Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Give Us Your Tired, Your Poor, Your Inducement to Additional Capital Investments, Yearning to Cook Chinese Food
Does increased immigration lift or lower native-born Americans' wages? The answer, argues Virginia Postrel, isn't as obvious as it initially seems.
Franklin Harris|11.3.05 @ 11:00AM|#
Where I live, there are quite enough Chinese and Mexican restaurants, and even almost enough Japanese restaurants. What we need is an influx of Italians.
fyodor|11.3.05 @ 11:02AM|#
Oh come on, you and your libertarian rationalizations. We all know that if everyone was forced to stay put, we'd all be so much richer.
|11.3.05 @ 11:12AM|#
Interesting. And this doesn't even take into account the fact
that illegal immigrants, because of their legal status, can be paid
lower wages by unscrupulous employers.
The answer to the declining wages of high school dropouts is to
have fewer high school dropouts. Our efforts should to towards
making sure people have opportunities, not towards making sure
people without opportunities are secure in their position. Banging
away at immigrant hordes in order to get poor workers to support
you is just one more example of the old capitalist tactict of
turning the people near the bottom against those at the very
bottom, so they'll waste their energies fighting among
themselves.
R C Dean|11.3.05 @ 11:23AM|#
Ah, but those illegals with their untaxed lower wages do two
things to raise my standard of living. One, they lower labor costs,
which lowers the costs of goods and services I buy, and two, they
increase the size of the untaxed economy, which can only benefit
everyone from a purely economic point of view.
the old capitalist tactict of turning the people near the
bottom against those at the very bottom, so they'll waste their
energies fighting among themselves.
This is hardly a "capitalist" tactic - more like a universal one.
You wanna see people at the bottom turned against each other, look
at your forced resettlements in Communist regimes, or at the use of
slave labor in pre-capitalist economies in general. Puts those
robber barons to shame.
|11.3.05 @ 11:27AM|#
"this doesn't even take into account the fact that illegal
immigrants, because of their legal status, can be paid lower wages
by unscrupulous employers."
It also doesn't mention that they can choose not to be employed by
said unscrupulous employers.
|11.3.05 @ 11:29AM|#
they increase the size of the untaxed economy, which can
only benefit everyone from a purely economic point of
view.
The government is well aware of the taxes they miss out on and
generally passes their "burden" on to us.
Jesse Walker|11.3.05 @ 11:31AM|#
they can choose not to be employed by said unscrupulous
employers.
Not necessarily. An immigrant's illegal status makes him more
susceptible to coercion.
|11.3.05 @ 11:36AM|#
It also doesn't mention that they can choose not to be
employed by said unscrupulous employers.
Sort of. You're pretty much forced to take what you can get, but a
good worker will always get paid more eventually. The problem for
illegals is no so much that they initially make below minimum wage,
because they can work to change that (and paying someone $10 under
the table is better for both the worker and the employer). The
problem is that there's a cap to how much they can be paid,
regardless of their merits.
|11.3.05 @ 11:37AM|#
RC, "Ah, but those illegals with their untaxed lower wages do two things to raise my standard of living." Yeah, and if I break your window and take your television, it would raise my standard of living, too. Such coerced cost savings may make some parties wealthy, but they don't help the economy. You, sir, are making the argument of the slaver.
|11.3.05 @ 11:38AM|#
Stretch,
"The problem for illegals is no so much that they initially make
below minimum wage, because they can work to change that"
Only if they can credibly threaten their bosses with quitting and
taking a higher-paying job. Which they cannot, because they are
forbidden to by law.
fyodor|11.3.05 @ 11:42AM|#
This is hardly a "capitalist" tactic - more like a universal
one.
Thank you, you beat me to it.
Our efforts should to towards making sure people have
opportunities, not towards making sure people without opportunities
are secure in their position.
There I agree with you, joe. And guess what, freedom =
opportunity!
they increase the size of the untaxed economy
If we allowed more people to come here legally, they could still
choose to work "under the table" if they so desired. Their illegal
status forces them to work in an untaxed economy, it doesn't enable
them to.
The government is well aware of the taxes they miss out on and
generally passes their "burden" on to us.
I don't see the logic in that, unless you mean that illegals use
government services for which they don't pay their "fair share."
Again, the solution, if not a perfect one, is to make them
legal.
|11.3.05 @ 11:48AM|#
Only if they can credibly threaten their bosses with
quitting and taking a higher-paying job. Which they cannot, because
they are forbidden to by law.
I agree that it's a very difficult and unfair position. But having
access to other opportunities isn't the only (or even primary)
reason that people get raises. As I said, it's cheaper for the
employer to pay anyone under the table, and good work will be paid
for by someone. Being forbidden by law has nothing to do with being
able to change jobs in this case.
They start in a position where they will not receive fair or
equivalent wages, and they'll never receive those as long as
they're illegal. My only point was that a good workers wages will
rise over time, though perhaps not to the same degree and
certiainly never above a certain limit.
|11.3.05 @ 11:50AM|#
joe - you're accusing RC of "coercion" for engaging in voluntary transactions with people who would thwart your attempts to mandate that all employer-employee relationships exist at the wages you and your kind stipulate? You've got to be kidding.
|11.3.05 @ 11:56AM|#
Adam,
When you finish you negotiation with "...or I'll have you thrown in
jail and deported," your transaction ceases to be voluntary. And
while RC doesn't do this himself, he essentially has people do it
for him.
And no, my support for a minimum wage does not make the above
"transaction" any less coerced. Not so good with the logic
there.
|11.3.05 @ 12:00PM|#
joe, the immigration laws that provide for jailing and deportation of otherwise non-problematic immigrants are designed to bolster your minimum wage laws. RC wouldn't be able to make that statement without the support of you and the folks behind the Minuteman Project.
fyodor|11.3.05 @ 12:03PM|#
Both sides are wrong. Jesse is right. Illegals are not literally coerced into their jobs. But their choices are limited by a threat of coercion that others don't face. And that's not a minor issue.
|11.3.05 @ 12:07PM|#
Are people really arguing that black markets are superior to
legal (albeit regulated) and transparent markets?
