6 ms·

I am not so sure on that. They raise inflation, home prices, etc. The locals see no real benefit except having to pay more for everything. While more taxes are

by autokad 8mo ago

I am not so sure on that. They raise inflation, home prices, etc. The locals see no real benefit except having to pay more for everything. While more taxes are collected, most of that goes to offsetting just some of the economic pain induced by the people living there. and it is in fact zero sum. every spot filled in university or company is a spot not taken by a local, as its obvious by the numbers, more local people are not getting admitted into CS programs nor are they being hired. its 100% zero sum when we are looking at these numbers and %s.

Analemma_ 8mo ago
You could use this exact argument to say nobody should ever have children-- children also raise inflation, home prices, etc. And the majority of your property taxes go specifically towards programs which would be unneeded if nobody had any children. The fact that naive anti-immigration arguments can be copy-pasted unchanged into arguments against having children is a sign that maybe those arguments are stupid. To understand why, you might start with the fact that immigrants also purchase goods and services, and hence pay the salaries of the ~70% of people in this country employed in some way or another by consumer spending.
- mc32 8mo ago
  Children are future taxpayers the majority with parents who were not a tax burden --net positive tax contribution. People without Children benefit from the taxes paid by the children of people who rear children -i.e. people without children aren't "cashing out" their tax contributed retirement --that contribution went to other retirees.
  - deleted 8mo ago
    [deleted]
  - repstosb 8mo ago
    And citizens benefit from the taxes paid by non-citizen immigrants, whether documented or undocumented. Not just income and payroll taxes that might be dodged by under-the-table arrangements, but sales taxes, property taxes (perhaps paid indirectly via rent to a taxpaying landlord), the consumer share (nearly 100%) of tariffs, etc. And much of that tax base is spent on benefits and services that are not accessible to taxpaying non-citizens. So from that standpoint, immigrants are a /better/ economic deal for the public than children are. At the end of the day, though, it shouldn't matter where people were born if they're contributing to society, and the grandparent post is 100% correct that the whole debate is stupid.
    - irishcoffee 8mo ago
      Sales tax is actually paid by the vendor, they just pass the cost along. The landlord pays the property tax, they just pass the cost along. It is absolutely impossible for an undocumented alien to meaningfully contribute towards their tax burden in any meaningful way.
      - lovich 8mo ago
        Oh, in that case no w-2 employee pays income taxes, their employer does. I guess we’re all just mooches on society and only the company owners do anything.
        irishcoffee 8mo ago
        Ah, you arrived at the point. Undocumented people don't pay taxes in a W2.
        lovich 8mo ago
        No, they just pay sales tax and other taxes on use. I was being sarcastic because you are fundamentally incorrect and as the other comment said, engaging in sophistry. Disrespectfully, get fucked.
        irishcoffee 8mo ago
        Oh man, struck a nerve here huh. We escalated from sarcasm to rude quickly. I enjoy both fucking and getting fucked, I shall take you up on that. Have a nice day!
      - int_19h 8mo ago
        > Sales tax is actually paid by the vendor, they just pass the cost along. The landlord pays the property tax, they just pass the cost along. This is sophistry. Ultimately the tax is paid by the person that brings their money to the table.
      - 8mo ago
  - milch 8mo ago
    Immigrants pay social security taxes, unemployment taxes, ... that they also will never be able to benefit from. Those are purely for the benefit of US citizens
    - mc32 8mo ago
      There is a good case for vetted legal immigration (there is need and they fill that unmet need), no question; however, that should not be at the expense of the local population, regardless of country. In other words, the locals should not suffer a depressed job market because of immigration. The whole reason for a state to exist is to first and foremost look after the wellbeing of its citizens that elect the bodies of government.
      - milch 8mo ago
        I'm not sure where you're getting that from in my comment. I never said US citizens should want H1Bs for everyone with zero vetting, only that they are a net tax positive. It's not a dichotomy of maintaining the status quo or getting rid of H1b completely. At least in big tech companies, they do follow labor market tests and prevailing wage tests and so on that are designed to vet that there is an unmet need and that visa holders aren't underpaid. I won't deny there are visa mills and consultancies that game the system and pretty much explicitly just hire cheap foreign labor, but this is a thread about H1B in the context of Amazon layoffs, not InfoSys layoffs.
    - Saline9515 8mo ago
      It depends if the immigrant is hired because the native worker is deemed too expensive. In this case, it contributes to reducing contributions through wage suppression.
      - milch 8mo ago
