Deported because parents came here Illegally

[Zero Sum 305]

That is income tax, there are many many more.

Yep. I reckon quite a few pay even property taxes on places *gulp* they've purchased.

Sales tax, etc etc.

[^_^ 5,021]

And then we have people who live in Puerto Rico. They don't pay federal income taxes but do benefit from many activities of the federal government (for example, the US military provides for the defense of PR).

What's especially galling about this is that this is an arrangement which has the full backing of the federal government.

Thankfully, there is a solution on the horizon.

The President's Task Force on Puerto Rico's Status said island residents should determine its political fate – and that the decades-old political limbo should be settled by the end of next year.

In its report to President Obama, the task force, among other recommendations, said only Puerto Rican residents – and not their mainland counterparts – should vote in two plebiscites. The first vote should determine if Puerto Ricans want to be a part of the United States or independent. The second plebiscite would give residents a choice among four options: statehood, independence, free association and commonwealth.

...

Obama signed an executive order in October 2009 that directed the task force to examine Puerto Rico's status.

Hopefully this results in full statehood for Puerto Rico and the American taxpayer can begin the process of reclaiming the vast sums of money that have already been lost supporting that miserable little island.

[Zero Sum 305]

Good for the people of PR to decide, finally, what they want. Hope they make an informed decision. Now what that has to do with illegals is beyond me.

[^_^ 5,021]

Good for the people of PR to decide, finally, what they want. Hope they make an informed decision. Now what that has to do with illegals is beyond me.

A lot of the talk of illegals is focusing on the fact that they consume but do not pay their share.

Why ignore that we have U.S. citizens () who also consume but do not pay their share? And I don't just mean poor Americans who earn too little to have a federal income tax liability. I mean an entire class of American citizens who are exempted from paying federal taxes based only on the place of their birth! It would be like us exempting people born in North Dakota from having to pay taxes.

But by all means.. focus on those Mexicans pouring over the border and ignore the much larger problem already here.

[Zero Sum 305]

A lot of the talk of illegals is focusing on the fact that they consume but do not pay their share.

Why ignore that we have U.S. citizens () who also consume but do not pay their share? And I don't just mean poor Americans who earn too little to have a federal income tax liability. I mean an entire class of American citizens who are exempted from paying federal taxes based only on the place of their birth! It would be like us exempting people born in North Dakota from having to pay taxes.

But by all means.. focus on those Mexicans pouring over the border and ignore the much larger problem already here.

I see what you're trying to say. FWIW, I think that looking at it from a Federal Income Tax perspective probably ignores the majority of the income generation the US Treasury earns from that place.

Check it here: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Do_Puerto_Ricans_pay_US_income_tax

Puerto Rico

is classified by the U.S. government as an independent taxation authority by mutual agreement with the U.S. Congress. A common misconception is that residents of Puerto Rico do not have to pay federal taxes. Residents of the island pay federal taxes (import/export taxes, federal commodity taxes, social security taxes, etc.) and some even pay federal income taxes (Puerto Rico residents who are federal employees, or who do business with the federal government, Puerto Rico-based corporations that intend to send funds to the U.S., etc). While most residents of the island do not pay federal income tax, they do pay federal payroll taxes (Social Security and Medicare), as well as Puerto Rico income taxes. In addition, because the cutoff point for income taxation is lower than that of the IRS code, and because the per-capita income in Puerto Rico is much lower than the average per-capita income on the mainland, more Puerto Rico residents pay income taxes to the local taxation authority than if the IRS code were applied to the island. Puerto Rico residents are eligible for Social Security benefits upon retirement. Puerto Rico is excluded from Supplemental Security Income (SSI). Puerto Rico receives less than 15% of the Medicaid funding it would be allotted as a state."

So its just like the illegals that end up paying taxes on their income, via fraudulent identities or not.