I thought that libertarians liked contracts. You know, the things
that can only exist in legal markets. Didn't Hernando de Soto write
a whole book about this?
fyodor|11.3.05 @ 12:07PM|#
Adam, you're pulling a joe on joe. Maybe he deserves it for...being joe. But it's still an unfair argument, claiming that he has no right to take a position that agrees with us because he takes positions that disagrees with us on other issues. IF he claimed he was pro-immigration because he was for all-out freedom, then maybe it would be worth poking him in the ribs and asking him why he's not for freedom in other circumstances. But he's not saying that, so you may as well accept that he sincerely if accidentally takes the right position on this issue. :-)
|11.3.05 @ 12:09PM|#
"The answer, argues Virginia Postrel, isn't as obvious as it
initially seems."
It's obvious to me that the greater the freedom the greater the
prosperity. Borders, immigration policies, etc., reduce freedom, so
duh.
Those who massage the numbers otherwise are merely seeking to
rationalize their hatred of pesky furriners.
|11.3.05 @ 12:13PM|#
"joe, the immigration laws that provide for jailing and
deportation of otherwise non-problematic immigrants are designed to
bolster your minimum wage laws"
No, not really.
"RC wouldn't be able to make that statement without the support of
you and the folks behind the Minuteman Project." Except for the
part where I oppose, not support, the laws that make RC's statement
possible, this makes perfect sense. You should stop digging at this
point.
Thank you, fyodor.
fyodor|11.3.05 @ 12:15PM|#
Steven Crane,
Forgive them for they know not what they're saying, or at least I
hope not. It's interesting and valuable to note the certain
advantages that black markets have because of their necessary
freedom from government burdens (aside from the fact that the
entire activity is illegal), but OF COURSE we should NOT create the
circumstances that create black markets. And I'll go out on a limb
and call that the CORRECT libertarian position regardless of
whether all or even all of the libertarians here agree with me.
fyodor|11.3.05 @ 12:18PM|#
"whether all or even all"
My typo makes me laugh. In case it wasn't obvious, I meant "whether
all or even any"
joe,
You're quite welcome. But boy, with friends like me... :-)
|11.3.05 @ 12:20PM|#
When I was out of work a few years ago, I worked �off the books�
construction with both legals and illegals.
The biggest problem for illegal workers is ignorance of the
cultural and wage ranges, at least initially. However, I think the
argument that the employer can say I�ll report you to INS is wrong,
in the first place because the employer doesn�t know where the
illegal lives, and secondly the illegals naturally talk among
themselves and anyone who pulled an INS stunt would be shunned by
illegals and have to hire on the book employees at a much larger
cost.
There were certainly employers who picked up the newly arrived guys
and would stiff them a day�s pay (I hope there�s a special spot in
hell for them!). But everyone I worked with who were longtimers
knew exactly who those employers were and avoided them.
Perhaps it�s different in a community with fewer opportunities, but
in a big city there is some competition among �off the books�
contractors.
|11.3.05 @ 12:24PM|#
Native NYer,
Well, even if "I'll have you deported" isn't a realistic threat,
"I'll fire you, and you can't get another job" is always hanging in
the background.
fyodor|11.3.05 @ 12:25PM|#
It's obvious to me that the greater the freedom the greater
the prosperity. Borders, immigration policies, etc., reduce
freedom, so duh.
Agreed. Thus the point of my first and sarcastic post. But...
Those who massage the numbers otherwise are merely seeking to
rationalize their hatred of pesky furriners.
Maybe. But you have to admit, or at least you should admit, that
for those who don't understand economics enough to look at the
larger picture, and for those don't understand or appreciate the
principle you describe, thinking that immigration lowers wages,
especially for the working poor, has a certain Occam's Razor
simplicity to it. That's why it's not easy to convince them
otherwise. And it sure don't help to write them all off as bigots.
Only some of them are! :-)
|11.3.05 @ 12:32PM|#
joe - yes, that's true. And since there isn't any work agreements, the best workers get all the work and higher wages, while slower, weaker, or older guys get less pay or nothing.
Dave W.|11.3.05 @ 12:53PM|#
I think if employers of illegal immigrants were jailed, then the state would be acting as a good night watchman. It would also send a good message to the kids about following the law.
fyodor|11.3.05 @ 1:01PM|#
Dave W,
Well yeah, a good watchman for victimless crimes. I don't know if
it's true that employers are tacitly winked at for hiring illegals
as anti-immigration forces love to claim, but I do agree that it's
not good to pass laws that aren't going to be enforced. And
victimless crimes are always tough to enforce as there's no
complainant.
|11.3.05 @ 1:09PM|#
The government is well aware of the taxes they miss out on
and generally passes their "burden" on to us.
--------------------------------------------------
I don't see the logic in that, unless you mean that illegals
use government services for which they don't pay their "fair
share." Again, the solution, if not a perfect one, is to make them
legal.
More or less, but it's not really about simple "use" of services.
The shadow economy has a direct and significant effect on deficit
spending. Taken to an extreme, if the shadow economy (and hence,
unpaid taxes) were 50% of GDP, would the government "need" any less
money? Of course not. Yes, that's mostly a problem with our
irresponsible government and retarded tax system, but taking the
situation as it is now the benefits from the untaxed economy are
offset to some (I suspect significant) degree.
Of course they should be legal. Immigrants come here to work and
make a better life for themselves, and they'd prefer to have all of
the rights and privileges that working citizens have. If they could
be here legally they would, but our immigration policy and
bureaucracy makes that impossibly complicated for most.
|11.3.05 @ 1:13PM|#
I think if employers of illegal immigrants were jailed, then
the state would be acting as a good night watchman.
