2018 12:44 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  Sorry - were you not implying that their undocumented status makes it more difficult to extract federal income taxes from them? If not, then it seems we're talking like a tax evasion problem, not an "illegals" problem.

Their undocumented status helps them avoid taxes, sure, but making them legal will not motivate them to stop avoiding taxes and start paying. Not one penny worth.

If you want a better life for your family, which will help your family more, paying more taxes or having more money to send home?

By that logic, we’d have a mass tax evasion problem in this country. But we don’t.

My guess is that legalizing illegal immigrants and bringing them into the light would result in them lying taxes. Same way that legalizing weed results in people buying it legally as opposed to continuing to use their dealer.

That would make sense -- except for the fact that every person who is born in the United States or emigrates here is issued a SSN. And 90 per cent of anything financial transacted has something sent back to the government in the form of a w2 or 1099 documenting that payment.

So, only by ignoring all those things in place would your logic hold.

As for the second portion, how would you magically encompass everyone that ran the Rio without a corresponding SSN?

The secret sauce is that *anyone* born here has to get a SSN (a magic tracking number) -- otherwise mom and pop cant use your 1 - 17 year old hunk of flesh as a tax deduction.

I guess Jose and Maria are going to say 'golly gee willikers, we need to give up 20 per cent of our pay and get tracked, when we can otherwise go under the radar and keep that 20 per cent or more'. Got it.

By the way, you *are* aware of the still serious rate of 'bootleg' pot in otherwise 'legal states', right? Kind of tracks 'bootleg' liquor and 'bootleg' cigs all over the place. Anytime there is a transaction cost in the form of a tax, it really does very little impact to streams of items that are the same yet lacking that transaction cost. Or do you think that the magic elixir of 'legalizing' and 'taxing' solves that problem and issue ipso facto?

What sort of serious rate are we talking about? 40%? Or 5%? Serious doesn’t really give me a lot of information.

Something far less than the close to 100 per cent you are seemingly gunning for.

Funny you should ask for objective numbers when your comment of

Quote:legalizing illegal immigrants and bringing them into the light would result in them lying taxes.

is also bereft of any objective number or guess at numbers in and of itself.

(10-24-2018 02:23 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-24-2018 12:44 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(10-24-2018 10:50 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-24-2018 10:08 AM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(10-23-2018 07:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Because when people talk about illegals not paying taxes, somebody always brings up the sales tax, or the rent thing, as if we are slandering them by saying they are not paying their taxes.

Lots of illegals pay no (federal income) taxes, even though they should. Just a fact of life. I don't blame them much - they came here to make money, not give it away.

Whatever solution we come to about illegal immigration, it will need to involve paying (federal income) taxes.

Making them legal seems like it would help.

In what way?

Seriously, how would that help?

Sorry - were you not implying that their undocumented status makes it more difficult to extract federal income taxes from them? If not, then it seems we're talking like a tax evasion problem, not an "illegals" problem.

Their undocumented status helps them avoid taxes, sure, but making them legal will not motivate them to stop avoiding taxes and start paying. Not one penny worth.

If you want a better life for your family, which will help your family more, paying more taxes or having more money to send home?

I don't even know where to start. Under this logic, you should have no problem with amnesty, since apparently nobody would ever want to give up the sweet life of abusive labor practices, constant threat of deportation, and a complete inability to participate in civic life if it means they have to pay some income taxes.

As to the other side of the coin, Tanq nailed it (no doubt inadvertently) by pointing out that it's a lot easier to track financial transactions when there's an SSN associated with them. So there's another benefit.

I mean, seriously.

(10-24-2018 08:32 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(10-24-2018 02:23 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-24-2018 12:44 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(10-24-2018 10:50 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-24-2018 10:08 AM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  Making them legal seems like it would help.

In what way?

Seriously, how would that help?

Sorry - were you not implying that their undocumented status makes it more difficult to extract federal income taxes from them? If not, then it seems we're talking like a tax evasion problem, not an "illegals" problem.