        If you have access to data that shows big tech is preferentially hiring visa holders over US citizens you should get on that class action lawsuit right away. That's probably hundreds of thousands or even millions per person in lost wages, and even after lawyers take their 30% cut, that's still a sizable chunk.
  - 15155 8mo ago
    The vast majority of adults and their children will never pay their tax burden proportionately.
    - irishcoffee 8mo ago
      How do you figure that?
      - 15155 8mo ago
        Grade school math. Look at income tax receipts: the top 5% pay >61% of all income taxes. You can try and split hairs with "sales taxes" and "payroll taxes" and try to shimmy things into some anti-capitalist stance ("but the companies benefit from their labor!!!," "renters pay property taxes indirectly!"), but the overwhelming majority of all tax payments come from a small percentage of individuals.
        disgruntledphd2 8mo ago
        > Grade school math. Look at income tax receipts: the top 5% pay >61% of all income taxes. This is a nonsense comparison unless you include the proportion of income that said taxpayers earn.
        15155 8mo ago
        Why does this matter? The government spends X dollars each fiscal year, divided by the number (N) of people. Most people aren't paying X/N. The government would not be able to fund every social program or services if it weren't for these receipts, which, most people cannot afford to pay. Even 100% of the majority of salaries can't cover this amount. Pretty cut and dry.
        disgruntledphd2 8mo ago
        > Why does this matter? The government spends X dollars each fiscal year, divided by the number (N) of people. Most people aren't paying X/N. It matters because we don't know if these people are being taxed more proportionately or less. Like, Elon Musk pays more tax than you or I, but he probably pays at a much lower rate. What you don't want (from an equity and fairness perspective) is for people with more money to pay a lower rate of tax. That will cause problems. From a total population perspective, given some amount of money S it doesn't really matter who pays it (except for downstream impacts around fairness and elections). However, your original point was: > The vast majority of adults and their children will never pay their tax burden proportionately. I would argue that this is incorrect, everyone pays some proportion of their income in income/sales/property/estate taxes. And really, your point about who pays the majority of US federal taxes doesn't actually support your point. Finally, I would note that I mostly replied because I really hate those top x% comparisons as they're deceptive without looking at the proportion of income earned.
echelon 8mo ago
Companies want to cut costs. They will. If you don't bring more fungible labor into the US, the jobs will be offshored. Look at what just happened to film labor in 2022-2023. The industry was burgeoning off the heels of the streaming wars and ZIRP. Then the stikes happened. Amazon and Netflix took trained crews in the Eastern Europe bloc and leveraged tax deals and existing infra in Ireland and the UK. Film production in LA and Atlanta are now down over 75%. Even with insane local tax subsidies - unlimited subsidies in the case or Georgia. Software development will escape to other cheaper countries. They're talented and hard working. AI will accelerate this. Then what? America lost manufacturing. I think we've decided that was a very bad idea. We need to move the cheaper labor here. More workforce means more economic opportunities for startups and innovation. Labor will find a way as long as the infrastructure is here. De-growth is cost cutting and collapse. Immigration is rapid growth, diversification, innovation, and market dominance. All those people start buying from businesses here. They start paying taxes here. It supercharges the local economy. Your house might go up in price, but way more money is moving around - more jobs, more growth, second order effects. America doesn't have the land limits Canada has. And we can set tax policy and regulations to encourage building. I'd rather be in an America forecasted to hit 500 million citizens - birth or immigration. And I want to spend on their education. I want capital to fund their startup ideas. I want the FTC/DOJ to break up market monopolies to create opportunity for new risk takers and labor capital. That was the world the Boomers had. Exciting, full of opportunity. That was the world of a rapidly industrializing America. Right now, the world we have ahead looks bleak. People aren't having kids and we aren't bringing in immigrants. We'll have less consumerism, less labor, and everything will shrink and shrivel and be less than it was.
- dzonga 8mo ago
  > We need to move the cheaper labor here Very smart & pragmatic. however political sentiment is going the other way - which is an own goal
- johnnyanmac 8mo ago
  If you really think that companies are moving out of country because "there's not enough talent", despite having some of the more relaxed tax codes and most talented universities here: well, sure. That would be hopeless. It also sounds like you're buying snake oil. They had decades to off shore, and they chose not to. I don't think Ai in the near term (<15 years) is going to change that dial much. If they do leave, there's plenty of talent to fill the void.

