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

[Visbek]

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]

How in the world do you make accurate estimations twenty years out?

Sorry, but this is entirely not reasonable.

 

[AlabamaPaul]

How in the world do you make accurate estimates twenty years out?

The CBO never has...

 

[Henrin]

The CBO never has...

No one in their right mind would try to calculate savings two decades out. It's completely absurd on it's face.

 

[Dapper Andy]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

: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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

: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]

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]

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.

 

[Visbek]

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]

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?