Their undocumented status helps them avoid taxes, sure, but making them legal will not motivate them to stop avoiding taxes and start paying. Not one penny worth.

If you want a better life for your family, which will help your family more, paying more taxes or having more money to send home?

I don't even know where to start. Under this logic, you should have no problem with amnesty, since apparently nobody would ever want to give up the sweet life of abusive labor practices, constant threat of deportation, and a complete inability to participate in civic life if it means they have to pay some income taxes.

As to the other side of the coin, Tanq nailed it (no doubt inadvertently) by pointing out that it's a lot easier to track financial transactions when there's an SSN associated with them. So there's another benefit.

I mean, seriously.

I see. Somehow, you think making it legal to come into the US without a visa or passport means they will apply for a SSN, so they can pay taxes. Now, THAT is logic.

Clearly, we are talking about two different things here.

You seem to think they will all come in an orderly fashion through customs, declaring their intentions to stay here and work here and pay taxes here, and wait quietly while they are given an SSN.

I think for an extra 20% in their take home pay, they will not. For an extra 20%, they will do what they have to do to avoid getting an SSN, even it if puts them at some tiny risk of being deported.

I asked you several posts ago how making them legal will make them pay taxes. Now would be a good time for you to give the details in how that would work.

I am not relying on just logic. I am relying on 70 years experience with legal and illegal immigrants, mostly from Mexico but some also from Central America. I have hired them, worked with them as an equal and as a boss, known them personally, gone to church with them, and even sold a house to one, owner financed.

Experience + logic tell me that making them legal will not make them pay taxes or apply for a SSN.

What is your experience with illegals? Now would be a good time for you to also give us the details on that.

(10-24-2018 08:32 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(10-24-2018 02:23 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-24-2018 12:44 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(10-24-2018 10:50 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-24-2018 10:08 AM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  Making them legal seems like it would help.

In what way?

Seriously, how would that help?

Sorry - were you not implying that their undocumented status makes it more difficult to extract federal income taxes from them? If not, then it seems we're talking like a tax evasion problem, not an "illegals" problem.

Their undocumented status helps them avoid taxes, sure, but making them legal will not motivate them to stop avoiding taxes and start paying. Not one penny worth.

If you want a better life for your family, which will help your family more, paying more taxes or having more money to send home?

I don't even know where to start. Under this logic, you should have no problem with amnesty, since apparently nobody would ever want to give up the sweet life of abusive labor practices, constant threat of deportation, and a complete inability to participate in civic life if it means they have to pay some income taxes.

As to the other side of the coin, Tanq nailed it (no doubt inadvertently) by pointing out that it's a lot easier to track financial transactions when there's an SSN associated with them. So there's another benefit.

I mean, seriously.

Well most legal people are forced into getting the SSN. Do you really think that illegals will stand in line for theirs? Seriously.

You would be absolutely correct *when* there is an associated SSN. Real big leap of faith there.

If you think that if magic-presto legality were conferred that pretty much all the illegal workers lined up to get their newly printed taxpayer IDs, I have real neat land I'd love to talk about selling to you....

I mean, on this subject, I am coming rapidly to the conclusion that no one on the side opposite here has any real-world experience in this subject matter. It's like it doesnt seem to sink in that people actually would take an extra 20 per cent in transactions.

Hells bells, if I didnt get 1099'ed from pretty much 100 per cent of my income, there is nothing to prevent me from claiming a poverty level income -- which if the mechanism didnt exist I just might do. Even more so if I didnt have the SSN hanging around my neck since birth. And yes, that SSN is monitored very rigorously for the presence of income and economic activity of some sort.

And, you would be absolutely astounded at the numbers of people who rent in certain parts of Austin that absolutely insist on paying rent either on a cash basis or with money orders --- an absolutely clear indication of a very high probability of the presence of illegal aliens. Cash is king. And cash also means 20 - 30 per cent more in the pocket for this segment of the population. I doubt *very* seriously any of them are going to be racing to the Fed office to get an SSN if declared copacetic.

