• Please keep all posts on the Rittenhouse verdict here: Rittenhouse Verdict. Note the moderator warnings in the thread. The thread will be heavily moderated with a zero tolerance policy for any baiting, flaming, trolling or other rule breaks. Stick to the topic and not the other posters. Thank you.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

CBO: Immigration Reform Will Save $1 Trillion over 20 Years

Visbek

Stuck In The Circle
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
20,051
Reaction score
13,731
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
CBO | S. 744, Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/19/u...-immigration-bill.html?hp&_r=0&pagewanted=all

Their calculations include:
• Increases in discretionary spending, including Medicare and ACA spending
• Increases in federal revenues due to tax collections
• Costs of the program for numerous government agencies, including start-up costs and employee verification
• Border security costs

Obviously there are numerous variables, including how many people actually apply for RPI status. At any rate, seems like a decent way to convince people to support immigration reform.
 

Henrin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
How in the world do you make accurate estimations twenty years out?

Sorry, but this is entirely not reasonable.
 

Henrin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian

Dapper Andy

Banned
Joined
Feb 28, 2013
Messages
913
Reaction score
310
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
CBO | S. 744, Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/19/u...-immigration-bill.html?hp&_r=0&pagewanted=all

Their calculations include:
• Increases in discretionary spending, including Medicare and ACA spending
• Increases in federal revenues due to tax collections
• Costs of the program for numerous government agencies, including start-up costs and employee verification
• Border security costs

Obviously there are numerous variables, including how many people actually apply for RPI status. At any rate, seems like a decent way to convince people to support immigration reform.

I think it's very wishful thinking to say this bill will result in significantly more taxes collected.

At least anytime soon.

I mean, these people aren't risking imprisonment to cross a border and dig holes for **** pay because they're just so damn educated. They'll be taking the same kind of **** jobs as they've always taken and, if they even decide to work on the books, won't make enough to pay income tax.
 

head of joaquin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
12,029
Reaction score
3,530
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
How in the world do you make accurate estimations twenty years out?

Sorry, but this is entirely not reasonable.

Conservatives keep saying Social Security will go bankrupt in 20 years, so that hasn't stopped you in the past.
 

polgara

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
20,215
Reaction score
17,786
Location
NE Ohio
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
The CBO never has...

Good evening, AP. :2wave:

If the word "cost" is used instead of "saved," it would be more believable! And even at that, how could anyone be reckless enough to give a 20-year projection on anything? :shock: Look at how much has changed in the past twenty years!
 

AlabamaPaul

Pragmatist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
8,834
Reaction score
2,812
Location
Alabama
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Good evening, AP. :2wave:

If the word "cost" is used instead of "saved," it would be more believable! And even at that, how could anyone be reckless enough to give a 20-year projection on anything? :shock: Look at how much has changed in the past twenty years!

Good evening pg... The CBO is normally given a set of assumptions to use when it makes a calculation. Is it any wonder the results might be skewed?
 

polgara

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
20,215
Reaction score
17,786
Location
NE Ohio
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
Good evening pg... The CBO is normally given a set of assumptions to use when it makes a calculation. Is it any wonder the results might be skewed?

Skewed I can live with--off the wall is ridiculous! The problem is that there are those that might believe this! :thumbdown:
 

AlabamaPaul

Pragmatist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
8,834
Reaction score
2,812
Location
Alabama
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Skewed I can live with--off the wall is ridiculous! The problem is that there are those that might believe this! :thumbdown:

Doesn't each side use the CBO as a basis for its attacks? It's a really useful agency in that respect...
 

polgara

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
20,215
Reaction score
17,786
Location
NE Ohio
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
Doesn't each side use the CBO as a basis for its attacks? It's a really useful agency in that respect...

:agree: But has anyone other than a politician ever gone out 20 years? Quite a game they play! :doh:
 

GottaGo

Rock and a hard place
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 2, 2012
Messages
5,635
Reaction score
4,910
Location
Miles to go before I sleep
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
CBO | S. 744, Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/19/u...-immigration-bill.html?hp&_r=0&pagewanted=all

Their calculations include:
• Increases in discretionary spending, including Medicare and ACA spending
• Increases in federal revenues due to tax collections
• Costs of the program for numerous government agencies, including start-up costs and employee verification
• Border security costs

Obviously there are numerous variables, including how many people actually apply for RPI status. At any rate, seems like a decent way to convince people to support immigration reform.

If they are already here, as illegal immigrants, working, then they are already spending it.... that's not likely to have much of an impact.

Going from illegal to legal isn't going to do much for their rate of pay either, a rocket scientist won't be here picking crops or working in a restaurant, and suddenly make 5 times what they did before.