Yeah, 'cause that wouldn't be a significant burden on our prison
system. We can put them in cells with people who smoke pot.
|11.3.05 @ 1:25PM|#
Somehow, every immigration discussion turns into one on illegal
immigration. But what the heck...
Are we supposed to be outraged when an employer pays an illegal too
little? How about being upset the company hired the criminal at
all? Jail for both?
I don't really want that, and don't have a huge problem even with
illegal entry (having enjoyed the company and cuisine of several
illegals), but it is interesting see the usual mostly-leftist
suspects come out of the woodwork with the sob stories. I'm more
concerned about the potential immigrant that will never get the
chance because our entry numbers apparently have to be set
artificially low due to the illegal entry. If I sneak into France
to wrok illegally, you won't here me bitchin about....never mind,
it would never happen.
|11.3.05 @ 1:38PM|#
joe - which laws that make RC's statements possible do you oppose? Restrictive immigration laws?
|11.3.05 @ 1:45PM|#
Does increased immigration lift or lower native-born
Americans' wages? The answer, argues Virginia Postrel, isn't as
obvious as it initially seems.
This posting forms a fun exercise.
Those to whom it is obvious the answer is "no" are surprised when
they get to the article and read the headline. Those to whom it is
obvious the answer is "yes" are surprised that Jesse Walker said
that the answer isn't obvious.
Surprise all around!
|11.3.05 @ 1:49PM|#
I know libertarians are supposed to be against taxes and all,
but bear with me for a sec...
If we had a purely consumption-based tax system, would the need to
distinguish "legal" vs "illegal" immigration cease to exist? I
guess my assumption is that current immigration policy exists to
protect the pool of native-born workers (though I know there's a
security aspect to it too, but I'm ignoring that for now for the
sake of arguement).
Just a thought...
fyodor|11.3.05 @ 2:07PM|#
I am quite surprised that the Lonewacko hasn't yet weighed
in.
Dude's slipping.
If we had a purely consumption-based tax system, would the need
to distinguish "legal" vs "illegal" immigration cease to
exist?
Assuming that sales taxes are harder to cheat on as many have
claimed, it would alleviate that aspect of the problem of illegals,
yes. But making them all legal would accomplish the exact same
thing. Since those who want them to be illegal either think they
"steal" jobs from "real" Americans or poison our social cohesion or
sense of identity or whatnot, I don't think abolishing the income
tax would ease any of their concerns.
Dave W.|11.3.05 @ 2:11PM|#
Well, as J. Walker might say, the question of whether the employers' crime is victimless isn't as obvius as it initially seems.
|11.3.05 @ 2:15PM|#
Fyodor:
I guess what I'm thinking is that this would be a "stealth"
approach to legalizing the illegals, because no politician (in
office) would survive the dawn if he actually suggested opening the
borders. At any rate, I do see some merit to the concept of a
consumption tax (its potential simplicity for one). I was surprised
it wasn't brought up on this thread before.
|11.3.05 @ 2:16PM|#
A consumption tax is an inherently more fair form of taxation
than an income tax. It would absolutely solve the taxation problems
associtated with underground economies. Making them all legal would
mostly address the tax problem, but it wouldn't have the overall
benefit that a consumption tax would.
The distiction between legal and illegal would still exist, of
course. Many people would still be against immigration and would
still have ridiculous notions of immigrants costing people their
jobs.
|11.3.05 @ 2:22PM|#
Ruthless:
I'll try -- I was thinking about arguements against (more) open
borders. One biggie is the drain that undocumented aliens pose on
social services: schools, hospitals, etc. Well everyone needs to
buy milk, socks, lightbulbs, laundry detergent, the occasional
carwash, mud-bath, right? So if the funding for gov't-provided
services came from taxes on things that everyone uses, then at
least part of that problem would go away (I think).
I'm of the opinion that immigration on the whole is a good and
unavoidable thing, and i was trying to think of a way to mitigate
some of the unfortunate results of current policy. I thought I'd
bounce this one off this lot...
|11.3.05 @ 2:25PM|#
Of course what I'm not considering is the possibility that a black market for consumer goods and services would crop up (as the price of everything spiked 30+%), but I think those types of brink-and-mortar (or canvas and 2x4) operations would probably be relatively easy to spot.
|11.3.05 @ 2:25PM|#
"joe - which laws that make RC's statements possible do you
oppose? Restrictive immigration laws?"
Yes.
TLB|11.3.05 @ 2:35PM|#
How unfortunate that I came late to this latest Open Borders
party.
Those of you who want to learn about the downsides of massive
illegal immigration should click the link directly below: hundreds
of posts all about illegal immigration, and lots of very scary
stuff you've probably never heard of.
(And, here's today's Fun Fact: the Libertarian Party got a whopping
0.4% of the vote in the presidential election in California. That's
despite the fact that everyone knew Kerry would win by a huge
margin, thus freeing up a lot of prospective protest votes. I
believe the market has made its decision.)
|11.3.05 @ 2:39PM|#
I knew that Senor Lonewacko would make his appearance before the day was out. At least this time he didn't complain about the nofollow tag.
|11.3.05 @ 2:43PM|#
Of course what I'm not considering is the possibility that a
black market for consumer goods and services would crop up (as the
price of everything spiked 30+%)
That would only become a problem if we just added a consumption tax
on top of income taxes, instead of completely replacing the income
tax. First, people would automatically have more money to spend as
they get to keep all of their paychecks, so any increase in price
would be partially mitigated. Second, with the elimination of other
taxes prices of products would drop to reflect the significantly
lower overhead costs, therefore consumer products would not have a
significantly higher absolute cost (if at all, depending on %)
after the consumption tax was tacked on.
