- This topic has 420 replies, 28 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 10 months ago by
CDMA ENG.
-
AuthorPosts
-
January 20, 2010 at 8:15 AM #504609January 20, 2010 at 9:43 AM #503757
Anonymous
GuestHere’s another viewpoint on a household that, coincidentally, makes $52,000 per year:
The article definitely has it’s bias, but it makes a good point especially in the context of this thread. Joe should be more concerned with the taxes that the wealthy are not paying than the taxes that Jose is not paying.
Of course the wealthy want Joe to focus only on Jose. (Does Jose own Fox news, or is it someone else?)
January 20, 2010 at 9:43 AM #503903GuestHere’s another viewpoint on a household that, coincidentally, makes $52,000 per year:
The article definitely has it’s bias, but it makes a good point especially in the context of this thread. Joe should be more concerned with the taxes that the wealthy are not paying than the taxes that Jose is not paying.
Of course the wealthy want Joe to focus only on Jose. (Does Jose own Fox news, or is it someone else?)
January 20, 2010 at 9:43 AM #504299GuestHere’s another viewpoint on a household that, coincidentally, makes $52,000 per year:
The article definitely has it’s bias, but it makes a good point especially in the context of this thread. Joe should be more concerned with the taxes that the wealthy are not paying than the taxes that Jose is not paying.
Of course the wealthy want Joe to focus only on Jose. (Does Jose own Fox news, or is it someone else?)
January 20, 2010 at 9:43 AM #504390GuestHere’s another viewpoint on a household that, coincidentally, makes $52,000 per year:
The article definitely has it’s bias, but it makes a good point especially in the context of this thread. Joe should be more concerned with the taxes that the wealthy are not paying than the taxes that Jose is not paying.
Of course the wealthy want Joe to focus only on Jose. (Does Jose own Fox news, or is it someone else?)
January 20, 2010 at 9:43 AM #504639GuestHere’s another viewpoint on a household that, coincidentally, makes $52,000 per year:
The article definitely has it’s bias, but it makes a good point especially in the context of this thread. Joe should be more concerned with the taxes that the wealthy are not paying than the taxes that Jose is not paying.
Of course the wealthy want Joe to focus only on Jose. (Does Jose own Fox news, or is it someone else?)
January 20, 2010 at 10:09 AM #503767ucodegen
ParticipantOn the first point, no, it wasn’t your point. It was mine. You started out claiming it was just the 6.2%, not 7.65%. If we’re comparing how much money Joe and Jose have to live on, the employer’s share is incidental.
Actually it was mine.. take a look at the statements where I said it was to ‘each’ in response to the person claiming only 4% tax. True, I initially left out the 1.45%. That was because I was checking what it was for. As for the employers amount being incidental, its a yes and no. It is part of what drives employers to hire and illegal at the same wage as a legal. Employers can actually hire an illegal and pay 7.65% more and come out even compared to a citizen.
No need to even address the rest of your long debunked racist screed. But please answer me this. Do you really think that Jose’s 8 year old son really deserves less of an education than Joe’s son simply because of where his parents were born?
When logic fails, resort to name calling (ie racist screed). If you really knew me, you would know that this comment is so far off that it is laughable.
As for the issues of education, YES! I don’t like it but I do understand that when a culture is allowed to ‘offload’ its costs onto another.. it will. The support of Jose’s son potentially denies money to someone who took the legal path. The funds are finite. One of my parents was a teacher in the LA City School District. She saw the costs of this activity and the resulting problems. If Jose was legal, he would be paying income tax which would be, in part, covering the costs for schooling. To me, it is not an issue of race. It is an issue of illegal vs legal. In the last amnesty w/ respect to citizen, many illegals didn’t petition to become citizens for a simple monetary reason. If they were a citizen; they would have to pay income taxes(illegals just get deported, a citizen would have to pay back taxes on undeclared income), it would be easier to track them if they skipped on a loan, it would be harder to skip on judgment(its hard enough to extradite a non Mexican citizen from Mexico. Imagine how hard it is to extradite a Mexican from Mexico).. besides, they are already getting many services for free. Why add costs and risks by becoming a citizen?My personal belief is that there should be some form of ‘work visa’, with adjustments to taxes (ie. no social security taxes, but possibly a reduced Medicaid tax). I also think that the citizen by birth location needs to be removed. It creates too much of a problem with Anchor babies (sometimes the mother returns back to Mexico with the baby, and is able to draw on US welfare in support of her new dual citizen child – both Mexican because parents are, and U.S. by birth location). I have seen the opposite side of the US birth policy. The nightmare that comes from children of US citizens born abroad (read military and military contractors). Trying to get them cert. as a US citizen is a real pain (DNA tests sometimes required). This doesn’t even cover issues like ability to be President and whether they can hold a clearance.
