Follow by Email

Search This Blog

Pageviews past week

Saturday, November 19, 2011

Joe Legal vs. Jose Illegal (Part 1) by Chuck McGlawn

An unsigned e-mail has been floating around the internet for a few years. Perhaps it has landed in your in-box a time or two, maybe a time or six. You are coaxed to open the e-mail  by the Subject, “Joe Legal vs. Jose Illegal” Even if you do not read the entire e-mail the message it conveys becomes very clear, very soon. That very clear message being, “Illegal Immigration hurts YOU and YOUR FAMILY”. The heading just above the comparisons reads, “DO YOU THINK THIS IS FAIR? THIS IS YOU, THE LEGAL”. That statement casts you as Joe Legal. If you read the entire e-mail you will see that “Joe Legal” and “Jose Illegal” are metaphors for all the legal families and all he illegal families in the US.

The e-mail starts with: You have two families: "Joe Legal" and "Jose Illegal". Both families have two parents, two children, and live in California.

Joe Legal works in construction, has a Social Security Number and makes $25.00 per hour with taxes deducted.

Jose Illegal also works in construction, has NO Social Security Number, and gets paid $15.00 cash "under the table".

Seems very clear Jose Illegal is not paying his fair share of the Income Taxes. However, a closer look will reveal that Jose Illegal is responsible for MORE INCOME TAXES not less. The more taxes that Jose Illegal is responsible for are Federal Income Taxes

If Jose paid income tax he would pay the lowest rate of 15%. Fifteen percent of $15.00 is $2.25. That means Jose would pay $2.25X40 hours. That would net the Federal Government $90.00 per week or $4,680.00 per year.

However, by working off the books at $15.00 per hour, Jose he adds $10.00 for every hour he works to the profit of the job on which he is working. His boss pays the highest tax bracket of 35%. Thirty five percent of $10.00 that Jose adds to the profit from the job is $3.50. So, by being paid under the table Jose actually generates an extra $1.25 in Federal income tax revenue for every hour he works. That would be $1.25X40 hours=$50.00 per week, times 52 weeks =$2,600 per year. Multiply that by the 12,000,000 illegals $31.2 billion. Look closer at statistics about illegal immigration, a few are true, a few are false, most are only half true. And the half-truths are the ones that really mislead.

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

More nonsense.

None of this fuzzy math takes into account the emergency room health care that taxpayers must fund for illegals, the resouces illegals consume at food banks that should be going to feed disenfranchised US citizens, the 30% of prison beds in the US that are occupied by illegal migrants and that US citizens must pay for, or the commonly used ITIN (Tax ID number) used by illegal foreigners to capture child tax credits which amounted to $2.4 BILLION for ITIN holders in 2007. The IRS allows illegal migrants to obtain ITIN's. And that is how they circumvent the system. The US government is wholly complicit in saturating our economy with illegal migrants to save Mr. Banker and to turn our own citizens into debt slaves. Here, in fact, is the proof source:

http://www.cis.org/child-tax-credits

So let's see if Mr. McGlawn deletes and censors all these relevant facts too.

Chuckest said...

(I wish you would take on a name. It doesn't have to be real.) Keep your shirt on A4. This is just Part 1. I will cover some of those items in subsecquent parts.

Please remember, I am correcting an e-mail, propaganda that goes out unquestioned. I am just pointing out the errors in the propaganda.

There is no fuzzy math in my analysis. When illegals are employed and paid "Under the Table" they generate more Income tax for the Federal Government than if they paid taxes directly period.

Jose doesn't pay taxes, but by increasing the profits on the job on which he works the owner pays the taxes Jose would have paid plus more. That is all I said.

This article is authored by me, and goes out under my name. If there are flaws or fuzziness in my math or what I said, please correct my math.

What I said was: "If Jose paid income tax he would pay the lowest rate of 15%. Fifteen percent of $15.00 is $2.25. That means Jose would pay $2.25 X 40 hours. That would net the Federal Government $90.00 per week or $4,680.00 per year.

However, by working off the books at $15.00 per hour, Jose adds $10.00 of profit for every hour in which he works. His boss pays the highest tax bracket of 35%. Thirty five percent of $10.00 that Jose adds to the profit from the job is $3.50. So, by being paid under the table Jose actually generates an extra $1.25 in Federal income tax revenue for every hour he works. That would be $1.25 X 40 hours that equals $50.00 per week, times 52 weeks =$2,600 per year. Multiply that by the 12,000,000 illegals in the US is $31.2 billion."

Correct my math, or post some where else.

Chuck

Anonymous said...

Mr. McGlawn said:

"However, by working off the books at $15.00 per hour, Jose adds $10.00 of profit for every hour in which he works"

That makes no sense whatsover. How does Jose add $10 of profit per hour for the company by working off the books @ $15/hr. versus working on the books @ $15/hr in the 15% tax bracket? How does the company profit by $10/hr? Fuzzy math.

Chuckest said...

I am beginning to think that the only time you open your mouth is to change feet.

Let me tell you AGAIN how it increases profits by $10.00 for every hour he works. Please pay attention.

It would make this job easier if you had read my original blog post. I am in the process of discrediting a unsigned e-mail "Joe vs Jose".

Try to follow this; The choices are Joe at $25.00 per hour, or Jose at $15.00 per hour.If Jose displaces Joe he works for $10.00 less per hour. Thus adding $10.00 of profit for each hour he works. PLEASE tell me how that is FUZZY MATH?


If you cannot follow that, please go to the public library and check out a 2nd grade arithmetic book.

Anonymous said...

Mr. McGlawn said:

"The choices are Joe at $25.00 per hour, or Jose at $15.00 per hour.If Jose displaces Joe he works for $10.00 less per hour. Thus adding $10.00 of profit for each hour he works"

I did not see the reference to $25/hr for the legal worker.