(10-24-2018 11:14 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-24-2018 08:32 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(10-24-2018 02:23 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-24-2018 12:44 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(10-24-2018 10:50 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  In what way?

Seriously, how would that help?

Sorry - were you not implying that their undocumented status makes it more difficult to extract federal income taxes from them? If not, then it seems we're talking like a tax evasion problem, not an "illegals" problem.

Their undocumented status helps them avoid taxes, sure, but making them legal will not motivate them to stop avoiding taxes and start paying. Not one penny worth.

If you want a better life for your family, which will help your family more, paying more taxes or having more money to send home?

I don't even know where to start. Under this logic, you should have no problem with amnesty, since apparently nobody would ever want to give up the sweet life of abusive labor practices, constant threat of deportation, and a complete inability to participate in civic life if it means they have to pay some income taxes.

As to the other side of the coin, Tanq nailed it (no doubt inadvertently) by pointing out that it's a lot easier to track financial transactions when there's an SSN associated with them. So there's another benefit.

I mean, seriously.

Well most legal people are forced into getting the SSN. Do you really think that illegals will stand in line for theirs? Seriously.

You would be absolutely correct *when* there is an associated SSN. Real big leap of faith there.

If you think that if magic-presto legality were conferred that pretty much all the illegal workers lined up to get their newly printed taxpayer IDs, I have real neat land I'd love to talk about selling to you....

I mean, on this subject, I am coming rapidly to the conclusion that no one on the side opposite here has any real-world experience in this subject matter. It's like it doesnt seem to sink in that people actually would take an extra 20 per cent in transactions.

Hells bells, if I didnt get 1099'ed from pretty much 100 per cent of my income, there is nothing to prevent me from claiming a poverty level income -- which if the mechanism didnt exist I just might do. Even more so if I didnt have the SSN hanging around my neck since birth. And yes, that SSN is monitored very rigorously for the presence of income and economic activity of some sort.

And, you would be absolutely astounded at the numbers of people who rent in certain parts of Austin that absolutely insist on paying rent either on a cash basis or with money orders --- an absolutely clear indication of a very high probability of the presence of illegal aliens. Cash is king. And cash also means 20 - 30 per cent more in the pocket for this segment of the population. I doubt *very* seriously any of them are going to be racing to the Fed office to get an SSN if declared copacetic.

The man I sold the house to had no credit, since in his 16years in this country he had done all transactions in cash. He had no bank account, no credit card it cards. He made his down pay,ent and monthly payments in cash. I did not ask, but I doubt he ever filed a 1040.

(10-25-2018 02:50 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-24-2018 11:14 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-24-2018 08:32 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(10-24-2018 02:23 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-24-2018 12:44 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  Sorry - were you not implying that their undocumented status makes it more difficult to extract federal income taxes from them? If not, then it seems we're talking like a tax evasion problem, not an "illegals" problem.

Their undocumented status helps them avoid taxes, sure, but making them legal will not motivate them to stop avoiding taxes and start paying. Not one penny worth.

If you want a better life for your family, which will help your family more, paying more taxes or having more money to send home?

I don't even know where to start. Under this logic, you should have no problem with amnesty, since apparently nobody would ever want to give up the sweet life of abusive labor practices, constant threat of deportation, and a complete inability to participate in civic life if it means they have to pay some income taxes.

As to the other side of the coin, Tanq nailed it (no doubt inadvertently) by pointing out that it's a lot easier to track financial transactions when there's an SSN associated with them. So there's another benefit.

I mean, seriously.

Well most legal people are forced into getting the SSN. Do you really think that illegals will stand in line for theirs? Seriously.

You would be absolutely correct *when* there is an associated SSN. Real big leap of faith there.

If you think that if magic-presto legality were conferred that pretty much all the illegal workers lined up to get their newly printed taxpayer IDs, I have real neat land I'd love to talk about selling to you....

I mean, on this subject, I am coming rapidly to the conclusion that no one on the side opposite here has any real-world experience in this subject matter. It's like it doesnt seem to sink in that people actually would take an extra 20 per cent in transactions.