Why take the effort on getting your country back under the control of the citizens when all you have to do is go north? The Mexican government is exporting its problems north instead of dealing with them, and their citizens are heading north instead of dealing with their government.
January 20, 2010 at 10:09 AM #503913ParticipantOn the first point, no, it wasn’t your point. It was mine. You started out claiming it was just the 6.2%, not 7.65%. If we’re comparing how much money Joe and Jose have to live on, the employer’s share is incidental.
Actually it was mine.. take a look at the statements where I said it was to ‘each’ in response to the person claiming only 4% tax. True, I initially left out the 1.45%. That was because I was checking what it was for. As for the employers amount being incidental, its a yes and no. It is part of what drives employers to hire and illegal at the same wage as a legal. Employers can actually hire an illegal and pay 7.65% more and come out even compared to a citizen.
No need to even address the rest of your long debunked racist screed. But please answer me this. Do you really think that Jose’s 8 year old son really deserves less of an education than Joe’s son simply because of where his parents were born?
When logic fails, resort to name calling (ie racist screed). If you really knew me, you would know that this comment is so far off that it is laughable.
As for the issues of education, YES! I don’t like it but I do understand that when a culture is allowed to ‘offload’ its costs onto another.. it will. The support of Jose’s son potentially denies money to someone who took the legal path. The funds are finite. One of my parents was a teacher in the LA City School District. She saw the costs of this activity and the resulting problems. If Jose was legal, he would be paying income tax which would be, in part, covering the costs for schooling. To me, it is not an issue of race. It is an issue of illegal vs legal. In the last amnesty w/ respect to citizen, many illegals didn’t petition to become citizens for a simple monetary reason. If they were a citizen; they would have to pay income taxes(illegals just get deported, a citizen would have to pay back taxes on undeclared income), it would be easier to track them if they skipped on a loan, it would be harder to skip on judgment(its hard enough to extradite a non Mexican citizen from Mexico. Imagine how hard it is to extradite a Mexican from Mexico).. besides, they are already getting many services for free. Why add costs and risks by becoming a citizen?My personal belief is that there should be some form of ‘work visa’, with adjustments to taxes (ie. no social security taxes, but possibly a reduced Medicaid tax). I also think that the citizen by birth location needs to be removed. It creates too much of a problem with Anchor babies (sometimes the mother returns back to Mexico with the baby, and is able to draw on US welfare in support of her new dual citizen child – both Mexican because parents are, and U.S. by birth location). I have seen the opposite side of the US birth policy. The nightmare that comes from children of US citizens born abroad (read military and military contractors). Trying to get them cert. as a US citizen is a real pain (DNA tests sometimes required). This doesn’t even cover issues like ability to be President and whether they can hold a clearance.
Why take the effort on getting your country back under the control of the citizens when all you have to do is go north? The Mexican government is exporting its problems north instead of dealing with them, and their citizens are heading north instead of dealing with their government.
January 20, 2010 at 10:09 AM #504309ParticipantOn the first point, no, it wasn’t your point. It was mine. You started out claiming it was just the 6.2%, not 7.65%. If we’re comparing how much money Joe and Jose have to live on, the employer’s share is incidental.
Actually it was mine.. take a look at the statements where I said it was to ‘each’ in response to the person claiming only 4% tax. True, I initially left out the 1.45%. That was because I was checking what it was for. As for the employers amount being incidental, its a yes and no. It is part of what drives employers to hire and illegal at the same wage as a legal. Employers can actually hire an illegal and pay 7.65% more and come out even compared to a citizen.
No need to even address the rest of your long debunked racist screed. But please answer me this. Do you really think that Jose’s 8 year old son really deserves less of an education than Joe’s son simply because of where his parents were born?
When logic fails, resort to name calling (ie racist screed). If you really knew me, you would know that this comment is so far off that it is laughable.