The current FairTax plan has a stated target of 23%, which would
make most products cost just about the same as they do now.
|11.3.05 @ 2:59PM|#
Wacko,
Thanks for the demonstration of the dangers created by
prohibitionist immigration laws.
Similar stories have been documented about prohibitionist alcohol
laws, and prohibitionist drug laws.
|11.3.05 @ 2:59PM|#
I'll be Lonewacko:
If you measure the entire economic output of the average immigrant
and compare it to the total amount of government services they
consume, is immigration a gain or a loss?
To note:
In California, the average Hispanic immigrant female gives birth to
three children. The cost for public education alone is
approximately $370,000 in 2005 dollars.
|11.3.05 @ 3:05PM|#
In California, the average Hispanic immigrant female gives
birth to three children. The cost for public education alone is
approximately $370,000 in 2005 dollars.
Those three children (American citizens, mind you) probably have
lives beyond twelve years of public school, you know. They don't
represent a net loss until the age of 18 and then disappear.
Should we also crack on regular citizens with big families? I mean,
their kids cost money to educate too.
|11.3.05 @ 3:09PM|#
SC,
The average American citizen has a higher economic output than the
average immigrant; thus, they pay more taxes that pay for the
services.
Larry A|11.3.05 @ 3:09PM|#
I think if employers of illegal immigrants were jailed, then
the state would be acting as a good night watchman. It would also
send a good message to the kids about following the law.
Right on. Let's start in Washington, D.C., and nail a bunch of the
high society moms with undocumented nannies. Put the kids in
government facilities where they belong. That'll teach the
kiddos.
fyodor|11.3.05 @ 3:11PM|#
Well, as J. Walker might say, the question of whether the
employers' crime is victimless isn't as obvius as it initially
seems.
Naturally I recognize there are opinions contrary to my own, but if
the point of your referencing Mr. Walker's post is that what he
said and what I said are substantively related, I should point out
that even if it were true that hiring illegals lowered
wages, I would still call illegal immigration a victimless crime as
there is no victim when someone crosses a border (thus no
complainant) plus no one has some sort of right to a particular
wage (not that I'm being callous to low wages, just explaining the
facts of the matter).
Those of you who want to learn about the downsides of massive
illegal immigration
Oh, we already know all about the downsides of massive illegal
immigration, Wacked One. That's why we want to make it legal!!
:-)
|11.3.05 @ 3:13PM|#
Stretch:
You're right, I was making that assumption too (that consumption
would replace income tax) and failed to mention it. I do wonder
whether the initial "sticker shock" that consumers would see while
shopping wouldn't spark temporary black markets, until eveyone got
used to the idea and understood that their paychecks just got 50%
"larger". Either way, thanks for the feedback.
|11.3.05 @ 3:14PM|#
Adam12,
Thanks for elaborating.
Pesky furriners are such an emotional issue, governments run by the
least common denominator will always find ways to shit on
furriners' heads in order to appease the ignorant. And recent LEGAL
immigrants are among those most needing appeasing.
It's a cousin to the War on Terror hysteria.
|11.3.05 @ 3:15PM|#
Larry A,
I don't know if you are being sarcastic or not, but I agree with
your sentiment. We should begin at the top. My first target would
be large businesses that hire illegal immigrants. The fine would be
$1,000,000 per illegal hired.
|11.3.05 @ 3:15PM|#
You miss my point; surely those public-school educated
1st-generation Americans will have some sort of positive economic
output in their lives, possibly even paying for themselves.
Also, surely one can calculate the number of children which a
person/family of a given income can support with their own portion
of the tax burden. If people exceed that, should they be
criticized?
|11.3.05 @ 3:19PM|#
The average American citizen has a higher economic output
than the average immigrant; thus, they pay more taxes that pay for
the services.
The average rich person has a higher economic output than the
average poor person; thus, they pay more taxes that pay for the
services.
Do you want to draw any conclusions from that?
Aside from being unsupportable by any economic argument, it is
plain immoral to prevent the free migration of people.
fyodor|11.3.05 @ 3:22PM|#
The average American citizen has a higher economic output
than the average immigrant; thus, they pay more taxes that pay for
the services.
Well my reply to that would be that just because they don't make as
much or pay as much as the average American doesn't by itself prove
that they're net negatives to the economy, only that they're not
as much of a positive as the average American.
Stephen Crane,
Anti-immigrationers generally resort to the circular argument when
you point out that their reasons for not letting certain people in
is just as good a reason for kicking certain people out. As in,
"American citizens who are net drains on our economy are here
legitimately, while illegal immigrants are not."
|11.3.05 @ 3:25PM|#
To clarify:
I'm not anti-immigration. My wife is an immigrant (a legal one). I
am for immigration as long as it is low enough to allow for
assimilation.
I believe that immigration laws are similar to tresspassing laws.
I'll make all you open-borders guys a deal. If you don't leave open
the border to our (shared and supposedly commonly owned) nation,
then I won't go to your house and hold open your front door to all
that want to enter.
|11.3.05 @ 3:27PM|#
Sorry, fyodor... when I encounter circular arguments, I generally put my fingers in my ears, rock back and forth, and sing "Material Girl" at the top of my lungs.
|11.3.05 @ 3:30PM|#
SC,
I see your point. I just don't view it that way. I believe that all
people should be responsible for themselves. I should not have to
pay for the education of the children of others. I am 35 years old
and I want to start a family. I am responsible enough to wait until
I am financially able to support any children I father (and I'm
almost there). It is unfair to force me to pay for the children of
irresponsible "adults". So, my answer to your question is yes; all
people who create children that they are not able to support should
be criticized. They are no better than thieves.
|11.3.05 @ 3:31PM|#
I believe that immigration laws are similar to tresspassing
laws. I'll make all you open-borders guys a deal. If you don't
leave open the border to our (shared and supposedly commonly owned)
nation, then I won't go to your house and hold open your front door
to all that want to enter.