Hells bells, if I didnt get 1099'ed from pretty much 100 per cent of my income, there is nothing to prevent me from claiming a poverty level income -- which if the mechanism didnt exist I just might do. Even more so if I didnt have the SSN hanging around my neck since birth. And yes, that SSN is monitored very rigorously for the presence of income and economic activity of some sort.

And, you would be absolutely astounded at the numbers of people who rent in certain parts of Austin that absolutely insist on paying rent either on a cash basis or with money orders --- an absolutely clear indication of a very high probability of the presence of illegal aliens. Cash is king. And cash also means 20 - 30 per cent more in the pocket for this segment of the population. I doubt *very* seriously any of them are going to be racing to the Fed office to get an SSN if declared copacetic.

The man I sold the house to had no credit, since in his 16years in this country he had done all transactions in cash. He had no bank account, no credit card it cards. He made his down pay,ent and monthly payments in cash. I did not ask, but I doubt he ever filed a 1040.

I'm absolutely sure he would race right out to get that SSN and the immediate 25 per cent slice off the top if he was made legal. /sarcasm off.

(10-24-2018 11:14 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-24-2018 08:32 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(10-24-2018 02:23 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-24-2018 12:44 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(10-24-2018 10:50 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  In what way?

Seriously, how would that help?

Sorry - were you not implying that their undocumented status makes it more difficult to extract federal income taxes from them? If not, then it seems we're talking like a tax evasion problem, not an "illegals" problem.

Their undocumented status helps them avoid taxes, sure, but making them legal will not motivate them to stop avoiding taxes and start paying. Not one penny worth.

If you want a better life for your family, which will help your family more, paying more taxes or having more money to send home?

I don't even know where to start. Under this logic, you should have no problem with amnesty, since apparently nobody would ever want to give up the sweet life of abusive labor practices, constant threat of deportation, and a complete inability to participate in civic life if it means they have to pay some income taxes.

As to the other side of the coin, Tanq nailed it (no doubt inadvertently) by pointing out that it's a lot easier to track financial transactions when there's an SSN associated with them. So there's another benefit.

I mean, seriously.

Well most legal people are forced into getting the SSN. Do you really think that illegals will stand in line for theirs? Seriously.

Well, the whole point of granting amnesty would be to make illegals become legal. That process would include giving them a SSN. If they did not register as a legal resident, then they wouldn't get a SSN, and would still be illegal immigrants, always at risk for being deported.

It's not like the granting of amnesty isn't without some form of documentation/tracking...

(10-25-2018 03:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-24-2018 11:14 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-24-2018 08:32 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(10-24-2018 02:23 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-24-2018 12:44 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  Sorry - were you not implying that their undocumented status makes it more difficult to extract federal income taxes from them? If not, then it seems we're talking like a tax evasion problem, not an "illegals" problem.

Their undocumented status helps them avoid taxes, sure, but making them legal will not motivate them to stop avoiding taxes and start paying. Not one penny worth.

If you want a better life for your family, which will help your family more, paying more taxes or having more money to send home?

I don't even know where to start. Under this logic, you should have no problem with amnesty, since apparently nobody would ever want to give up the sweet life of abusive labor practices, constant threat of deportation, and a complete inability to participate in civic life if it means they have to pay some income taxes.

As to the other side of the coin, Tanq nailed it (no doubt inadvertently) by pointing out that it's a lot easier to track financial transactions when there's an SSN associated with them. So there's another benefit.

I mean, seriously.

Well most legal people are forced into getting the SSN. Do you really think that illegals will stand in line for theirs? Seriously.

Well, the whole point of granting amnesty would be to make illegals become legal. That process would include giving them a SSN. If they did not register as a legal resident, then they wouldn't get a SSN, and would still be illegal immigrants, always at risk for being deported.

It's not like the granting of amnesty isn't without some form of documentation/tracking...

So if we grant amnesty to burglars, they will start declaring their loot as income?

