Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
ucodegen
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.
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.
ParticipantIn the old days it was commonly known as FICA. That’s social security. Currently 7.65% for both employee and employer. 6.2% for OASDI and 1.45 for Medicare.
Which is my point with this one. The employee kicks in 6.2% (7.65% including Medicare Hospital Insurance) and the employer kicks in another 7.65%. The employer does not cover both. The illegal kicks in nothing as does the employer of the illegal.
Standard deduction is $11,400. Exemption for joe, mrs. joe, and the two little joes total $14,600. bringing taxable income down to $26,000. 2 child care credits of 41,000 each brings fed tax down to $1,069.
Are you sure you can take the child care credit when the wife is not working? Otherwise we will have to factor in her wage which up to now has not been included. We have also not considered children and the cost to the system of Jose Illegal’s kids (which would get educated in the US school system at the cost of over $8000 per kid per year) and not mentioning the likeliness that any health issues with the Jose Illegal’s children will be handled by Medicaid. Child care and deductions for children are out unless we consider costs to the system of children on both sides.
ParticipantIn the old days it was commonly known as FICA. That’s social security. Currently 7.65% for both employee and employer. 6.2% for OASDI and 1.45 for Medicare.
Which is my point with this one. The employee kicks in 6.2% (7.65% including Medicare Hospital Insurance) and the employer kicks in another 7.65%. The employer does not cover both. The illegal kicks in nothing as does the employer of the illegal.
Standard deduction is $11,400. Exemption for joe, mrs. joe, and the two little joes total $14,600. bringing taxable income down to $26,000. 2 child care credits of 41,000 each brings fed tax down to $1,069.
Are you sure you can take the child care credit when the wife is not working? Otherwise we will have to factor in her wage which up to now has not been included. We have also not considered children and the cost to the system of Jose Illegal’s kids (which would get educated in the US school system at the cost of over $8000 per kid per year) and not mentioning the likeliness that any health issues with the Jose Illegal’s children will be handled by Medicaid. Child care and deductions for children are out unless we consider costs to the system of children on both sides.
ParticipantIn the old days it was commonly known as FICA. That’s social security. Currently 7.65% for both employee and employer. 6.2% for OASDI and 1.45 for Medicare.
Which is my point with this one. The employee kicks in 6.2% (7.65% including Medicare Hospital Insurance) and the employer kicks in another 7.65%. The employer does not cover both. The illegal kicks in nothing as does the employer of the illegal.
Standard deduction is $11,400. Exemption for joe, mrs. joe, and the two little joes total $14,600. bringing taxable income down to $26,000. 2 child care credits of 41,000 each brings fed tax down to $1,069.
Are you sure you can take the child care credit when the wife is not working? Otherwise we will have to factor in her wage which up to now has not been included. We have also not considered children and the cost to the system of Jose Illegal’s kids (which would get educated in the US school system at the cost of over $8000 per kid per year) and not mentioning the likeliness that any health issues with the Jose Illegal’s children will be handled by Medicaid. Child care and deductions for children are out unless we consider costs to the system of children on both sides.
ParticipantIn the old days it was commonly known as FICA. That’s social security. Currently 7.65% for both employee and employer. 6.2% for OASDI and 1.45 for Medicare.
Which is my point with this one. The employee kicks in 6.2% (7.65% including Medicare Hospital Insurance) and the employer kicks in another 7.65%. The employer does not cover both. The illegal kicks in nothing as does the employer of the illegal.
Standard deduction is $11,400. Exemption for joe, mrs. joe, and the two little joes total $14,600. bringing taxable income down to $26,000. 2 child care credits of 41,000 each brings fed tax down to $1,069.
Are you sure you can take the child care credit when the wife is not working? Otherwise we will have to factor in her wage which up to now has not been included. We have also not considered children and the cost to the system of Jose Illegal’s kids (which would get educated in the US school system at the cost of over $8000 per kid per year) and not mentioning the likeliness that any health issues with the Jose Illegal’s children will be handled by Medicaid. Child care and deductions for children are out unless we consider costs to the system of children on both sides.
ParticipantIn the old days it was commonly known as FICA. That’s social security. Currently 7.65% for both employee and employer. 6.2% for OASDI and 1.45 for Medicare.
Which is my point with this one. The employee kicks in 6.2% (7.65% including Medicare Hospital Insurance) and the employer kicks in another 7.65%. The employer does not cover both. The illegal kicks in nothing as does the employer of the illegal.
Standard deduction is $11,400. Exemption for joe, mrs. joe, and the two little joes total $14,600. bringing taxable income down to $26,000. 2 child care credits of 41,000 each brings fed tax down to $1,069.
Are you sure you can take the child care credit when the wife is not working? Otherwise we will have to factor in her wage which up to now has not been included. We have also not considered children and the cost to the system of Jose Illegal’s kids (which would get educated in the US school system at the cost of over $8000 per kid per year) and not mentioning the likeliness that any health issues with the Jose Illegal’s children will be handled by Medicaid. Child care and deductions for children are out unless we consider costs to the system of children on both sides.
ParticipantJoe 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.
ParticipantJoe 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.
ParticipantJoe 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.
ParticipantJoe 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.
ParticipantJoe 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.
ParticipantAll 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.
ParticipantAll 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.
-
AuthorPosts