[Deputy Purple 1,294]

I know a few people right here on VJ who would rather keep the money. I'm not trying to say which viewpoint is more valid, I'm sure everyone feels their own is. I had no problem paying taxes even when I was here on a work visa with the intent to return to Canada. I don't expect that the government can be king Solomon. Someone is going to end up with the short end of the stick

.

That argument could be extended to everything that is a gov't service at every level. Some things are just infrastructure for the common good of the community. I think schools are included there.

It may, there are bigger problems than class size to be sure.

Yeah there are but with fewer students in the classrooms and the same resources then those problems have a better chance of being addressed.

You said before that you think it's fair to get benefits based on what you contribute. So what about illegal aliens who pay taxes? What about kids whose parents are on welfare? Any exceptions to the rule?

Illegal aliens who pay taxes, tough on them. It's a consequence of their own choice(s). There's a legal concept of "Clean Hands", basically it means that you have no legal right to benefit from doing something illegal so a court of law can't enforce you receiving "ill-gotten gains". Be definition an illegal alien working is breaking the law therefore they have no right to benefit from it.

I think welfare and Earned Income Credits are ridiculous. Any program that you can get something out without paying something in should be eliminated.

[Zero Sum 305]

I'd rephrase it to saying abuse of welfare and EIC are ridiculous. Wanting to act like a modern, humane society, isn't.

Dakine was talking to the idea of paying into the system, and therefore, they are not necessarily milking the system without having contributed something into it, as you were originally implying. Wanting to make things punitive based on legal morality is definitely an opinion that could make sense, but its still an opinion.

[Deputy Purple 1,294]

I'd rephrase it to saying abuse of welfare and EIC are ridiculous. Wanting to act like a modern, humane society, isn't.

Any system that is practically designed to be abused like they are gets the label of ridiculous in my book.

If someone is happy living on $8 an hour they already pay no taxes. Tell me why they should then get some of the taxes I paid to the Government? If they want to afford a nicer car or to have kids then they should do what I did and improve their situation.

Dakine was talking to the idea of paying into the system, and therefore, they are not necessarily milking the system without having contributed something into it, as you were originally implying. Wanting to make things punitive based on legal morality is definitely an opinion that could make sense, but its still an opinion.

Again, if they weren't here illegally then they either would:

1. Not be here at all and not contributing.
2. Be here legally and contributing and eligible for the benefits of legal presence.

If a requirement of benefiting from the system is that you are legally present then how is that a bad thing?

If welfare wasn't a hand-out program that people could live off of for years then they too would be more productive and contributing.

[Zero Sum 305]

Any system that is practically designed to be abused like they are gets the label of ridiculous in my book.

If someone is happy living on $8 an hour they already pay no taxes. Tell me why they should then get some of the taxes I paid to the Government? If they want to afford a nicer car or to have kids then they should do what I did and improve their situation.

Again, if they weren't here illegally then they either would:

1. Not be here at all and not contributing.
2. Be here legally and contributing and eligible for the benefits of legal presence.

If a requirement of benefiting from the system is that you are legally present then how is that a bad thing?

If welfare wasn't a hand-out program that people could live off of for years then they too would be more productive and contributing.

I think your logic is circling itself, Bob. If the problem is in the design, then it can be redesigned. What I sense though is something much deeper- a resentment of paying into society's overall general welfare. And society includes everyone, even the ones that rightly do not belong here. How we proceed in ridding ourselves of this unwanted population is one thing. Acting like civilized humans is another.

Certainly, as I've stated before, the control of most non-essential assistance should be open to redesign to prevent abuse.

[Deputy Purple 1,294]

What I sense though is something much deeper- a resentment of paying into society's overall general welfare

I do not resent to contributing to "Society's Overall General Welfare".

What I do resent is: Someone wanting to sit on their backside all day and believe they're entitled to enjoy the fruits of my labor. That is what the current welfare & EIC models are.

I've had family in the past who needed assistance, I've taken them into my house, trained them to do an IT job and seen them get that job. Now if only the Government could design a program as efficient as I was then I would support it. Ironically every time someone tries to encourage "work-fare" it gets shot down.

