Pug wrote:
jonsimon wrote:
Unemployment checks are not forever, anyone who experiences long-standing frictional or structural unemployment, or does not fit the requirements of unemployment because they are just entering, or re-entering the workforce are excluded. It's not just about ability.
Qualifications to be a Walmart greeter? Qualifications to lift a shovel? Qualifications to answer a phone?
If you don't have a HS degree, anyone with one will beat you out. It's about competition, not lacking skills.
Pug wrote:
PS. "Frictional unemployment" = unemployment between jobs, "structural unemployment" = shortages of talent in a certain category. Frictional is temporary and not permanent by definition. And structural means someone has to find a new skill/job category because their expertise is no longer in demand. I understand the terms but they are not relevant. Because...
Structural and frictional employment also include differences in geographical location. If the entire west coast of the country consists of poor, but highly qualified, Engineers, and the entire east coast consists of industrial headquarters in desperate need of designers, structural and frictional unemployment exist. They are relevant because:
Pug wrote:
Unemployment checks do run out, because they force people to find work instead of living off of what they have saved. It's supposed to be temporary. That is how it is designed to work - go get a job. Can't find work in your field? Change fields. Can't take that paycut? Move to a smaller house. Having trouble making ends meet? Well you work and get supplement welfare payments. No jobs where you live? Move. All this is already in the system. It boils down to whether you believe people have the right to earn money without providing any service back for it. A safety net = no service is required.
The poor cannot move. It takes money to move to the east coast, and the engineers cannot make money because there is no gaurenteed income or a sufficient minimum wage. Their skills are wasted and the west coast experiences a drastic surplus of unskilled labor while the east coast sees a shortage of skilled labor.
Pug wrote:
jonsimon wrote:
Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're trying to say, but what I understood was that the person you know passed up a job for unemployment. If so, he is not eligible for unemployment, because he is not actively seeking work.
Yes. The guy I know was getting DISABILITY checks...not unemployment. Different set of rules, but its an example of how easy it is to exploit a flaw in the system. If you earn more than a certain amount during the year, then the gov't will stop paying disability checks. It a state/employer paid benefit here. So, the $15k he would earn would cost him about $5k because he'd end up paying taxes...because disability payments are non-taxable but the $15k in income is. Stupid loophole right? But that's how it works...not relevant to our discussion though. I'm just not a big fan of employing more people to "police" flawed government programs.
jonsimon wrote:
It's silly to debate or speculate upon the hypothetical costs of policing the hypothetical implementation of a proposal without first agreeing on the necessity, plausibility, and possibility of taking action. There are simply too many what ifs and hypotheticals.
Yet you have no problem proposing these ideas without considering the results of what you're proposing.
When faced with an actual example you are unable to argue anything but "well its only a hypothetical". You're entire argument proposal is hypothetical. And I guess there are absolutely no drawbacks to this idea, only benefits...right?
I was merely pointing out the futility of arguing details when speaking in generalities.
Pug wrote:
jonsimon wrote:
The US economy also never had to deal with two world wars of heavy destruction, nor did it have to rebuild all it's industry. We've had an advantage over Europe for now, but as the oil dollar slips our economy is as well. Meanwhile, Europe has been growing in strength.
The war was like 60 years ago. Absolutely relevant. I guess Europe was in a rebuilding year in 2005?
And I guess that if oil gets more expensive Europe won't be affected?
Complete destruction changes a nation, let alone a continent. Yes, starting from scratch 60 years ago will still show up today, considering the centuries of development that existed beforehand.
And when I said the oil dollar, I wasn't referring to prices. Currently oil can only be exchanged in USD cash. Should this policy end, the Euro would be the next runner up for acceptance, and when all of Europe doesn't have to invest in the USD anymore to purchase oil, well, you can imagine what a blow to our currency that will be.
