Posted on 07/01/2006 6:07:10 PM PDT by pigdog
Illegal Immigrants and Others Working Off the Books Cost the U.S. Hundreds of Billions of Dollars in Unpaid Taxes
America has two economies: First, there's the legitimate economy, in which craftsmen are licensed and employers and employees pay taxes. Then there's the fast-growing underground economy, where millions of nannies, construction workers, landscapers and others are paid off the books, their incomes largely untaxed. The best guess as to the size of the output of this shadow economy is about $970 billion, or nearly 9% that of the real economy. It could soon pass $1 trillion.
What is largely fueling the underground economy, experts say, is the nation's growing ranks of low-wage, illegal immigrants. The government puts this population at 8.5 million, but that may represent a serious undercount. Robert Justich, a senior managing director at Bear Stearns Asset Management, makes a persuasive case in a recent research report that illegal immigrants actually number 18 million to 20 million. If that's true, the economic implications are profound and could help shape this year's debates over both immigration policies and tax reform.
(Excerpt) Read more at wsjclassroom.com ...
WHen one of the justifications of the alternative is that it will tax those who should not be here in the first place, and who, on balance cost the taxpayers a mint, then that undermines the drive to find a solution to the initial problem. To wit: that the spending mandated by programs for people who should not be here will not be addressed at its root cause, their presence.
If they somehow justify their presence by "paying their fair share, illegal or not", then we have removed the incentive to deal with the main source of that particular fiscal hemmorage.
It is already an uphill battle to get our Government to enforce our laws against this particular group of lawbreakers, more disincentive/justification will not successfully address the core problem.
Unless or until the Income tax is repealed, I could not support any additional means of taxing the American people.
As for paying in by check every month, etc. that will take hordes of employees just to open the envelopes. I can read a pay stub. I see how much goes in, and am further reminded every year when I cut an additional check to the U.S. Treasury, just how much of the fruits of my labors are confiscated to pay for others to sit on my largesse.
I would hope in earnest that our public educational institutions have not decayed to the point where an employee cannot do the same. All they have to do is look under "YTD" and see.
I skimmed the faq on the site. According to the rebate chart a singe parent with 2 children gets 318$ per month to make up for the 23%. It does sound generous, but certainly open to modification...Anyways I'll check out the site tommorrow or the next day. It's too late for heavy reading. Thanks for answering my ignorant questions:-)
I understand.
The nrst to me isn't to justify the presence of illegals. IMO the reason it's on this thread is because it would eliminate the incentive of being able to live here tax free. Thereby reducing the problem at its root.
However, your point is well taken that some will be less angry about them if they were to pay their way.
Unless or until the Income tax is repealed, I could not support any additional means of taxing the American people.
Me too. See HR 25:
TITLE I--REPEAL OF THE INCOME TAX, PAYROLL TAXES, AND ESTATE AND GIFT TAXES
SEC. 101. INCOME TAXES REPEALED.
SEC. 102. PAYROLL TAXES REPEALED.
SEC. 103. ESTATE AND GIFT TAXES REPEALED.
As for paying in by check every month,...
That was only an example to attempt to illustrate that the method of collection may have an enormous impact on spending.
I can read a pay stub. I see how much goes in...
Yeah everyone can (well nearly everyone). Unfortunately, just knowing how much goes in is not sufficient to most folks to get their attention. The nrst forces people to pull green cash money out of their wallet to pay for government. AN extra $1.50 on the 6 pak, an extra $9 on a jumbo pak of diapers, an extra $1 on a gallon of milk, an extra $30 on a nice dinner with the wife, an extra $15 on a movie for the family.... all of which has to be on the receipt labeled "FEDERAL TAX".
Folks will have to reach in their wallets and pay for the beast. IMO that will have an effect on those who don't perceive the tax burden.
"It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption, that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit; which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed, that is, an extension of the revenue. When applied to this object, the saying is as just as it is witty, that, "in political arithmetic, two and two do not always make four .'' If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds. This forms a complete barrier against any material oppression of the citizens by taxes of this class, and is itself a natural limitation of the power of imposing them."
Now compare and contrast the scope of Federal Government in Hamilton's day with the current extraConstitutional leviathan.
Keep in mind the Jefferson Administration paid down the war debt, made the Louisiana purchase, reorganized the Navy, and did so solely on the basis of tarrifs (not a sales tax).
