Joe Legal vs Jose Illegal

[Jumby]

[quote=bobby][quote=Jumby]I don’t know how to do math because I posted an email that was sent to me?

Get some logic and then get a life, loser.[/quote]
if I were to post some email saying that the earth is flat then I’m stupid for spreading mindless crap.
you posted some info that is flat out wrong to prove a point. Apparently you believe this info without critically thinking about it.[/quote]

Bobby, Bobby, Bobby…you know what they say about ASSumptions….

I don’t believe it, but I did think of this board and knew I’d get to read some great responses to the debate of illegals and I was proven right…some good stuff was posted, sans you.

[scaredyclassic]

sometimes i think it might be nice to just live ina van by the river.

[scaredyclassic]

sometimes i think it might be nice to just live ina van by the river.

[scaredyclassic]

sometimes i think it might be nice to just live ina van by the river.

[scaredyclassic]

sometimes i think it might be nice to just live ina van by the river.

[scaredyclassic]

sometimes i think it might be nice to just live ina van by the river.

[ucodegen]

All of the differences are based upon the fact that one person obeys the labor and tax laws, and the other does not. Immigration status really doesn’t give Jose any sort of advantage. Joe could choose to be “illegal” also, even though he is a citizen. For example, Joe could choose to get paid under the table, or choose not pay for car insurance either. (And lots of Joes do just this.)

Except that being a Mexican citizen, Jose could just head home. No extradition treaty with Mexico. Later Jose could head back over the border as ‘Manuel’, and no ones the wiser.

There is definitely a problem with a lot of Joe(s) taking money under the table. The fact that a lot do, does not make it right nor does it make the problem that Jose causes any less.

[ucodegen]

All of the differences are based upon the fact that one person obeys the labor and tax laws, and the other does not. Immigration status really doesn’t give Jose any sort of advantage. Joe could choose to be “illegal” also, even though he is a citizen. For example, Joe could choose to get paid under the table, or choose not pay for car insurance either. (And lots of Joes do just this.)

Except that being a Mexican citizen, Jose could just head home. No extradition treaty with Mexico. Later Jose could head back over the border as ‘Manuel’, and no ones the wiser.

There is definitely a problem with a lot of Joe(s) taking money under the table. The fact that a lot do, does not make it right nor does it make the problem that Jose causes any less.

[ucodegen]

All of the differences are based upon the fact that one person obeys the labor and tax laws, and the other does not. Immigration status really doesn’t give Jose any sort of advantage. Joe could choose to be “illegal” also, even though he is a citizen. For example, Joe could choose to get paid under the table, or choose not pay for car insurance either. (And lots of Joes do just this.)

Except that being a Mexican citizen, Jose could just head home. No extradition treaty with Mexico. Later Jose could head back over the border as ‘Manuel’, and no ones the wiser.

There is definitely a problem with a lot of Joe(s) taking money under the table. The fact that a lot do, does not make it right nor does it make the problem that Jose causes any less.

[ucodegen]

All of the differences are based upon the fact that one person obeys the labor and tax laws, and the other does not. Immigration status really doesn’t give Jose any sort of advantage. Joe could choose to be “illegal” also, even though he is a citizen. For example, Joe could choose to get paid under the table, or choose not pay for car insurance either. (And lots of Joes do just this.)

Except that being a Mexican citizen, Jose could just head home. No extradition treaty with Mexico. Later Jose could head back over the border as ‘Manuel’, and no ones the wiser.

There is definitely a problem with a lot of Joe(s) taking money under the table. The fact that a lot do, does not make it right nor does it make the problem that Jose causes any less.

[ucodegen]

All of the differences are based upon the fact that one person obeys the labor and tax laws, and the other does not. Immigration status really doesn’t give Jose any sort of advantage. Joe could choose to be “illegal” also, even though he is a citizen. For example, Joe could choose to get paid under the table, or choose not pay for car insurance either. (And lots of Joes do just this.)

