Jump to content


Photo
* - - - - 3 votes

Heritage foundation reporting amnesty would cost $6.3T to deficit


  • Please log in to reply
64 replies to this topic

#1 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,400 posts

Posted 06 May 2013 - 08:05 PM

http://www.heritage....the-us-taxpayer

 

 

Was listening to the press conference on Cspan radio and the questioning was pretty good.  They did a similar study in 2007 and it was a $2.7T cost, but Rector pointed out that he'd limited that study to retirement benefits and fed benefits NOT state cost impacts.  This study he took current immigrant demographics (age, education levels, and applied the costs to state/feds to the amnesty numbers and came up with these.   I'm sure ThinkProgress is madly going over these numbers.

 

Any way...too much to copy/paste.  Go read. 

 



#2 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • ALL-PRO
  • 23,106 posts

Posted 06 May 2013 - 08:33 PM

Heritage Foundation, thanks, they really know whats going on and would never do anything to just scare us

 

http://abcnews.go.co...lion-price-tag/

 

 

Jim DeMint forgot about that guy, he's always been so honest and even keeled about things like this in the past

 

Think Progress doesn't have to do much, even Grover Norquist thinks this is stupid. Which, of course, means it's right up your alley.



#3 teeray

teeray

    THE SWAGNIFICENT

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,420 posts

Posted 06 May 2013 - 09:35 PM

I have just perused this quickly and can already tell you there seems to be a lot of fail and fearmongering in this study.

 

For starters, your thread title tells it all.  When you talk about deficits you usually equate it with continual spending and look at spending and revenue, to determine the deficit or surplus.  The deficit is added to the national debt a surplus is a reduction to the overall debt.

 

The way they worded it was that over a "lifetime" it has a deficit cost (total benefits minus total taxes)

of 6.3 trillion dollars, they are technically correct but they could have just as easily said that it adds 6.3 trillion dollars to the national debt over a "lifetime". 

 

It is worded manipulatively so that people will go around telling people that amnesty would add 6.3 trillion dollars to the deficit (like the thread title) which isn't true or at least very misleading.  It adds 6.3 trillion dollars to our debt over a 50 year period, not our deficit.

 

The other thing I noticed quickly is that it stated that the average undocumented worker is 34 years old, and then stated that on average they would receive benefits for, on average, the next 50 years.

 

That would put their average life expectancy at 84 years.  Actual life expectancy in the US is @78 years.  In lower income families, that number is closer to 74 years.  So in order for that to be even close to accurate they would have to cut out nearly 15% of their estimates.  And the life expectancy of lower income families has flat lined over the last couple of decades so it is not rising.  Maybe those numbers are explained in the study somewhere.

 

So with just a quick glance there seems to be a lot of misleading and inaccurate numbers right off the bat even without digging into the numbers or the methodology. 

 

 



#4 Delhommey

Delhommey

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 12,551 posts

Posted 06 May 2013 - 10:28 PM

Again the faulty backwards math to try and justify the lizard brain fearfulness of the modern conservative. All this to attack an enemy that's not there.

#5 PhillyB

PhillyB

    that jungle football

  • ALL-PRO
  • 19,818 posts
  • Locationthird spur east of the sun

Posted 06 May 2013 - 11:53 PM

it's almost like the heritage foundation has an axe to grind or something



#6 Kevin Greene

Kevin Greene

    _Is it 1996 Yet?_

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,937 posts

Posted 07 May 2013 - 01:55 AM

 

 

The other thing I noticed quickly is that it stated that the average undocumented worker is 34 years old, and then stated that on average they would receive benefits for, on average, the next 50 years.

 

That would put their average life expectancy at 84 years.  Actual life expectancy in the US is @78 years.  In lower income families, that number is closer to 74 years.  So in order for that to be even close to accurate they would have to cut out nearly 15% of their estimates.  And the life expectancy of lower income families has flat lined over the last couple of decades so it is not rising.  Maybe those numbers are explained in the study somewhere.

 

So with just a quick glance there seems to be a lot of misleading and inaccurate numbers right off the bat even without digging into the numbers or the methodology. 

 

No real ax to grind on this but I would expect the average life expectancy over the next 50 years to rise quite a bit.