Taxes are about the only increase in revenue I foresee. Maybe.
 

AlabamaPaul

Pragmatist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
8,834
Reaction score
2,812
Location
Alabama
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
:agree: But has anyone other than a politician ever gone out 20 years? Quite a game they play! :doh:

They go as as far as they are told by who is asking...
 

Visbek

Stuck In The Circle
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
20,051
Reaction score
13,731
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
If they are already here, as illegal immigrants, working, then they are already spending it.... that's not likely to have much of an impact.
I don't see any indication that the CBO is accounting for sales taxes or multiplier effects. It's basically federal tax revenues and federal spending.


Going from illegal to legal isn't going to do much for their rate of pay either, a rocket scientist won't be here picking crops or working in a restaurant, and suddenly make 5 times what they did before.
One part of the current immigration reform includes an expansion of highly skilled workers (H-1B).

Another is that now-legal workers will at least be guaranteed federal minimum wage. If you're off the books, you're probably not getting paid that much.


Taxes are about the only increase in revenue I foresee. Maybe.
Yes, taxes are what they are projecting, as well as changes (including increases) in benefits and tax credits.
 

Visbek

Stuck In The Circle
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
20,051
Reaction score
13,731
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
No one in their right mind would try to calculate savings two decades out. It's completely absurd on it's face.
The reason they're projecting 20 years out is because of the structure of the law, namely that millions of immigrants would be RPIs (registered provisional immigrants) for 10 years, before becoming LPRs (legal permanent residents).

The CBO is non-partisan and fairly decent at cost estimating, given the confines of its assumptions and variability of future legislative actions.

Nor are their estimates intended to be a hyper-exact budget figure. It goal is to be a policy guide, not a crystal ball.
 

trfjr

Banned
Joined
Feb 27, 2013
Messages
3,114
Reaction score
1,004
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
CBO | S. 744, Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/19/u...-immigration-bill.html?hp&_r=0&pagewanted=all

Their calculations include:
• Increases in discretionary spending, including Medicare and ACA spending
• Increases in federal revenues due to tax collections
• Costs of the program for numerous government agencies, including start-up costs and employee verification
• Border security costs

Obviously there are numerous variables, including how many people actually apply for RPI status. At any rate, seems like a decent way to convince people to support immigration reform.

and how the hell did the CBO came up with those figures they cant even tell us how many illegals are in this country?
 

Visbek

Stuck In The Circle
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
20,051
Reaction score
13,731
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
I think it's very wishful thinking to say this bill will result in significantly more taxes collected.
The document is pretty thorough.


I mean, these people aren't risking imprisonment to cross a border and dig holes for **** pay because they're just so damn educated. They'll be taking the same kind of **** jobs as they've always taken and, if they even decide to work on the books, won't make enough to pay income tax.
The current immigration reform does in fact expand visas for highly skilled workers (H-1B).

Lower-paid employees do still pay taxes, including payroll taxes. The CBO estimate also does explicitly take tax credits into account, including the EITC and ACA.
 

GottaGo

Rock and a hard place
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 2, 2012
Messages
5,635
Reaction score
4,910
Location
Miles to go before I sleep
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
I don't see any indication that the CBO is accounting for sales taxes or multiplier effects. It's basically federal tax revenues and federal spending.

From the OP:

Increases in discretionary spending
That is where I drew my statement from, and addressed the increase in taxes at the end of my statement.



One part of the current immigration reform includes an expansion of highly skilled workers (H-1B).
Chances are (I haven't had time to look up stats) highly skilled workers aren't here illegally. Besides the plethora of the same who are already citizens who are looking for work.

Another is that now-legal workers will at least be guaranteed federal minimum wage. If you're off the books, you're probably not getting paid that much.
Unfortunately, I am acquainted with the illegal labor market, and unless they are working strictly in the Ag market, they are making more than minimum wage, quite a bit more actually. A lot has to do with their attitude towards their work, wanting as much work as they can get, and many work multiple jobs, several I know work in excess of 80 hours a week at well over $10 an hour.


Yes, taxes are what they are projecting, as well as changes (including increases) in benefits and tax credits.
So, IMO, the bill, in all reality, is a new revenue source for the government, and has little to do with humanitarianism.
 

Samhain

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2011
Messages
4,939
Reaction score
2,131
Location
Northern Ohio
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian
CBO | S. 744, Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/19/u...-immigration-bill.html?hp&_r=0&pagewanted=all

Their calculations include:
• Increases in discretionary spending, including Medicare and ACA spending
• Increases in federal revenues due to tax collections
• Costs of the program for numerous government agencies, including start-up costs and employee verification
• Border security costs

Obviously there are numerous variables, including how many people actually apply for RPI status. At any rate, seems like a decent way to convince people to support immigration reform.

