jay pettitt on 3/11/2007 at 01:34

---

Income Tax is not the only (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sales_tax) fruit. To say that migrants avoid taxation is simplistic and daft. And like Stitch says, there are plenty of disadvantages to being outside the system, none of which sit comfortably with aspirations of making a new life for yourself.

Besides, no one is arguing that an underclass of tax evading migrants is a good idea. There are two positions in this thread: one that seeks change, saying that migration is an unavoidable fact of life and that operating closed borders with Mexico never has and never will work and benefits no one except those who benefit exploitation (whom we universally dislike anyway) and or from incessant whining and the other position whose contribution is incessant whining. Put up or shut up.


Woe betide that American tax payers actually take responsibility for something.

Gingerbread Man on 3/11/2007 at 03:47

---

Can anyone suggest to me a reasonable method by which illegal immigration could be curtailed? Because otherwise you're just King Knut on the beach.

Chimpy Chompy on 3/11/2007 at 17:10

---

A huge moat filled with genetically-engineered cybernetic crocodiles?

Thief13x on 4/11/2007 at 00:21

---

ha, you don't know how much you sound like GWB right now "we can't get out of Iraq now, so lets continue shoveling truckloads of money to help people that have nothing to do with this country at the expense of the tax-payers"

are you drunk? there are plenty of other options, such as getting a real border control and patrolling it and prosecuting properly, or sealing the door to any business that employs an illegal with active inspections. But there's nothing we can do, so lets pay 30 bill/yr!

jay pettitt on 4/11/2007 at 03:04

---

Only moderately.

I think at this juncture I should explain how newspapers work. What happens is a chap living in Wilberforce called Wobbly William has some 'thing' he's been working on that he wants publicised. He'll write a press release and send it in to his favourite newspaper. He'll chose a newspaper that he believes will by sympathetic to his cause (media outlets are invariably partisan) or one that he believes to have sufficient kudos to look really good on his CV. Newspaper will dutifully print said press release, but only having buggered about with it, despite not having qualification or subject related expertise to do so. Otherwise they'll copy & paste something off Routers and then make random adjustments for your enhanced reading pleasure.

At best newspapers are second hand news dealers. That you've failed to properly reference the article in question and instead provided us with your own personal synopsis, renders that information third hand and likely even less reliable. The casual reader of TTLG has no idea whatsoever if the article you reference originates from a peer reviewed study, if it's a new study awaiting review or if it's the result of cherry picking from a partisan organisation with an axe to grind. The average reader of TTLG also has no idea if the article you reference is a report, editorial, commentary or a letter. I'm afraid it is impossible consider your alleged Washington Post article even vaguely seriously without context in which to place it. Especially as it runs 180 degrees counter to conventionally accepted wisdom.

I also think it would benefit this discussion you seem keen to engage in if you understand how money happens. For all practical purposes the US economy is not measured in terms of worth, rather in terms of debt, or 'credit' as it's called in polite circles. The vast bulk of your enormous economy is loans; you'll be needing an economist to provide a proper assessment, but I'd guess that roughly 99.9% of your vast apparent wealth is actually loans awaiting payment. The thing that stops it all going pear shaped is that there is a delay between when loans are taken out and when they are due to be repaid. During this delay more loans can be taken out, flooding the economy with some apparent new found wealth that can be used to repay (and thus cancel out) the last round of loans plus interest. There's a reason why it's so important to keep 'growing' the economy. If you think this is an absurdly daft situation, then you're in good company. The point I want you to take away is that increased spending on schools and social infrastructure will unlikely necessitate in any noticeable increase in taxes. The fractional reserve system ensures that you can generate exponentially more economy than you have cash to hand, though it does require that reserves increase, all be it in proportionately tiny amounts.

If you're observant it will have occurred to you that, if it's important to keep 'growing' the economy in order to make interest payments then it's best not to have a slump in core value producing markets; it's best if the US's gas reserves don't drop through the floor, if oil production isn't peaking, if every major industry in the US doesn't require subsidising and wavers and it's best if the housing market is buoyant. Failing all that you can grow the population to counter the tendency that when confidence is low more people tend to save, rather taking out loans in order to keep spending, spending, spending; and loans are imperative to the well being of the US economy. The alternative is depression, bank runs, forfeits and repossession.

It's also worth noting that every developed country, including the US, engages in social politics. The concept that 'socialism' is to be sneered at and can be countered with pithy quotations is for the politically retarded. It is perfectly possible and necessary to combine a social politics with aspirations of democracy, well being and affluence; as demonstrated by the US, Canada, UK, France, Spain, Netherlands, Denmark, Belgium, Germany etc etc etc. Building more schools and improving social infrastructure to cope with increased demand shouldn't be a dirty concept in any modern, liberal democracy.

Also keep in mind that the US/Mexico border is roughly 2000 miles wide and is the most crossed national border on Earth. Significant numbers of people are already prepared and go to extraordinary lengths to enter into the US. Even if you wanted to, there is no cost effective option for enforced border control. If there was you'd already be doing it.