There’s more to it than just waving a magic wand and saying “you are legal now”.

So if they don’t register, what is different from now?

And what are the rewards for registering? What do the taxes they would pay as a legal alien get them that they don’t get now? Free driver’s licenses? Free medical care. sanctuary?

Yep. You proved it to me. 50 some odd years of experience shown to be wrong. 100% of illegals will give up 20 per cent of their take to get that badge. Got it.

Sorry Lad, this is just pretty much laughable. It is so utterly divorced from reality to be.... well.... laughable. Sorry.

Just to be fair: how many illegals have *you* had that conversation with? Can you count them on one hand?

Honestly, going back to a lot of pro bono work and the clinics in law school, I have had that conversation. More than once. Probably more than a hundred or so times. I can count on the fingers of one (maybe two) hand(s) the answer that you seemingly think is the real world.

The overhead of the taxation system and the tying of individuals by tracking those finances is an overhead that the vast, vast majority of undocumented workers will not trade. No ifs, ands, or buts on that.

Dont get me wrong -- I am not chastising it. Just a statement of what 'is' without any moralism or political point being impugned here.

If you dont believe me, volunteer to do something like CASA work and be in position (actually almost a requirement) to actually ask that question outside the walls of a posting board and theory. The answers you get might surprise you.

(10-25-2018 03:36 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Yep. You proved it to me. 50 some odd years of experience shown to be wrong. 100% of illegals will give up 20 per cent of their take to get that badge. Got it.

Sorry Lad, this is just pretty much laughable. It is so utterly divorced from reality to be.... well.... laughable. Sorry.

Just to be fair: how many illegals have *you* had that conversation with? Can you count them on one hand?

Honestly, going back to a lot of pro bono work and the clinics in law school, I have had that conversation. More than once. Probably more than a hundred or so times. I can count on the fingers of one (maybe two) hand(s) the answer that you seemingly think is the real world.

The overhead of the taxation system and the tying of individuals by tracking those finances is an overhead that the vast, vast majority of undocumented workers will not trade. No ifs, ands, or buts on that.

Dont get me wrong -- I am not chastising it. Just a statement of what 'is' without any moralism or political point being impugned here.

If you dont believe me, volunteer to do something like CASA work and be in position (actually almost a requirement) to actually ask that question outside the walls of a posting board and theory. The answers you get might surprise you.

Where were you and OO when all of these misguided DACA registrants were signing up? Didn't they know how awesome life would be if they continued to just remain in the shadows? What about the 4.6 million people a year who file tax returns despite not having an SSN? Obviously they don't appreciate how good they have it. Why don't you guys get out there and spread the gospel?

(10-25-2018 04:10 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(10-25-2018 03:36 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Yep. You proved it to me. 50 some odd years of experience shown to be wrong. 100% of illegals will give up 20 per cent of their take to get that badge. Got it.

Sorry Lad, this is just pretty much laughable. It is so utterly divorced from reality to be.... well.... laughable. Sorry.

Just to be fair: how many illegals have *you* had that conversation with? Can you count them on one hand?

Honestly, going back to a lot of pro bono work and the clinics in law school, I have had that conversation. More than once. Probably more than a hundred or so times. I can count on the fingers of one (maybe two) hand(s) the answer that you seemingly think is the real world.

The overhead of the taxation system and the tying of individuals by tracking those finances is an overhead that the vast, vast majority of undocumented workers will not trade. No ifs, ands, or buts on that.

Dont get me wrong -- I am not chastising it. Just a statement of what 'is' without any moralism or political point being impugned here.

If you dont believe me, volunteer to do something like CASA work and be in position (actually almost a requirement) to actually ask that question outside the walls of a posting board and theory. The answers you get might surprise you.

Where were you and OO when all of these misguided DACA registrants were signing up? Didn't they know how awesome life would be if they continued to just remain in the shadows? What about the 4.6 million people a year who file tax returns despite not having an SSN? Obviously they don't appreciate how good they have it. Why don't you guys get out there and spread the gospel?