Trouble is, TRB, that my house is neither shared nor commonly
owned, so if I want to chase you off my doorstep with a baseball
bat, I can (and probably will, given your sentiments). I might even
leave the door open after I've gotten rid of you.
However, "Git off'n my proppity!" is not the proper responce of a
free and open society wrt its borders.
|11.3.05 @ 3:35PM|#
I'll add that no one should create a child unless they are both
financially and emotionally prepared to raise that child. Is it any
wonder that most people in prison come from "disfunctional"
families?
One of the main things that separates humans from the other animals
is the ability to control our reproduction. If you are a human that
doesn't control your reproduction, you are little better than a
wild animal.
|11.3.05 @ 3:41PM|#
just because they don't make as much or pay as much as the
average American doesn't by itself prove that they're net negatives
to the economy, only that they're not as much of a positive as the
average American.
I'm sure we are in complete agreement on the basics here -- and I
would not hold against any user of taxpayer-provided government
services the fact that they didn't contribute as much as they were
given -- but I'm less certain about your "not as much of a
positive" statement.
In particular, having the government provide services is so
spectacularly wasteful that you pretty much need to assume a 100%
overhead on such services. The more services demanded, the more
wealth is burned. The more an individual uses these services, the
more wealth is burned.
It's not the consumer's fault, of course. They can't help it that
the cheapest thing for them to do is go to a public school even
though private schools cost half as much. But it is vastly unfair
to hold the price of a California education against them as some
kind of debt they owe someone.
|11.3.05 @ 3:42PM|#
However, "Git off'n my proppity!" is not the proper responce
of a free and open society wrt its borders.
I agree. I prefer: "Welcome to my nation! Have a nice visit before
you return home. If you would like to stay longer and contribute to
the growth and advancement of the US, please fill out the proper
immigration forms. We will evaluate your application using a points
system. Do you speak English? Can you read and write it as well? Do
you have a history of violence? Do you believe in freedom, or will
you act like a thief and vote yourself bread and circuses?"
|11.3.05 @ 3:46PM|#
'I do wonder whether the initial "sticker shock" that consumers
would see while shopping wouldn't spark temporary black markets,
until eveyone got used to the idea and understood that their
paychecks just got 50% "larger".'
So "everyone" is going to have a paycheck that's 50% larger?
Really? How are you going to do that?
Because under your plan, everyone sure as hell is going to see the
cost of their goods go up.
fyodor|11.3.05 @ 3:46PM|#
Sorry, fyodor... when I encounter circular arguments, I ...
sing "Material Girl" at the top of my lungs.
That's a lot to be sorry for!!
To clarify: I'm not anti-immigration.
Okay, anti-open borders? I certainly didn't mean to imply that you
were against all immigration. Just using a convenient tag. I didn't
even take you seriously anyway cause I thought you were taking
Lonewacko's side for the sake of argument!
Anyway, I'm not entirely sure if I would go the quasi-anarchist
route and just ignore that there was a border there at all. Your
goal of keeping immigration slow enough to allow for assimiliation
sounds good in some respects. But if it's slow enough that there's
signficant bottle-neck, then it's too slow. And I don't think there
should be numerical quotas.
|11.3.05 @ 3:53PM|#
I'm not entirely sure if I would go the quasi-anarchist
route and just ignore that there was a border there at
all.
Of course not. There should be a background check. It might even
take a day or two until you get your yellow card saying you've
cleared immigration as a nonthreat to the security of the
nation.
|11.3.05 @ 3:57PM|#
Paychecks would be larger, because the government would not remove the income tax from salaries. Whatever your effective tax rate is (lower than 50% but certainly in the 15%+ range for most folks), you would see a proportional bump in the consumable part of your income.
|11.3.05 @ 3:58PM|#
fyodor,
I don't want bottlenecks either, but I'm not sure how we could do
without some sort of numerical quotas. I suppose they would need to
be flexible.
|11.3.05 @ 4:05PM|#
So everyone sees their costs rise by 23%, but poorer people see
their incomes rise by much less than that.
What a wonderful plan.
|11.3.05 @ 4:06PM|#
I don't want bottlenecks either, but I'm not sure how we
could do without some sort of numerical quotas. I suppose they
would need to be flexible.
If you really have to have some numerical restriction, then make
every immigrant either have a job waiting for her or be a dependent
of someone who has a job.
Note that I am not advocating this abrogation of human rights. But
it is a hell of a lot better than what we have now.
|11.3.05 @ 4:26PM|#
The "regressive" nature of consumption taxes is certainly the
major complaint whenever such a scheme is proposed, the major
advantage is that it is a much more efficient way to generate tax
revenues. Consumption taxes would distort individuals decisions to
work less than our current income tax scheme does (since we have a
graduated income rates, as one becomes wealthier there is
progressively less incentive to work).
A consumption tax based scheme would likely have the effect of
increasing total numbers of hours worked increasing the size of the
economy.
As for the increase in prices, since wealthier folks would tend to
see a larger increase in their effective salaries, the luxury goods
that those members of society consume should see a larger rise in
prices relative to inferior goods(since it is the wealthier folks
have relatively more income). This would imply that the goods
consumed by poorer folks would tend to increase in price less
lessening the impact.
The 23% is an average with luxury goods rising by somewhat more,
and basic goods rising by somewhat less.
Howe
|11.3.05 @ 4:37PM|#
MikeP,
Sounds reasonable, but difficult.
joe,
The marginal tax rate on a family of four making about $30,000 per
year is about 43%. That for a a family making $50-70,000 is about
22%. (These numbers are from the Treasury Dept.)
You can't just look at a person's paystub to see their actual
burden of taxation. Evil pols think its okay to have hidden taxes;
the best example is the payroll tax (half of SS and Medicare) which
is actually a tax on the worker's labor. (I should know since I'm
self-employed and have to pay the entire amount myself.)