by autokad 8mo ago

Analemma_ 8mo ago

You could use this exact argument to say nobody should ever have children-- children also raise inflation, home prices, etc. And the majority of your property taxes go specifically towards programs which would be unneeded if nobody had any children. The fact that naive anti-immigration arguments can be copy-pasted unchanged into arguments against having children is a sign that maybe those arguments are stupid. To understand why, you might start with the fact that immigrants also purchase goods and services, and hence pay the salaries of the ~70% of people in this country employed in some way or another by consumer spending.

mc32 8mo ago
Children are future taxpayers the majority with parents who were not a tax burden --net positive tax contribution. People without Children benefit from the taxes paid by the children of people who rear children -i.e. people without children aren't "cashing out" their tax contributed retirement --that contribution went to other retirees.
- deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
- repstosb 8mo ago
  And citizens benefit from the taxes paid by non-citizen immigrants, whether documented or undocumented. Not just income and payroll taxes that might be dodged by under-the-table arrangements, but sales taxes, property taxes (perhaps paid indirectly via rent to a taxpaying landlord), the consumer share (nearly 100%) of tariffs, etc. And much of that tax base is spent on benefits and services that are not accessible to taxpaying non-citizens. So from that standpoint, immigrants are a /better/ economic deal for the public than children are. At the end of the day, though, it shouldn't matter where people were born if they're contributing to society, and the grandparent post is 100% correct that the whole debate is stupid.
  - irishcoffee 8mo ago
    Sales tax is actually paid by the vendor, they just pass the cost along. The landlord pays the property tax, they just pass the cost along. It is absolutely impossible for an undocumented alien to meaningfully contribute towards their tax burden in any meaningful way.
    - lovich 8mo ago
      Oh, in that case no w-2 employee pays income taxes, their employer does. I guess we’re all just mooches on society and only the company owners do anything.
      - irishcoffee 8mo ago
        Ah, you arrived at the point. Undocumented people don't pay taxes in a W2.
        lovich 8mo ago
        No, they just pay sales tax and other taxes on use. I was being sarcastic because you are fundamentally incorrect and as the other comment said, engaging in sophistry. Disrespectfully, get fucked.
        irishcoffee 8mo ago
        Oh man, struck a nerve here huh. We escalated from sarcasm to rude quickly. I enjoy both fucking and getting fucked, I shall take you up on that. Have a nice day!
    - int_19h 8mo ago
      > Sales tax is actually paid by the vendor, they just pass the cost along. The landlord pays the property tax, they just pass the cost along. This is sophistry. Ultimately the tax is paid by the person that brings their money to the table.
    - 8mo ago
- milch 8mo ago
  Immigrants pay social security taxes, unemployment taxes, ... that they also will never be able to benefit from. Those are purely for the benefit of US citizens
  - mc32 8mo ago
    There is a good case for vetted legal immigration (there is need and they fill that unmet need), no question; however, that should not be at the expense of the local population, regardless of country. In other words, the locals should not suffer a depressed job market because of immigration. The whole reason for a state to exist is to first and foremost look after the wellbeing of its citizens that elect the bodies of government.
    - milch 8mo ago
      I'm not sure where you're getting that from in my comment. I never said US citizens should want H1Bs for everyone with zero vetting, only that they are a net tax positive. It's not a dichotomy of maintaining the status quo or getting rid of H1b completely. At least in big tech companies, they do follow labor market tests and prevailing wage tests and so on that are designed to vet that there is an unmet need and that visa holders aren't underpaid. I won't deny there are visa mills and consultancies that game the system and pretty much explicitly just hire cheap foreign labor, but this is a thread about H1B in the context of Amazon layoffs, not InfoSys layoffs.
  - Saline9515 8mo ago
    It depends if the immigrant is hired because the native worker is deemed too expensive. In this case, it contributes to reducing contributions through wage suppression.
    - milch 8mo ago
      If you have access to data that shows big tech is preferentially hiring visa holders over US citizens you should get on that class action lawsuit right away. That's probably hundreds of thousands or even millions per person in lost wages, and even after lawyers take their 30% cut, that's still a sizable chunk.
- 15155 8mo ago
  The vast majority of adults and their children will never pay their tax burden proportionately.
  - irishcoffee 8mo ago
    How do you figure that?
    - 15155 8mo ago
      Grade school math. Look at income tax receipts: the top 5% pay >61% of all income taxes. You can try and split hairs with "sales taxes" and "payroll taxes" and try to shimmy things into some anti-capitalist stance ("but the companies benefit from their labor!!!," "renters pay property taxes indirectly!"), but the overwhelming majority of all tax payments come from a small percentage of individuals.
      - disgruntledphd2 8mo ago
        > Grade school math. Look at income tax receipts: the top 5% pay >61% of all income taxes. This is a nonsense comparison unless you include the proportion of income that said taxpayers earn.
        15155 8mo ago
        Why does this matter? The government spends X dollars each fiscal year, divided by the number (N) of people. Most people aren't paying X/N. The government would not be able to fund every social program or services if it weren't for these receipts, which, most people cannot afford to pay. Even 100% of the majority of salaries can't cover this amount. Pretty cut and dry.
        disgruntledphd2 8mo ago
        > Why does this matter? The government spends X dollars each fiscal year, divided by the number (N) of people. Most people aren't paying X/N. It matters because we don't know if these people are being taxed more proportionately or less. Like, Elon Musk pays more tax than you or I, but he probably pays at a much lower rate. What you don't want (from an equity and fairness perspective) is for people with more money to pay a lower rate of tax. That will cause problems. From a total population perspective, given some amount of money S it doesn't really matter who pays it (except for downstream impacts around fairness and elections). However, your original point was: > The vast majority of adults and their children will never pay their tax burden proportionately. I would argue that this is incorrect, everyone pays some proportion of their income in income/sales/property/estate taxes. And really, your point about who pays the majority of US federal taxes doesn't actually support your point. Finally, I would note that I mostly replied because I really hate those top x% comparisons as they're deceptive without looking at the proportion of income earned.