How many undocumented workers have *you* bothered to interact with on this? Should be a pretty simple question to answer there OONH. You dodged it once before. Funny that.

By the way, nice use of 'misguided' in your snarkfest. I dont have a dog in the fight on what the individuals I interact do or how they do it. And, I made it fairly plain and stark that I simply don't judge on that issue. As I told this board, if I didnt have the yoke of 1099's and a SSN I damn well know what I would do..... and I cannot fault anyone in that situation for that. Pure economics. But I am sure you missed that.

But the numbers are the numbers..... what do you want me to do about that? Go back and try and change their minds for them (for you)?

Sorry you dont like the answer given. Not my fault. It is *their* answers. How should I atone to you for that?

To be equally snarky, I can send you a pretty long list of people you should spread that gospel to as well. Should I try to reconnect with them to get permission to reveal their names to you? Perhaps you can be "Johnny Social Security Seed".

(10-25-2018 04:30 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-25-2018 04:10 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(10-25-2018 03:36 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Yep. You proved it to me. 50 some odd years of experience shown to be wrong. 100% of illegals will give up 20 per cent of their take to get that badge. Got it.

Sorry Lad, this is just pretty much laughable. It is so utterly divorced from reality to be.... well.... laughable. Sorry.

Just to be fair: how many illegals have *you* had that conversation with? Can you count them on one hand?

Honestly, going back to a lot of pro bono work and the clinics in law school, I have had that conversation. More than once. Probably more than a hundred or so times. I can count on the fingers of one (maybe two) hand(s) the answer that you seemingly think is the real world.

The overhead of the taxation system and the tying of individuals by tracking those finances is an overhead that the vast, vast majority of undocumented workers will not trade. No ifs, ands, or buts on that.

Dont get me wrong -- I am not chastising it. Just a statement of what 'is' without any moralism or political point being impugned here.

If you dont believe me, volunteer to do something like CASA work and be in position (actually almost a requirement) to actually ask that question outside the walls of a posting board and theory. The answers you get might surprise you.

Where were you and OO when all of these misguided DACA registrants were signing up? Didn't they know how awesome life would be if they continued to just remain in the shadows? What about the 4.6 million people a year who file tax returns despite not having an SSN? Obviously they don't appreciate how good they have it. Why don't you guys get out there and spread the gospel?

How many undocumented workers have *you* bothered to interact with on this? Should be a pretty simple question to answer there OONH. You dodged it once before. Funny that.

By the way, nice use of 'misguided' in your snarkfest. I dont have a dog in the fight on what the individuals I interact do or how they do it. And, I made it fairly plain and stark that I simply don't judge on that issue. As I told this board, if I didnt have the yoke of 1099's and a SSN I damn well know what I would do..... and I cannot fault anyone in that situation for that. Pure economics. But I am sure you missed that.

But the numbers are the numbers..... what do you want me to do about that? Go back and try and change their minds for them (for you)?

Sorry you dont like the answer given. Not my fault. It is *their* answers. How should I atone to you for that?

To be equally snarky, I can send you a pretty long list of people you should spread that gospel to as well. Should I try to reconnect with them to get permission to reveal their names to you? Perhaps you can be "Johnny Social Security Seed".

I’m confused, you’re provided evidence of people willingly coming forward to gain legal status (and thus be tied to a SSN and eventually federal taxation) and millions of people paying taxes without having a SSN, and your response is asking for anecdotal evidence and seemingly putting your head in the sand?

I think what he wants you to do is admit that, perhaps, there’s more evidence that people out there that would be willing to pay federal income taxes in the exchange for legal status.

(10-25-2018 08:16 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-25-2018 04:30 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-25-2018 04:10 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(10-25-2018 03:36 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Yep. You proved it to me. 50 some odd years of experience shown to be wrong. 100% of illegals will give up 20 per cent of their take to get that badge. Got it.

Sorry Lad, this is just pretty much laughable. It is so utterly divorced from reality to be.... well.... laughable. Sorry.