I reiterate: The only thing which will reduce the tax burden is a reduction in how much the Government spends.
Without returning Government to the bounds of its Constitutional limitations, as envisioned by folks like Hamilton, there will be no reduction in taxes, just a shuffle in who pays them when and how, with the ongoing smoke and mirrors of a 'rebate', which is how people perceive their refund if they get one.
Those of us who invariably pay extra money in every April see this all for what it is, a shell game to bamboozle the masses. Between child care credits and the "Earned income credit" we already have a 'rebate' built into the current system.
Imo, it would be easier to not tax food, water/sewer services, and energy. Then you do not have to refund anything, and do not have to have the bureaucracy to crank out those checks.
Imo, it would be easier to not tax food, water/sewer services, and energy. Then you do not have to refund anything, and do not have to have the bureaucracy to crank out those checks.
That sounds good on its face but it can become a slippery slope. If one or a small number of industries have their goods exempted then other industries will demand the same. In the end there will be so many exemptions will end up with the same number of loopholes we have now. The Fair Tax eliminates these loopholes to avoid the very problem your proposal would create. Consider two disadvantages: Fair Tax FAQ #4
1. The more income an individual earns the more they tend to spend. Exempting certain items will give those with higher incomes a disproportionate advantage.
2.Purchases today many items are not exempted from federal taxation because they include embedded value added taxes(VATS). The Fair Tax will eliminate VATS by eliminating business to business taxes.
Yes, and under the income tax system, spending isn't going to reduce.
Keep pushing for reduced spending - I applaude you. As for me, I don't think spending will reduce until we change the method of collection to one that encourages reduced taxes and hence reduced spending.
Simply changing the method of collection can enable and facilitate a spending reduction. ======> THe income tax system allowes and encourages spending by reducing and minimizing the effect of the tax burden on individuals.
Why has spending continued to spiral out of control - even when all three branches of government are controlled by repubs?
Just one example - why do we tax business? The income tax (flat or graduated) allows spending growth to continue by hiding taxes that individuals pay in higher prices, lower wages, or reduced ROI.
That effectively prevents a large part of the electorate from perceiving that a significant portion of their tax burden is in the higher prices they pay, in the lower wages they earn, or in the smaller returns on investments in their 401k.
Ideas like that could become food for thought for Rep. Bill Thomas of California, chairman of the House's tax-writing committee. He wants to push ahead with tax reform this year, including the creation of a national sales tax. In theory, a sales tax would capture the underground economy, since all wage earners have to spend money to live.
Music to my ears. I'd love to see Chairman Thomas take a real run at this (as the iron gets hotter and hotter). Thanks for posting.
This is from April of 2005. (Can't y'all find anything new to post?) Thomas obviously didn't "push ahead with tax reform" last year, nor has he done it this year.
"This is from April of 2005. (Can't y'all find anything new to post?) Thomas obviously didn't "push ahead with tax reform" last year, nor has he done it this year."
Yup. We used to have a Fair Tax sign in our front yard.
Both Milton Friedman and Alan Greenspan testified before Congress that the Fair Tax is the perfect tax system.
They also testified that they think it is highly unlikely that it will ever be implemented, because, and these are Friedman's words, "Congress derives power from the ability to grant tax favors".
I finally gave up when Congress started talking about the need to phase in a Fair Tax, having a dual Income/Sales Tax system. At that point, I realized that the SOB's would give us BOTH taxes, ever increasing, without phasing out the income tax. I immediately withdrew my support for Fair Tax at that point.
I don't see a Congress on the horizon that would ever give us anything approaching the Fair Tax without screwing it up. It'll be 20 years at least. At that time, we'll probably be the LAST nation to implement it.
Food, water, and energy are essential to survive. You die here in December without heat.
Everyone needs these things, why tax them?
It is not about the industry, it is about what everyone needs to live. Then you can do away with rebates and the bureaucracy to issue them.
As clothing runs such a gamut, tax it.
Money denied to the Federal Leviathan is a good thing.
Loretta Sanchez, refers to this off the books, under the table labor as "Casual labor".
Hmmm, IT IS STILL ILLEGAL, as well as their presence in our country is illegal.
We have elected officials in this country condoning Illegal activity.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.