A consumption tax would allow the poor to defer purchases of
unnecessary goods and services (and therefore taxes) and allow them
to save for a home or other necessities. The non-poor will spend
(and therefore be taxed). They will have no tax shelters by which
to reduce their tax burden, which will help level the playing field
since the poor generally can't avail themselves to these tax
breaks. In California, basic foodstuffs are exempt from sales tax.
I would also include rent. These are two of the largest expenses
for the poor. The non-poor tend to purchase their homes and eat out
more often, so they will be taxed.
But the greatest benefit of a consumption tax is the fact that it
applies to wealth. Income is all the non-wealthy have. The rich
have wealth, which is not taxed (or is taxed at a fairly low
level--sales tax). When the rich spend their wealth in a
consumption tax system, they will be taxed. This will have the
effect of shifting the overall tax burden toward wealthy
"conspicuous" consumers and away from the working poor that are
struggling to get ahead.
|11.3.05 @ 4:39PM|#
There would have to be an awful lot of tweaking to make it
non-regressive. And even then, the people who can least afford
price increases pay few or no taxes, so they're seeing something
like no boost to their income.
Also, I write off any argument based on "my ideas are so
splendiferous that the economy will boom, and we'll all be rich." I
think the improvements in workers' health brought about by
universal health care will make them so much more productive that
the economy will boom and we'll all be rich! So my $trillion scheme
actually won't cost anything! I believe this is known as "dynamic
scoring."
|11.3.05 @ 4:40PM|#
This is kind-of off topic, but:
-What if Lech Walesa would have moved to Germany to do yard
work?
-What if the guys who shot Ceaucescu would have moved to
Switzerland to do construction work?
|11.3.05 @ 4:43PM|#
"A consumption tax would allow the poor to defer purchases of
unnecessary goods and services (and therefore taxes) and allow them
to save for a home or other necessities."
I've seen poor people "deferring purchases," Bill. No thanks. Nice
use of "allow" there, btw. Hey, look, I can't pay for food. Lucky
me, I've been allowed to defer eating.
And the cherry-picked 30k/50k figure is highly misleading.
As is your commentary about "wealth" - the fact that the rich spend
a much smaller % of their incomes on goods, and its implication for
the progressivity of a sales tax - is oddly missing from your
analysis.
|11.3.05 @ 4:48PM|#
joe,
You are wrong. All but the most shiftless of the poor and those
that are truly disabled pay taxes. Their tax burden is
significantly larger than most people realize. As for universal
health care: Thank you very much for wanting to make me more of a
slave than I already am.
Have you ever been poor, or are you, like so many other lefties,
absolutely ignorant of the poor? I grew up "dirt" poor and I have
been working since I was a child. I grew up in a welfare community.
The State of California categorizes 99% of the students at my old
elementary school as disadvantaged. I worked and studied my way out
of poverty. I don't think you know anything about the poor and what
they need.
|11.3.05 @ 4:49PM|#
Joe,
Your argument certainly has merit. The primary advantage of the tax
is not it's progress vs regressivity, the general argument is the
efficiency in which the tax generate revenue is collected.
As for the likely economic benefits they are 2 fold, first their is
likely to be an increase in output (certainly not to the level
where we all be rich but a marginal increase in GDP growth can have
significantly positive impacts).
Second, since the tax is easier to collect we can reduce
substantially the overhead charged to our society for tax
collection. These primarily come in the form of salaries for
accounts, tax lawyers, the IRS and the 2 weekends each year when we
all have to prepare tax returns.
These resources would be freed from our society to more productive
uses (for example Universal Healthcare).
There are very few economist, left or right-leaning who would
disagree that this isn't a more efficient way to generate tax
revenues, the question generally is, given the likely regressive
elements should we implement such a scheme.
|11.3.05 @ 4:51PM|#
Talking past each other.
Those numbers aren't cherry-picked. They are reasonable numbers
representing the working poor and the middle class.
Also, I said that they could defer unnecessary
purchases--food does not fit in that category.
|11.3.05 @ 4:54PM|#
By the way, if the consumption tax turns out to be too regressive, we could use a "negative" income tax to prop up the working poor that can't get by. Such a system would still be better than the current one which, for all the talk about progressivity, actually favors the rich over the poor working stiff.
fyodor|11.3.05 @ 5:42PM|#
I write off any argument based on "my ideas are so
splendiferous that the economy will boom, and we'll all be rich." I
think the improvements in workers' health brought about by
universal health care will make them so much more productive that
the economy will boom and we'll all be rich! So my $trillion scheme
actually won't cost anything! I believe this is known as "dynamic
scoring."
joe, you talk about this as if any claim that one policy would
result in greater wealth creation than another policy is inherently
fallacious and should be automatically discarded. Well, setting
aside the fact that it's true that no policy scheme known to
humankind can possibly make us "all...rich" as you glibly attribute
to your hayperson, it's ridiculous to claim that no policy could be
said to result in greater wealth than another. Anyway, it's a crass
thing to assert for one who frequently accuses others of "assuming
their conclusion." In other words, the notion that the sales tax is
more efficient and therefore more partial to wealth creation is
at the crux of the argument of those who advocate it (I
believe? y'all tell me if I'm wrong). So to dismiss that notion
without explaining why it's wrong is...assuming your
conclusion!!
fyodor|11.3.05 @ 5:46PM|#
To make my last post more clear, you don't have to agree that sales taxes in place of income taxes would be wealth creation positive (just as we certainly don't agree that state health care would be wealth creation positive), but since that's at the crux of the argument in favor of such a scheme, please explain why that's wrong rather than dismiss the notion out of hand.
|11.3.05 @ 5:50PM|#
fyodor,
I willingly admit that I support a sales tax on the grounds that
income taxes are inherently immoral. The taxation of income is a
form of (at least partial) slavery.
fyodor|11.3.05 @ 6:13PM|#
The Real Bill,
I have a hard time understanding why sales tax is any immoral. I've
heard the argument that you can decide what you buy, but first of
all that presupposes that the sales tax will only be on some items
not others, which may or may not be the case. And anyway, why is
not every bit as immorally coercive to force someone to pay the
government every time a monetary transaction is made, regardless of
what other choices one supposedly does or doesn't have? If you
don't voluntarily consent to giving up that money, it's a form of
theft regardless. How is a sales tax any less immorally coercive
than an income tax? I can see that the case of income tax more
easily comports to the metaphor of slavery, but so what, that's
just word usage. With both sales and income taxes, the government
is forcing people to pay money that would otherwise belong to them
without having comitted any crime. What's the difference?
fyodor|11.3.05 @ 6:17PM|#
You probably know, but:
"I have a hard time understanding why sales tax is any
immoral."