Make the programs about giving a hand-up instead of a hand-out and I'll support them.

[Zero Sum 305]

I do not resent to contributing to "Society's Overall General Welfare".

What I do resent is: Someone wanting to sit on their backside all day and believe they're entitled to enjoy the fruits of my labor. That is what the current welfare & EIC models are.

I've had family in the past who needed assistance, I've taken them into my house, trained them to do an IT job and seen them get that job. Now if only the Government could design a program as efficient as I was then I would support it. Ironically every time someone tries to encourage "work-fare" it gets shot down.

Make the programs about giving a hand-up instead of a hand-out and I'll support them.

You do realize you're making a blanket statement about everyone that qualifies for such programs? I think generalizing an entire population of welfare recipients according to the abuse of a segment is a bit of a dangerous proposition when we support policy changes.

But I do agree 100% with your last statement.

[Zero Sum 305]

Sadly we live in a society where self-gratification is more of a priority than seeking an education. And when interested parties seek to improve their lot in life, they tend to be met with fierce resistance for many reasons. We need to start thinking of society as a whole, not as a breakdown of who sits on their buttocks more than others.

[Deputy Purple 1,294]

You do realize you're making a blanket statement about everyone that qualifies for such programs? I think generalizing an entire population of welfare recipients according to the abuse of a segment is a bit of a dangerous proposition when we support policy changes.

Nope, nowhere did I say that everyone who qualifies for said programs fits the description, I just said that's what I resent and that the current models are designed to encourage such behavior.

Let me tell you a secret...

A long time ago:

• My kids used to have medicaid.
• For a few months we received food stamps.
• As a teenager I lived in a welfare house because my mother was happy to game the system.

Why doesn't that hold true for my family today? Because I wasn't proud of the fact that I was failing to provide for my children. Before I could get the great career I have today I worked 2 & 3 jobs to get to the point that I didn't need the assistance.

In my life I have seen far more people who treat the Welfare program as their own personal lottery than people who really want to get off it.

I think aiming to get the segment who abuse the system kicked to the curb is paramount when considering fixing it.

Look at Unemployment Insurance, the employee pays into the system (employer contributes on our behalf but same effect) and there is a limit to how long you can draw benefits plus you are required to be actively seeking employment (even if you're going for further education in the meantime).

Compare that to welfare where all you have to do is send in paperwork every month and not get a job.

[Boiler 45,314]

To be fair the US system is not gamed as much as the UK one, there we are talking serious issues.

But I do seem to know a lot of people who are on SS Disability. I do not know what it pays, but enough that they are interested in cash only jobs. I am sure there are people who are on SSD who do not work, all the ones I know do.

[Zero Sum 305]

Nope, nowhere did I say that everyone who qualifies for said programs fits the description, I just said that's what I resent and that the current models are designed to encourage such behavior.

Let me tell you a secret...

A long time ago:

• My kids used to have medicaid.
• For a few months we received food stamps.
• As a teenager I lived in a welfare house because my mother was happy to game the system.

Why doesn't that hold true for my family today? Because I wasn't proud of the fact that I was failing to provide for my children. Before I could get the great career I have today I worked 2 & 3 jobs to get to the point that I didn't need the assistance.

In my life I have seen far more people who treat the Welfare program as their own personal lottery than people who really want to get off it.

I think aiming to get the segment who abuse the system kicked to the curb is paramount when considering fixing it.

Look at Unemployment Insurance, the employee pays into the system (employer contributes on our behalf but same effect) and there is a limit to how long you can draw benefits plus you are required to be actively seeking employment (even if you're going for further education in the meantime).

Compare that to welfare where all you have to do is send in paperwork every month and not get a job.

Unfortunately, that very description of welfare programs and the recipients thereof, are what characterize an entire population of recipients- according to many of those that criticize the program(s) based mostly on what I suspect are ideological grounds.

Your response was very well worded and impressive in being quite specific about what they *should* be for, and for that I commend your thinking.