As for the issues of education, YES! I don’t like it but I do understand that when a culture is allowed to ‘offload’ its costs onto another.. it will. The support of Jose’s son potentially denies money to someone who took the legal path. The funds are finite. One of my parents was a teacher in the LA City School District. She saw the costs of this activity and the resulting problems. If Jose was legal, he would be paying income tax which would be, in part, covering the costs for schooling. To me, it is not an issue of race. It is an issue of illegal vs legal. In the last amnesty w/ respect to citizen, many illegals didn’t petition to become citizens for a simple monetary reason. If they were a citizen; they would have to pay income taxes(illegals just get deported, a citizen would have to pay back taxes on undeclared income), it would be easier to track them if they skipped on a loan, it would be harder to skip on judgment(its hard enough to extradite a non Mexican citizen from Mexico. Imagine how hard it is to extradite a Mexican from Mexico).. besides, they are already getting many services for free. Why add costs and risks by becoming a citizen?My personal belief is that there should be some form of ‘work visa’, with adjustments to taxes (ie. no social security taxes, but possibly a reduced Medicaid tax). I also think that the citizen by birth location needs to be removed. It creates too much of a problem with Anchor babies (sometimes the mother returns back to Mexico with the baby, and is able to draw on US welfare in support of her new dual citizen child – both Mexican because parents are, and U.S. by birth location). I have seen the opposite side of the US birth policy. The nightmare that comes from children of US citizens born abroad (read military and military contractors). Trying to get them cert. as a US citizen is a real pain (DNA tests sometimes required). This doesn’t even cover issues like ability to be President and whether they can hold a clearance.
Why take the effort on getting your country back under the control of the citizens when all you have to do is go north? The Mexican government is exporting its problems north instead of dealing with them, and their citizens are heading north instead of dealing with their government.
January 20, 2010 at 10:09 AM #504399ParticipantOn the first point, no, it wasn’t your point. It was mine. You started out claiming it was just the 6.2%, not 7.65%. If we’re comparing how much money Joe and Jose have to live on, the employer’s share is incidental.
Actually it was mine.. take a look at the statements where I said it was to ‘each’ in response to the person claiming only 4% tax. True, I initially left out the 1.45%. That was because I was checking what it was for. As for the employers amount being incidental, its a yes and no. It is part of what drives employers to hire and illegal at the same wage as a legal. Employers can actually hire an illegal and pay 7.65% more and come out even compared to a citizen.
No need to even address the rest of your long debunked racist screed. But please answer me this. Do you really think that Jose’s 8 year old son really deserves less of an education than Joe’s son simply because of where his parents were born?
When logic fails, resort to name calling (ie racist screed). If you really knew me, you would know that this comment is so far off that it is laughable.
As for the issues of education, YES! I don’t like it but I do understand that when a culture is allowed to ‘offload’ its costs onto another.. it will. The support of Jose’s son potentially denies money to someone who took the legal path. The funds are finite. One of my parents was a teacher in the LA City School District. She saw the costs of this activity and the resulting problems. If Jose was legal, he would be paying income tax which would be, in part, covering the costs for schooling. To me, it is not an issue of race. It is an issue of illegal vs legal. In the last amnesty w/ respect to citizen, many illegals didn’t petition to become citizens for a simple monetary reason. If they were a citizen; they would have to pay income taxes(illegals just get deported, a citizen would have to pay back taxes on undeclared income), it would be easier to track them if they skipped on a loan, it would be harder to skip on judgment(its hard enough to extradite a non Mexican citizen from Mexico. Imagine how hard it is to extradite a Mexican from Mexico).. besides, they are already getting many services for free. Why add costs and risks by becoming a citizen?My personal belief is that there should be some form of ‘work visa’, with adjustments to taxes (ie. no social security taxes, but possibly a reduced Medicaid tax). I also think that the citizen by birth location needs to be removed. It creates too much of a problem with Anchor babies (sometimes the mother returns back to Mexico with the baby, and is able to draw on US welfare in support of her new dual citizen child – both Mexican because parents are, and U.S. by birth location). I have seen the opposite side of the US birth policy. The nightmare that comes from children of US citizens born abroad (read military and military contractors). Trying to get them cert. as a US citizen is a real pain (DNA tests sometimes required). This doesn’t even cover issues like ability to be President and whether they can hold a clearance.
Why take the effort on getting your country back under the control of the citizens when all you have to do is go north? The Mexican government is exporting its problems north instead of dealing with them, and their citizens are heading north instead of dealing with their government.
January 20, 2010 at 10:09 AM #504649ParticipantOn the first point, no, it wasn’t your point. It was mine. You started out claiming it was just the 6.2%, not 7.65%. If we’re comparing how much money Joe and Jose have to live on, the employer’s share is incidental.