 

On a different note California is probably a good microcosm on illegal costs on an economy.

 

Delhommey, how is it Texas has such a massive number of illegals but such a robust economy?



#7 GOOGLE RON PAUL

GOOGLE RON PAUL

    fleet-footed poster

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,115 posts

Posted 07 May 2013 - 03:02 AM

by what metric is texas a robust economy? gdp per capita? nope. median income? nope. poverty rate? nope. unemployment rate? nope. income equality? nope



#8 Panthro

Panthro

    aka Pablo

  • Moderators
  • 23,785 posts

Posted 07 May 2013 - 06:16 AM

Professor of Law Francine Lipman [54] writes that the belief that illegal migrants are exploiting the US economy and that they cost more in services than they contribute to the economy is "undeniably false". Lipman asserts that "undocumented immigrants actually contribute more to public coffers in taxes than they cost in social services" and "contribute to the U.S. economy through their investments and consumption of goods and services; filling of millions of essential worker positions resulting in subsidiary job creation, increased productivity and lower costs of goods and services; and unrequited contributions to Social Security, Medicare and unemployment insurance programs."[55]



#9 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • ALL-PRO
  • 23,106 posts

Posted 07 May 2013 - 06:19 AM

No real ax to grind on this but I would expect the average life expectancy over the next 50 years to rise quite a bit.

 

On a different note California is probably a good microcosm on illegal costs on an economy.

 

Delhommey, how is it Texas has such a massive number of illegals but such a robust economy?

 

Ewing Oil. That JR sure can scheme.



#10 MadHatter

MadHatter

    The Only Voice of Reason

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,779 posts
  • LocationDark Side of the Moon

Posted 07 May 2013 - 06:25 AM

Any of you posting in this thread willing to have your taxes increased to pay for this? (serious question).

 

I thought not.

 

Easy to sit back and take a philanthropic stance when you have no skin in the game.

 

I am all for amnesty....if we raise everyone's taxes 5% to help pay for it.  Then let's see how many of you bleeding heart liberals change your tune.



#11 thatlookseasy

thatlookseasy

    Death to pennies

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,950 posts

Posted 07 May 2013 - 07:32 AM

Any of you posting in this thread willing to have your taxes increased to pay for this? (serious question).
 
I thought not.
 
Easy to sit back and take a philanthropic stance when you have no skin in the game.
 
I am all for amnesty....if we raise everyone's taxes 5% to help pay for it.  Then let's see how many of you bleeding heart liberals change your tune.


You cant say you're asking a serious question and then answer it yourself. Thats not how questions work

#12 MadHatter

MadHatter

    The Only Voice of Reason

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,779 posts
  • LocationDark Side of the Moon

Posted 07 May 2013 - 07:41 AM

I asked a serious question....then put what I think the avg response will be.

 

I am very interested in knowing whether those that continuously support every liberal/socialist agenda is really willing to have their taxes increased to pay for it.  It is easy to sit on the sidelines and support things that you don't have to pay for.

 

That is the equivalent to me pleding $1M to charity (making myself feel good about how generous and caring I am).....but at the same time expecting my neighbor to be the one to actually make the financial contribution.

 

 



#13 mav1234

mav1234

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,506 posts

Posted 07 May 2013 - 08:18 AM

How much are we talking?  What exactly are the tax increases?  What exactly are the spending increases?

 

Short answer is yes, I would be willing to pay more in taxes.



#14 Kevin Greene

Kevin Greene

    _Is it 1996 Yet?_

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,937 posts

Posted 07 May 2013 - 09:36 AM

Any of you posting in this thread willing to have your taxes increased to pay for this? (serious question).

 

I thought not.

 

Easy to sit back and take a philanthropic stance when you have no skin in the game.

 

I am all for amnesty....if we raise everyone's taxes 5% to help pay for it.  Then let's see how many of you bleeding heart liberals change your tune.

 

Moonbeam Brown asked the voters of California to raise their own taxes last election, and these idiots passed it. So yeah, you get enough people on the benefits and you get the vote needed. 

For instance the sales tax rate in Los Angeles is 9%.



#15 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,400 posts

Posted 07 May 2013 - 09:48 AM

California has a majority of moochers.  Of course it passed.

 

People will always vote themselves freebies.

 

 




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com