They are hoping that by massively expanding the SS/Medicare rolls now, they can further delay entitlement reform.
 

jonny5

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 4, 2012
Messages
22,622
Reaction score
3,357
Location
Republic of Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
It doesnt really matter if the numbers are accurate. It doesnt change the core of the issue, that these people broke the law, and should not be rewarded with permission to stay. The long term costs of handing out benefits to 30-50million new residents, in programs that are already going broke, is besides the point. And we havent even addressed the costs to states who would have to suddenly provide benefits.
 

Blue_State

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 30, 2011
Messages
5,355
Reaction score
2,191
Location
In a Blue State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
:agree: But has anyone other than a politician ever gone out 20 years? Quite a game they play! :doh:

The best part about going out 20 years is that you won't be responsible if it doesn't come true as a politician. Most of them will be retired by then.
 

Visbek

Stuck In The Circle
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
20,051
Reaction score
13,731
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
That is where I drew my statement from, and addressed the increase in taxes at the end of my statement.
Uh, not following you here.

The CBO claim, again, is that while we will spend more on certain programs, the increased tax revenues will more than offset it.


Chances are (I haven't had time to look up stats) highly skilled workers aren't here illegally. Besides the plethora of the same who are already citizens who are looking for work.
The idea is that bringing in more skilled workers will increase tax revenues. H-1B's basically get paid the same, and most workers in those skill sets aren't suffering anywhere near the kind of unemployment as unskilled workers.


Unfortunately, I am acquainted with the illegal labor market, and unless they are working strictly in the Ag market, they are making more than minimum wage, quite a bit more actually.
OK then. How many of those workers are paying income and payroll taxes?


So, IMO, the bill, in all reality, is a new revenue source for the government, and has little to do with humanitarianism.
Let's assume, for a moment, that this is primarily an economic issue. Why, exactly, would that be a bad thing? We'll increase tax revenues, reduce the deficit, grow GDP and slightly increase the population, at times when the "native" population is aging out of the labor force and soaking up tons of entitlements.
 

Dapper Andy

Banned
Joined
Feb 28, 2013
Messages
913
Reaction score
310
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Lower-paid employees do still pay taxes, including payroll taxes. The CBO estimate also does explicitly take tax credits into account, including the EITC and ACA.

They may initially pay into income tax but low paid employees get their money back and a good deal more in the end.

But that's dependent on them working on the books, anyway, and I don't really see that happening either.

They and their employers have managed to avoid that this far and I don't see that relationship changing.

They certainly haven't made much of an effort to better themselves since they have been here and are actively fighting proposals that would help them take care of themselves.
 
Last edited:

Visbek

Stuck In The Circle
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
20,051
Reaction score
13,731
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
They may initially pay into income tax but low paid employees get their money back and a good deal more in the end.
All of those tax credits and entitlements are included in the CBO analysis.


But that's dependent on them working on the books, anyway, and I don't really see that happening either. They and their employers have managed to avoid that this far and I don't see that relationship changing.
It will change, because the workers will either have paths to citizenship or guest-worker status. Working on the books will mean they can't be deported at the drop of a hat.


They certainly haven't made much of an effort to better themselves since they have been here and are actively fighting proposals that would help them take care of themselves.
I see no evidence whatsoever for this claim.
 

Dapper Andy

Banned
Joined
Feb 28, 2013
Messages
913
Reaction score
310
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
All of those tax credits and entitlements are included in the CBO analysis.

Sure but the CBO apparently believes these illegal immigrants will suddenly become highly paid productive members of society and I just don't see it. People don't stand outside a Home Depot looking to do unskilled labor at minimum wage (or below) because they're illegal. They do it because they're not skilled enough to do much else. Going from illegal to legal won't change their skill set which, right now, limits them primarily to unskilled labor at around minimum wage.

Unskilled laborers making around minimum wage take from the pot; they don't put into it.

It will change, because the workers will either have paths to citizenship or guest-worker status. Working on the books will mean they can't be deported at the drop of a hat.

Both they and their employers are clearly comfortable with the illegal off-the-books arrangement they currently have and that arrangement avoids paying taxes, Obamacare requirements, etc. The U.S. government isn't exactly doing a bang up job enforcing these immigration and labor laws.

I see no evidence whatsoever for this claim.

Just look at the refusal to learn English.

I'm not approaching this from a "my culture is better than yours" position but rather a "how do you expect to get a job?" one. Just how many good non-English speaking jobs are out there to believe these people will suddenly start putting into the pot?
 
Top Bottom