echelon 8mo ago

Companies want to cut costs. They will. If you don't bring more fungible labor into the US, the jobs will be offshored. Look at what just happened to film labor in 2022-2023. The industry was burgeoning off the heels of the streaming wars and ZIRP. Then the stikes happened. Amazon and Netflix took trained crews in the Eastern Europe bloc and leveraged tax deals and existing infra in Ireland and the UK. Film production in LA and Atlanta are now down over 75%. Even with insane local tax subsidies - unlimited subsidies in the case or Georgia. Software development will escape to other cheaper countries. They're talented and hard working. AI will accelerate this. Then what? America lost manufacturing. I think we've decided that was a very bad idea. We need to move the cheaper labor here. More workforce means more economic opportunities for startups and innovation. Labor will find a way as long as the infrastructure is here. De-growth is cost cutting and collapse. Immigration is rapid growth, diversification, innovation, and market dominance. All those people start buying from businesses here. They start paying taxes here. It supercharges the local economy. Your house might go up in price, but way more money is moving around - more jobs, more growth, second order effects. America doesn't have the land limits Canada has. And we can set tax policy and regulations to encourage building. I'd rather be in an America forecasted to hit 500 million citizens - birth or immigration. And I want to spend on their education. I want capital to fund their startup ideas. I want the FTC/DOJ to break up market monopolies to create opportunity for new risk takers and labor capital. That was the world the Boomers had. Exciting, full of opportunity. That was the world of a rapidly industrializing America. Right now, the world we have ahead looks bleak. People aren't having kids and we aren't bringing in immigrants. We'll have less consumerism, less labor, and everything will shrink and shrivel and be less than it was.

dzonga 8mo ago
> We need to move the cheaper labor here Very smart & pragmatic. however political sentiment is going the other way - which is an own goal
johnnyanmac 8mo ago
If you really think that companies are moving out of country because "there's not enough talent", despite having some of the more relaxed tax codes and most talented universities here: well, sure. That would be hopeless. It also sounds like you're buying snake oil. They had decades to off shore, and they chose not to. I don't think Ai in the near term (<15 years) is going to change that dial much. If they do leave, there's plenty of talent to fill the void.