Actually it was mine.. take a look at the statements where I said it was to ‘each’ in response to the person claiming only 4% tax. True, I initially left out the 1.45%. That was because I was checking what it was for. As for the employers amount being incidental, its a yes and no. It is part of what drives employers to hire and illegal at the same wage as a legal. Employers can actually hire an illegal and pay 7.65% more and come out even compared to a citizen.
No need to even address the rest of your long debunked racist screed. But please answer me this. Do you really think that Jose’s 8 year old son really deserves less of an education than Joe’s son simply because of where his parents were born?
When logic fails, resort to name calling (ie racist screed). If you really knew me, you would know that this comment is so far off that it is laughable.
As for the issues of education, YES! I don’t like it but I do understand that when a culture is allowed to ‘offload’ its costs onto another.. it will. The support of Jose’s son potentially denies money to someone who took the legal path. The funds are finite. One of my parents was a teacher in the LA City School District. She saw the costs of this activity and the resulting problems. If Jose was legal, he would be paying income tax which would be, in part, covering the costs for schooling. To me, it is not an issue of race. It is an issue of illegal vs legal. In the last amnesty w/ respect to citizen, many illegals didn’t petition to become citizens for a simple monetary reason. If they were a citizen; they would have to pay income taxes(illegals just get deported, a citizen would have to pay back taxes on undeclared income), it would be easier to track them if they skipped on a loan, it would be harder to skip on judgment(its hard enough to extradite a non Mexican citizen from Mexico. Imagine how hard it is to extradite a Mexican from Mexico).. besides, they are already getting many services for free. Why add costs and risks by becoming a citizen?My personal belief is that there should be some form of ‘work visa’, with adjustments to taxes (ie. no social security taxes, but possibly a reduced Medicaid tax). I also think that the citizen by birth location needs to be removed. It creates too much of a problem with Anchor babies (sometimes the mother returns back to Mexico with the baby, and is able to draw on US welfare in support of her new dual citizen child – both Mexican because parents are, and U.S. by birth location). I have seen the opposite side of the US birth policy. The nightmare that comes from children of US citizens born abroad (read military and military contractors). Trying to get them cert. as a US citizen is a real pain (DNA tests sometimes required). This doesn’t even cover issues like ability to be President and whether they can hold a clearance.
Why take the effort on getting your country back under the control of the citizens when all you have to do is go north? The Mexican government is exporting its problems north instead of dealing with them, and their citizens are heading north instead of dealing with their government.
January 20, 2010 at 10:14 AM #503772Guest[quote=pri_dk]Here’s another viewpoint on a household that, coincidentally, makes $52,000 per year:
The article definitely has it’s bias, but it makes a good point especially in the context of this thread. Joe should be more concerned with the taxes that the wealthy are not paying than the taxes that Jose is not paying.
Of course the wealthy want Joe to focus only on Jose. (Does Jose own Fox news, or is it someone else?)[/quote]
Actually the ultra wealthy immigrant Rupert from Australia owns Fox News.
January 20, 2010 at 10:14 AM #503918Guest[quote=pri_dk]Here’s another viewpoint on a household that, coincidentally, makes $52,000 per year:
The article definitely has it’s bias, but it makes a good point especially in the context of this thread. Joe should be more concerned with the taxes that the wealthy are not paying than the taxes that Jose is not paying.
Of course the wealthy want Joe to focus only on Jose. (Does Jose own Fox news, or is it someone else?)[/quote]
Actually the ultra wealthy immigrant Rupert from Australia owns Fox News.
January 20, 2010 at 10:14 AM #504314Guest[quote=pri_dk]Here’s another viewpoint on a household that, coincidentally, makes $52,000 per year:
The article definitely has it’s bias, but it makes a good point especially in the context of this thread. Joe should be more concerned with the taxes that the wealthy are not paying than the taxes that Jose is not paying.
Of course the wealthy want Joe to focus only on Jose. (Does Jose own Fox news, or is it someone else?)[/quote]
Actually the ultra wealthy immigrant Rupert from Australia owns Fox News.
January 20, 2010 at 10:14 AM #504405Guest[quote=pri_dk]Here’s another viewpoint on a household that, coincidentally, makes $52,000 per year:
The article definitely has it’s bias, but it makes a good point especially in the context of this thread. Joe should be more concerned with the taxes that the wealthy are not paying than the taxes that Jose is not paying.
Of course the wealthy want Joe to focus only on Jose. (Does Jose own Fox news, or is it someone else?)[/quote]
Actually the ultra wealthy immigrant Rupert from Australia owns Fox News.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.