Pug wrote:
True Europe has been growing...but you know what? Europe is like 25 nations that have about equal GDP output of the US (by the way GDP includes the deduct for military spending and debt amongst other things). What's wrong with having ONE country have about the same GDP as 25? OOOOO...we might drop on the economy leaderboard from extremely high GDP to an almost extremely high GDP? It's wrist slitting time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co … age_of_GDPUS = 27%
Sweden = 51%
Norway = 45%
UK = 37%
Sure, they're getting a lot...would it work here? Isn't you're argument that we can't afford what we're up to? How come our tax rates are lower, and standard of living is roughly the same?
jonsimon wrote:
As for immigration, it's good for America. A stronger workforce and increased tax revenues are important for America as a nation. The opinion that illegal immigrants are not taxpayers is a myth. They pay sales and payroll taxes and those with fake SS numbers DO pay income taxes, because it is witheld by the employer. The truth is illegal immigrants are forced by circumstance to pay the majority of taxes, and collect none of the benefits, such as tax returns or refunds and social welfare programs like unemployment. The only reason they are here is because inflation and exchange rates in their home country justify the costs. Immigrants are the future of our nation and our social security, they could fund gaurenteed salary without being elligible.
Wow...you were doing pretty good until this one. Here are the flaws in this paragraph...you should read up on some of this:
1) Illegal immigrants do not pay payroll taxes. If an employer has a green card employee, then yes, they are required to withhold payroll taxes. However, a green card employee is a
legal immigrant, or someone who has applied to become a naturalized citizen is under the same rules. The definition of an
illegal immigrant is someone who does not have a green card and is not in the application process.
They are paid cash, do not report their wages to the gov't, nor does the company so it doesn't pay either. If the wages aren't reported, there's no tax. It doesn't increase payroll tax revenues.
Wrong. Any firm whose policy requires a SS and any immigrant who works with a fake SS are going to be reported, and taxes taken from their pay.
Pug wrote:
2) Another note on green card workers - they are required to be paid minimum wage by law. Ever notice you always see stories about minimum wage versus illegal immigration cropping up? It's because you can pay illegals below minimum wage...raising the minimum wage limit = a larger gap between $0 to the minimum....
And? Raising the minimum wage reduces quantity demand for labor to begin with, so the immigrants will only be picking up jobs we couldn't have worked anyway.
Pug wrote:
3) Illegals are not required to file a tax return because they haven't signed up for a green card, and the government doesn't know they exist.
Exactly, so they can't recieve any refunds.
Pug wrote:
4) Sales tax collections will not increase. More illegals come into a region to work jobs. People who already are working those jobs are displaced because a cheaper workforce comes in. New jobs aren't created in this process. Therefore the population in the region remains the same...except they are paid less so less money is spent in the local shops = less sales tax.
lol what flawed logic. More illegals come to a place to work, thus, there are more people there. Thus, more people must purchase goods. Thus, more sales taxes are collected. Where you get this whole "new jobs aren't created, thus there are no more people living there!" idea is beyond me.
Pug wrote:
5) LEGAL immigrants are a good way to increase the tax base. Illegals do not fund social security because they are not paying anything but sales tax on what they buy.
6) They are here working illegally because companies are willing to pay them below minimum wage, and are willing to incur the light fine they get when they are caught. Since the wage is higher here than where they are...if $3.50 an hour is worth it...then they're here.
Right, they're willing to pay them below minimum wage. So they're taking jobs that legal citizens could not take even if they wanted to. Wheres the damage in that? Are you saying we should remove the minimum wage to solve our immigration problem (which it would, for the most part) despite the depression it would cause?
Pug wrote:
7) "They don't get any of the refunds". Do you know what a tax refund is? Its a refund of the money you
already have paid the government. In other words, you gave the government your money...they held it for a while until you filed your tax return...and then paid it back without interest. That is not a benefit...it's called getting your money back and you need to change your withholding on your paychecks...which by the way are not given to illegals because they are paid in cash. Don't believe me?
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1040.pdf See line 73. If the amount your total payments are more than the tax you owe, this is the amount you overpaid...aka your refund.
Exactly, so any taxes illegal immigrants pay cannot be refunded. So the government concedes fewer tax dollars. In other words, the IRS gets to fuck them over should they overpay because there's nothing an illegal immigrant can do about it.