Should be:
"I have a hard time understanding why sales tax is any
more immoral than income tax."
And:
"And anyway, why is not every bit as immorally coercive..."
Should be:
"And anyway, why is it not every bit as immorally
coercive..."
|11.3.05 @ 6:18PM|#
fyodor,
I agree that there are better and worse policies, which will have
better and worse outcomes. But to posit an outcome as the goal of
your policy, while also assuming it as a proposition in your
argument, just ain't kosher.
lannychiu, I dig. It would take an awful lot to avoid the
regressivity problem, but have read enough about the subject to
recognize the efficiency benefits.
Real Bill, it wasn't the good per se I was objecting to. It was the
formulation that making things too expensive for someone to afford
as "allow the poor to put off unnecessary purchases," and the next
phrase, that doing so is in their best interest, because then
they'll spend their money right.
And I've been poor enough to eat popcorn for two days until my next
paycheck. Is it ok if I have an opinion now, Mr. Martyr?
|11.3.05 @ 6:23PM|#
fyodor,
I believe the sales tax to be less immoral than income
taxation, not totally moral. At least sales taxes have some element
of choice. I support a sales tax system that exempts unprepared
food and rent. One could conceivably avoid paying a lot of taxes by
living simply. I suppose that by earning little a person could also
avoid paying a lot of taxes, but the sales tax allows a person to
build wealth and avoid paying a lot of taxes. It's not a perfect
system, just better.
Once a person has saved enough, they'll likely want to spend. They
will then pay taxes when they can best afford to, instead of when
they need to keep every dollar to get ahead. The sales tax
increases personal choice and the freedom to plan one's own
economic life.
|11.3.05 @ 6:26PM|#
joe,
I never said that you couldn't have an opinion, I simply believe
that your opinion wasn't well informed. Having to eat popcorn for a
couple of days as a young adult between paychecks isn't easy, but
it's nothing compared to having to loan your mother money (as a
young child) so that the family can eat.
|11.3.05 @ 6:30PM|#
So everyone sees their costs rise by 23%, but poorer people
see their incomes rise by much less than that.
Joe,
There are a few things which need to be clarified. First, while
there will certainly be an initial spike in prices, they will also
certainly drop to reflect the significantly lower overhead costs.
You are absolutely correct that, in absolute terms, poor people
will see less of an increase (but an increase all the same), but
you are wrong to assume that final prices will be equal to the
product cost now plus the consumption tax. An estimated 20% of the
costs we pay right now are a direct result of our current tax
system. It's really only a question of time, and for all but the
most competition-insulated businesses those prices will drop very
quickly.
the fact that the rich spend a much smaller % of their incomes
on goods, and its implication for the progressivity of a sales tax
- is oddly missing from your analysis.
True, but the rich spend a far greater amount in absolute terms on
goods so they will be paying more. In fact, percentage-wise they
spend far more than 23% over on similar goods, plus used goods are
not subject to the FairTax plan, which makes it more progressive
than a flat tax.
Rich people rarely by used goods, while the poor often buy them.
Those who can afford new goods will be totally responsible for
those taxes. For instance, someone who is able to afford a new car
will pay the total taxes for that item (again, in absolute terms,
it will amount to about the same price as now), while a poorer
person who must buy that same exact car used a few years later will
pay zero taxes. So in other words the wealthier will absolutely pay
taxes that the poor will not. As someone who has worked in the used
car industry, I can say that this is a huge upside for the
poor.
Also, according to the FairTax people would not have to pay taxes
on the basic necessities. In other words, in addition to getting
all of their income the cost of basic necessities will actually
drop.
fyodor|11.3.05 @ 6:35PM|#
But to posit an outcome as the goal of your policy, while
also assuming it as a proposition in your argument, just ain't
kosher.
I haven't read every word of this debate, but obviously it's up to
either side to say why a sales tax is or isn't more wealth positive
before saying it is or isn't. But I still say you're out of line
the way you talked of such a claim as an inherent fallacy.
The Real Bill,
What you say strikes me as a stretch, but I suppose I can see a
little bit of credence to it....
|11.3.05 @ 6:37PM|#
Stretch,
I'm glad you brought up the flat tax. The flat tax as usually
presented is terrible in that it never includes SS, Medicare, and
payroll taxes. Essentially these flat tax plans would only be tax
breaks for the well off.
Now, a flat tax plan that includes SS, etc., with deductions only
available to those earning below a certain income level (to fight
regressivity) would be better than the current system, but would
still enslave people to the extent equal to the tax rate. Thus, it
would be less moral than a sales tax.
|11.3.05 @ 7:03PM|#
Now, a flat tax plan that includes SS, etc., with deductions
only available to those earning below a certain income level (to
fight regressivity) would be better than the current system, but
would still enslave people to the extent equal to the tax rate.
Thus, it would be less moral than a sales tax.
Anything even 99% as complicated as our current system would be
significantly better than our current system. If you give me the
option of a flat tax or what we have now, I'll choose the flat tax
every time.
