1.9M out of 12M, if married makes it 3.8M out of 12M, if one child makes it 5.7M, if two children makes it 7.6M. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/16/n...loans using tax identification numbers&st=cse In the 2005 tax year, the last for which such data is available, 1.9 million returns were filed with the primary taxpayer’s using an individual taxpayer number, known as an ITIN, up 30 percent from 2004. Applications for the numbers spiked last year, with 1.5 million new ITINs issued through the beginning of November, more than any full year since the program started. In 2005 alone, more than $5 billion in tax liability — the total owed, including money withheld from paychecks during the year — was reported in the 2.9 million returns that listed at least one person with an ITIN, she said. And between 1996 and 2003, such filers reported nearly $50 billion of tax liability.
Not sure if you were posting to agree with me or disagree with me, but this article proves what I said. If ~2/3 of illegals are paying taxes, then, as I said, illegal aliens are NOT paying as much tax as a citizen earning the same amount of money.
And there's this: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20070413/ai_n19018650/ In 2004, the IRS got 7.9 million W-2s with names that didn't match a Social Security Number. More than half were from California, Texas, Florida and Illinois, states with large immigrant populations, leading experts to believe they likely represent the wages of illegal immigrants. Even immigrants who use ITINs to file taxes are forced to make up a Social Security Number when they get a job.
The only people who make the same amount of money are (VERY) part-time minimum wage types. Something to chew on. In the USA, the population is 300M yet the workforce is 120M. So 180M don't work, and likely don't pay taxes. As far as federal income taxes go, at least the lowest 40% of earners pay $0 (or get refunds).
well, just multiply them if they're married...and then multiply them again for every kid.. voila! 250% of americans pay taxes!
I'd say that study is questionable. As I mentioned, in California, we have to tack on an extra 10% to our budget every year to cover unexpected costs associated with illegal aliens. We're talking ~$12 billion per year, for California alone. Wait, what? You want to quote a number for how much illegals "cost" us, but then assume that the study doesn't account for any gains that we get due to them? Either: 1) The study you are referring to has already taken into account the "benefit" I / we get from them being here and now you are double-dipping on the "benefits". or 2) The study you are referring to is garbage and useless since it clearly isn't an exhaustive study.
Unexpected costs? Why are they unexpected? Wait, what? There are lots of reasons why a study would only report on costs and not benefits. It doesn't make the study garbage, it just means you can't use it to compute the net effect. Either way, one should go look the study up instead of making assumptions about what it does or doesn't include. barfo
Sorry, do you want to use a different term? There isn't a line item in the budget for "covering our ass from illegal alien costs". Everything is about TCO. Total cost. Includes all costs and benefits. So yes, something that doesn't try to include all costs and benefits is attempting to hide the facts and be misleading.
1) The study is the only one I can find that backs your position that they cost more in public services than they contribute in taxes. 2) The study covers govt. expenditures vs. govt. revenues for these people. 3) The state of California is providing way more services than the law requires. It's in the govt.'s hands to spend discretionary funds as it sees fit. 4) The 14th amendment states that any person born on US soil is a citizen; the $12B claim or $10.5B or $6B claim I've seen includes children of illegal immigrants who are rightfully citizens.
So, in your mind a study that compared costs of, say, medical syringes available from various suppliers would be completely worthless, because it didn't factor in the possible economic effects of saving (or killing) people with said syringes? barfo
There are no unexpected costs. You can surely budget $4B for education and $500M for incarceration and $1B for medical services. Those are California's mandated expenses and the $4B isn't technically for illegals.
Depends who the customer is. If you are talking about a public program to provide medical syringes, then yes, the possible economic effects should be studied.
I just don't know what you meant. You said that every year, you had to put in an extra 10% that wasn't in the budget for unexpected costs. That suggests that the problem is with the budgeting, not the aliens. The number of aliens isn't growing so fast that it is impossible to budget for. barfo
Hey, I didn't write the budget. I'm just relaying information that I read here in California. Would it be better if they just built the cost into the other expenditures to hide it from the people? I think it should be widely published how much we need to budget for illegal aliens.
Is the LA Times (a big california newspaper) widely published? http://www.latimes.com/news/columnists/la-me-cap2-2009feb02,0,418500.column