Just to be fair: how many illegals have *you* had that conversation with? Can you count them on one hand?

Honestly, going back to a lot of pro bono work and the clinics in law school, I have had that conversation. More than once. Probably more than a hundred or so times. I can count on the fingers of one (maybe two) hand(s) the answer that you seemingly think is the real world.

The overhead of the taxation system and the tying of individuals by tracking those finances is an overhead that the vast, vast majority of undocumented workers will not trade. No ifs, ands, or buts on that.

Dont get me wrong -- I am not chastising it. Just a statement of what 'is' without any moralism or political point being impugned here.

If you dont believe me, volunteer to do something like CASA work and be in position (actually almost a requirement) to actually ask that question outside the walls of a posting board and theory. The answers you get might surprise you.

Where were you and OO when all of these misguided DACA registrants were signing up? Didn't they know how awesome life would be if they continued to just remain in the shadows? What about the 4.6 million people a year who file tax returns despite not having an SSN? Obviously they don't appreciate how good they have it. Why don't you guys get out there and spread the gospel?

How many undocumented workers have *you* bothered to interact with on this? Should be a pretty simple question to answer there OONH. You dodged it once before. Funny that.

By the way, nice use of 'misguided' in your snarkfest. I dont have a dog in the fight on what the individuals I interact do or how they do it. And, I made it fairly plain and stark that I simply don't judge on that issue. As I told this board, if I didnt have the yoke of 1099's and a SSN I damn well know what I would do..... and I cannot fault anyone in that situation for that. Pure economics. But I am sure you missed that.

But the numbers are the numbers..... what do you want me to do about that? Go back and try and change their minds for them (for you)?

Sorry you dont like the answer given. Not my fault. It is *their* answers. How should I atone to you for that?

To be equally snarky, I can send you a pretty long list of people you should spread that gospel to as well. Should I try to reconnect with them to get permission to reveal their names to you? Perhaps you can be "Johnny Social Security Seed".

I’m confused, you’re provided evidence of people willingly coming forward to gain legal status (and thus be tied to a SSN and eventually federal taxation) and millions of people paying taxes without having a SSN, and your response is asking for anecdotal evidence and seemingly putting your head in the sand?

I think what he wants you to do is admit that, perhaps, there’s more evidence that people out there that would be willing to pay federal income taxes in the exchange for legal status.

Evidence? DO you all even know what an ITIN is or what it is used for? Geezus krist..... Let's actually go back to 'real world' school for you all.

Quote:4.6 million people who file a tax form who cant get a SSN

Do you all actually think that this number is a proxy for undocumented illegals? First, any foreign investor who gets any portion of of any financial transaction from a US based investment has to have one. Simply because they do not meet the requirements for a SSN number.

That means every member of every LLC and every member of every pass through partnership who is a foreign national needs an ITIN. Every single individual.

Further, any foreign individual who owns any publicly traded security in the United States needs one of these numbers. Every one of them.

And on top of that, every foreign national who has any bank account in the United States needs one of these numbers. Every single one of them.

And on top of *that*, every foreign national that has a trading account based in the US needs one of these. Every single one of them.

And on top of that, every foreign national that is a member of partnership, an LLC, or has an interest in a hedge fund that is based even in part in the United States needs one of these numbers. Every. Single. One. Of. Them.

How many of those people exist there? I'd say conservatively 3-4 million. I know of some VC firms that have to track upwards of 10-20k of these at a *single* fund.

Next on the list are the people who come into the United States as dependents of H1 and F1 visas. When you have the dependent visa, when you have or sign on a bank account, you need a ITIN. They are not eligible for SSNs, but require the ITIN for reporting purposes for bank accounts. Seems to me that I know a metric ton of H1 and/or F1 visa holders whose spouses were with them. How many F1 and H1 visa holders are there, and how many spouses apply for an ITIN for a bank account? If you are using the ITIN number as evidence to say what you want it to say, I am absolutely sure it is zero. Further, many F1, F2, and F3 visa holders themselves require an ITIN for bank accounts.