I'm not an anarchist (except on TV), so I believe some government,
and therefore tax, is necessary. But an income tax is the worst of
all possible taxes. A consumption tax (especially one where nobody
has to pay for the basic necessities) is voluntary, and therefore
not amoral imo. With such a total consumption tax I could
theoretically never pay any tax. I wouldn't die and I wouldn't be
put in jail. Obviously, I wouldn't choose that lifestyle if I had
my druthers, so if I have to pay tax to a government that allows me
to buy cheesesteaks and beer I have no philosophical qualms with
that.
fyodor|11.3.05 @ 7:19PM|#
The Real Bill,
I'm cur[i]ous to know which parts you consider a
stretch?
That choosing to spend less is any more of a choice than choosing
to earn less. That the relative benefits can be reasonably deduced
by the implications of extraordinary lifestyle commitments. You
admit it's purely a relative matter anyway. Strikes me as a stretch
that anyone should give any more than a fleeting thought to such a
minor shading of gray.
|11.3.05 @ 7:29PM|#
fyodor,
That choosing to spend less is any more of a choice than
choosing to earn less.
One can earn less and pay lower income taxes or one can earn more,
spend less, and become weathier while paying lower sales taxes. How
is this not significantly different?
For example, I earn a certain amount of money and the govt. takes
X% in income taxes. I can spend less and save more or what's left
over to become wealthier, but I still had to pay a fixed amount of
tax. Under the sales tax system, I can earn the same amount of
money and choose to consume less; I will then be able to save more
than I could under the income tax system.
|11.3.05 @ 7:38PM|#
Joe:
Responding to your post way up there: You're right, I shouldn't
have said "everybody". Using my paystub as an example, I forfeit
approx. 1/3 of my income to some form of tax right off the bat. So
if my total paycheck is $3000, I pay $1000 in combined taxes,
taking home $2000. If we were to switch to a consumption tax before
my next pay period (hahahah) then I would take home 50% more than I
did the last pay period ($1000 being 50% of $2000).
|11.3.05 @ 7:42PM|#
I like all the discussion on details of the consumption tax! It gives consumers a helluva lot of choice to avoid paying taxes if they are really inclined - buying 2nd hand stuff, which was mentioned, and which I think is generally a good thing from an environmental POV (making cars and TVs is dirty business). So in some respects, you might actually see "Black markets" for consumer goods, but they wouldn't be any more illegal than, say, Craigslist. No one payes taxes on that stuff either (except cars I guess).
Viking Moose|11.3.05 @ 8:11PM|#
"But to posit an outcome as the goal of your policy, while also
assuming it as a proposition in your argument, just ain't
kosher."
dammit, Joe. but what about the pro torture "arguments"?????
heh
cheers.
|11.3.05 @ 8:34PM|#
In California, the average Hispanic immigrant female gives
birth to three children. The cost for public education alone is
approximately $370,000 in 2005 dollars.
And, here's what that gets you. 46th in
educashion? 80% of highskool seniors can't pass a djunior high
test?
Needless to say, I could go on, providing information on each of
the points/"points" above, but instead I invite the reader to take
a look at what
libertarians support.
99.5% or so of Americans will read that article and realize this is
an extremely serious situation. Mexico's attempts to meddle in our
laws and with our prospective citizens must be stopped.
Do the other 0.5% really qualify as patriotic Americans at all? Or,
should we consider them the same way that we consider those who
would like to establish Communism in the U.S.?
|11.3.05 @ 8:39PM|#
Stretch,
Are you assuming that the producers of food won't also be paying
taxes as part of their operations?
I have to wonder whether, with all the add ons and opt outs and
different categories and credits for lower incomes, if making this
work isn't going to end up just as complicated as the federal
income tax.
I'm not completely against a consumption tax or VAT replacing some
or all of the current tax structure, btw. But there seem to be some
serious problems to overcome, especially if you're not willing to
sacrifice poor people to "efficiency."
|11.3.05 @ 9:19PM|#
"A consumption tax would allow the poor to defer purchases
of unnecessary goods and services (and therefore taxes) and allow
them to save for a home or other necessities."
I've seen poor people "deferring purchases," Bill. No thanks. Nice
use of "allow" there, btw. Hey, look, I can't pay for food. Lucky
me, I've been allowed to defer eating.
On what planet is food an "unnecessary good?"
|11.3.05 @ 9:50PM|#
I have to wonder whether, with all the add ons and opt outs
and different categories and credits for lower incomes, if making
this work isn't going to end up just as complicated as the federal
income tax.
I'm not completely against a consumption tax or VAT replacing
some or all of the current tax structure, btw. But there seem to be
some serious problems to overcome, especially if you're not willing
to sacrifice poor people to "efficiency."
Honestly, Joe, read the FairTax book that's in stores right now.
Seriously, go pick it up from a library (I only decided to actually
buy it after much decision and I totally understand if you don't
want to pay for it). If you can get past some of the not-so-subtle
jabs at liberals, I think you'll at least come to see the FairTax
as a decent, if imperfect, plan for real tax reform.
You mention "add ons and opt outs" as well as
"different categories and credits for lower incomes", but they just
don't exist under the FairTax plan. I've long thought that a
consumption tax was better than an income tax, but never had the
basic questions anwsered before I read this book.
Honestly, Boortz is 50/50 with me and Linder is truly an "obscure"
congressman", but the book is good and does a great job of
answering the common questions.
|11.4.05 @ 10:22AM|#
Stretch, "You mention "add ons and opt outs" as well as
"different categories and credits for lower incomes", but they just
don't exist under the FairTax plan."
Then the plan is absurdly regressive, and belongs in the circular
file.
|11.5.05 @ 11:37PM|#
"Those three children (American citizens..."
If Mama and Papa are Mexican, little Nino is Mexican. Do you not
know the difference between in the United States and
on U.S. soil? If these kids were born in your house, does
that make 'em your kids?
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245