You make several unsubstantiated assumptions here.

1) The entire $10 difference would not necessarily be a business profit taxed in the 35% bracket. Perhaps the unpaid $10/hr was retained in an interest bearing account in which case only the interest on the amount would get taxed. Not the entire deposit. There are too many variables in the tax law to assume the entire $10 or any part thereof would get taxed at 35%. Your simplification does not exist in the real world.

Mr. McGlawn - you must take all aspects of the cost of illegal immigration into consideration to make a full and fair assessment of the overall impact. You cannot cherry pick simplified aspects of the equation and solve for X. You must take everything into account for a fair and honest conclusion. I have touched on only a few in my rebuttal. There are more too.

Chuckest said...

A4 said,

I did not see the reference to $25/hr for the legal worker.

You make several unsubstantiated assumptions here.

"The entire $10 difference would not necessarily be a business profit taxed in the 35% bracket. Perhaps the unpaid $10/hr was retained in an interest bearing account in which case only the interest on the amount would get taxed. Not the entire deposit. There are too many variables in the tax law to assume the entire $10 or any part thereof would get taxed at 35%. Your simplification does not exist in the real world."

Talk about your fuzzy math. I think you could give lessons. You should check that 2nd grade arithmetic book. Job income for one hour of labor $55.00 employee Joe Legal paid $25.00. Profit is $30.00. Same job income $55.00 employee Jose Illegal paid $15.00 profit $40.00. And you accuse me of fuzzy math.

Using your scenario with Jose illegal produces even more tax revenue for the Federal Government than with Joe Legal With $30.00 put into a tax deferred retirement produces X amount of interest, with Jose the boss puts $40.00 in a tax deferred program. It produces more interest and more taxes, and when he takes it out he will then pay the deferred tax which will be higher from Jose's deposited profit.

A4 said, "And what about the cost suffered by society for the unemployed American citizen named Bob who cannot find work because Jose the illegal has unlawfully stolen a job that Bob the American would like to have?"

I refer you to my last article. Illegal immigration increases the job opportunities for domestic workers on every job level but high school drop outs.

A4 said. "Mr. McGlawn - you must take all aspects of the cost of illegal immigration into consideration to make a full and fair assessment of the overall impact."

I could not have said it better myself. And that is exactly what almost every economist says. when you take all aspects of the impact of illegal immigration into consideration to make a full and fair assessment of the overall impact, YOU WIND UP WITH A NET GAIN.

I think we are through here. Especially if you the impact of illegal immigration into consideration to make a full and fair assessment of the overall impact, YOU WIND UP WITH A NET GAIN.

Anonymous said...

What a piece of work you are, Mr. McGlawn.

You deleted my last very relevant comment in its entirety.

It is so ironic that you post your blogs on a libertarian website.

Quite amusing to say the least! :>)

Chuckest said...

Hello A4,
I like every other newspaper, edit for length and relevance. I have been much more generous with you than others woud have been.

You demonstrated that you would not accept the results of men with advanced degrees in economy who almost all say that illegal immigration is A NET GAIN TO THE US, and most of them, not all, say the GAIN WOULD BE GREATER if we adopted a more open border policy.

You A4, are among the 75% of the US populace (In the majority to be sure) that has been manipulated into the belief that illegal immigration hurts the US, it does not.

So I thought that I would take a more "man on the street" approach to one of the propaganda articles that has fostered the misconceptions of the 75%, and show the incorrectness of the anti illegal immigration propaganda. I chose "Joe vs Jose", you can Google the complete article and read it. It is all over the Internet.

I wroth Joe vs Jose (part 1) in it I show the flaw in the very first assertion about wages. The fact is if Jose takes a job that was costing $25.00 and does it for $15.00 everyone benefits whether he pays taxes or not. Not only does the purchaser of this labor have the perceived $25.00 increase in value, but he still has $10.00 which he will spend on something else, creating more demand for labor. It is the "creating more demand for labor" that will in time provide Joe Legal with a better job and a higher standard of living.

I do not know who you are, you may be the Executive Director of some organization that is actually harmed, in the short run, by the free flow of labor. I am nobody, I simply believe in liberty. I believe that my actions that have an effect on others, and their actions that have an effect on me are only virtuous when they are derived from voluntary mutual consent.

Virtue can only exist where there is free choice. This is the basis of a truly free society. It is not only the most practical and humanitarian foundation for humane action it is also the most ethical.

Therefor, A4 deal with the error of the wages, and the wages only. This blog is not a platform for you to disseminate your ill-conceived notions.

That is the only subject on which I wrote, and the only subject to which you can contest.

And as editor, I will not post any disagreement with what I have written in this reply to you. I would have much rather take our personal interactions to a direct e-mail exchange.

Chuckest said...

I deleted an A4 posting, because he insists on attacking me, and not what I said.

A4 accuses me of being anti-liberty because I won't let him play in my sandbox. A4 evidently doesn't know that exercising ones property rights is the highest calling of liberty..

A4 you can say absolutely anything you want to say, just not on my blog. If you play by my rules you can post freely. You cannot set my agenda here. Create your own blog, then rant till the end of time.

Anonymous said...

Please read the following and tell me if the final assertion draws a logical conclusion.

1) I own this blog - therefore I control it and I will delete any comments that I determine fall outside my personal weltanschauung.

2) I will ask the questions in this discussion forum and if you do not give me the answer that I demand I will delete your comment.

3) Even though this is discussion forum that invites the public to participate in active discourse on some controversial matters, if you vary from my strict format of what is acceptable, I will delete your comment.

4) I am a follower of libertarian principles and am a lover of liberty.

What is wrong with this picture?