By the way you two, participation in the above isnt voluntary.

So sorry the pamphlet on ITIN in no way, shape or form means 4.6 million undocumented workers. Not even fing close. You two seemingly forget there are way more reasons for paying taxes without a SSN than undocumented workers -- expressly *why* the ITIN was set up.

So the question is, how many of those 4.6 million are 'legitimate' (i.e. investor types, visa dependents, F-visa holders, etc.)? OONH? Lad? Bueller? Class? I mean that 4.6 million looks scary but it really doesnt mean much of anything when you actually know what it is describing. But since you all brought it up/defend it as 'evidence', why dont you give us *your* expert opinion on it now that we all know what that number is measuring.

As for anecdotal evidence, I guess you suggest I 'stick my head in the sand' on my own experiences, right? Since you are basically saying I am showing 'ignorance' on this (btw -- go fk yourself for that comment), I guess it is far less 'ignorant' to 'ignore' the literally hundreds of real world events that I have seen first hand. Got it.

Literally, are you telling me to ignore and forget everything that has happened? (and by the way, one or two is 'anecdotal', a hundred plus is just a fing tad more, mind you, but you know that....)

To be blunt your comment again steers into the world of not really experiencing the world. You tell me to forget the literally hundred+ actual incidents, all while essentially telling me I'm ignorant. Sounds pretty hypocritical to me. And on top of it you use and/or back a 4.6 million number that has pretty much 'highly attenuated' (diplomatically) real world tie when you actually stop and examine the item for what it actually is.

And, the next time you two want to use the numbers of ITINs as a proxy number for undocumented workers, I suggest you two actually learn what the HELL the thingy is you are using or defending as 'evidence.'

And Lad, tell me, what do I make of the 95+ per cent of the over hundred cases that I have first hand knowledge of? I mean, you are the expert on telling when other people are 'sticking their head in the sand' apparently.....

Seriously, I am posing the exact same question I posed to OONH: tell me how that number is so large and so lopsided since I am so obviously incorrect. Pure conundrum there for me, to be honest....

One answer it that it is the weirdest singular run of incidents in the entire world, which also begs the question 'why the *hell* didnt I buy a powerball ticket a couple of days ago'.

Btw there sure might be pieces of evidence out there. ITINs sure as hell isnt one of them.

(10-25-2018 04:10 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(10-25-2018 03:36 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Yep. You proved it to me. 50 some odd years of experience shown to be wrong. 100% of illegals will give up 20 per cent of their take to get that badge. Got it.

Sorry Lad, this is just pretty much laughable. It is so utterly divorced from reality to be.... well.... laughable. Sorry.

Just to be fair: how many illegals have *you* had that conversation with? Can you count them on one hand?

Honestly, going back to a lot of pro bono work and the clinics in law school, I have had that conversation. More than once. Probably more than a hundred or so times. I can count on the fingers of one (maybe two) hand(s) the answer that you seemingly think is the real world.

The overhead of the taxation system and the tying of individuals by tracking those finances is an overhead that the vast, vast majority of undocumented workers will not trade. No ifs, ands, or buts on that.

Dont get me wrong -- I am not chastising it. Just a statement of what 'is' without any moralism or political point being impugned here.

If you dont believe me, volunteer to do something like CASA work and be in position (actually almost a requirement) to actually ask that question outside the walls of a posting board and theory. The answers you get might surprise you.

Where were you and OO when all of these misguided DACA registrants were signing up? Didn't they know how awesome life would be if they continued to just remain in the shadows? What about the 4.6 million people a year who file tax returns despite not having an SSN? Obviously they don't appreciate how good they have it. Why don't you guys get out there and spread the gospel?

Well, kids who came here as tykes and and have lived here all their lives, educated here, and bilingual, are a far cry from the third grade dropouts who only speak Spanish, many of whom intend to return to their homes at some future point.

Keep it apples to apples.

How many DACA kids are in that caravan heading north? ZERO.