Except that being a Mexican citizen, Jose could just head home. No extradition treaty with Mexico. Later Jose could head back over the border as ‘Manuel’, and no ones the wiser.

There is definitely a problem with a lot of Joe(s) taking money under the table. The fact that a lot do, does not make it right nor does it make the problem that Jose causes any less.

[ucodegen]

Joe Legal wouldn’t pay the employers share of SS (which is actually 7.65% not 6.2%).

Where do you get your numbers? I got mine from social security admin. 6.2% is the employee’s haircut, 6.2% is the employers haircut. If you look on your W-2, it is box #4. See also linky, notice it says employee and employees each. OASDI is social security and medicare. The self employed show what the total rate is, which is 12.4%. Your employer takes half and the employee takes half. HI is medicare hospital insurance which brings it to 7.65% each to the employer and employee.

You didn’t take into consideration the standard deduction or personal exemptions or child tax credit on the federal, which would have greatly reduced their taxes to just over 2%.

It doesn’t reduce it that much. How many child credits were you taking for Joe Legal? Standard deductions apply to income not the tax, so they reduce the AGI.

Sales taxes would have been paid equally both both Joes.

You mean Joe and Jose. True, though Jose would probably be spending more in Mexico by sending money home.

[ucodegen]

Joe Legal wouldn’t pay the employers share of SS (which is actually 7.65% not 6.2%).

Where do you get your numbers? I got mine from social security admin. 6.2% is the employee’s haircut, 6.2% is the employers haircut. If you look on your W-2, it is box #4. See also linky, notice it says employee and employees each. OASDI is social security and medicare. The self employed show what the total rate is, which is 12.4%. Your employer takes half and the employee takes half. HI is medicare hospital insurance which brings it to 7.65% each to the employer and employee.

You didn’t take into consideration the standard deduction or personal exemptions or child tax credit on the federal, which would have greatly reduced their taxes to just over 2%.

It doesn’t reduce it that much. How many child credits were you taking for Joe Legal? Standard deductions apply to income not the tax, so they reduce the AGI.

Sales taxes would have been paid equally both both Joes.

You mean Joe and Jose. True, though Jose would probably be spending more in Mexico by sending money home.

[ucodegen]

Joe Legal wouldn’t pay the employers share of SS (which is actually 7.65% not 6.2%).

Where do you get your numbers? I got mine from social security admin. 6.2% is the employee’s haircut, 6.2% is the employers haircut. If you look on your W-2, it is box #4. See also linky, notice it says employee and employees each. OASDI is social security and medicare. The self employed show what the total rate is, which is 12.4%. Your employer takes half and the employee takes half. HI is medicare hospital insurance which brings it to 7.65% each to the employer and employee.

You didn’t take into consideration the standard deduction or personal exemptions or child tax credit on the federal, which would have greatly reduced their taxes to just over 2%.

It doesn’t reduce it that much. How many child credits were you taking for Joe Legal? Standard deductions apply to income not the tax, so they reduce the AGI.

Sales taxes would have been paid equally both both Joes.

You mean Joe and Jose. True, though Jose would probably be spending more in Mexico by sending money home.

[ucodegen]

Joe Legal wouldn’t pay the employers share of SS (which is actually 7.65% not 6.2%).

Where do you get your numbers? I got mine from social security admin. 6.2% is the employee’s haircut, 6.2% is the employers haircut. If you look on your W-2, it is box #4. See also linky, notice it says employee and employees each. OASDI is social security and medicare. The self employed show what the total rate is, which is 12.4%. Your employer takes half and the employee takes half. HI is medicare hospital insurance which brings it to 7.65% each to the employer and employee.

You didn’t take into consideration the standard deduction or personal exemptions or child tax credit on the federal, which would have greatly reduced their taxes to just over 2%.

It doesn’t reduce it that much. How many child credits were you taking for Joe Legal? Standard deductions apply to income not the tax, so they reduce the AGI.

Sales taxes would have been paid equally both both Joes.

You mean Joe and Jose. True, though Jose would probably be spending more in Mexico by sending money home.

[Author]

Posts