Jump to content

AZ Immigration law


Jamie_B

Recommended Posts

Back to immigration:

someone I know just had his roof in northern Kentucky re-done. The contractor has 2 roofing crews: 1 American, 1 Mexican. The Mexican worked on the friend's house.

1) should KY State Police (or the local cops) be able to demand papers from the workers while they're nice and visible (as roofers generally are)?
2) if the contractor knows they were illegals what should be penalty be?
3) anyone know what the penalty would be now? I assume whenever I get a job and have to fill out an I-9 there's a reason.
4) what about my friend? is he liable for giving illegals (assuming they are not here legally) work, even though he's working through a contractor to get his roof done?
5) does he get leniency for ratting the Mexicans out?
6) would that require a particular level of certainty? e.g., did he overhear the contractor say "they're my illegals," vs. my friend just disliking brown people and reporting them based on racism.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Tigers Johnson' date='05 May 2010 - 09:07 AM' timestamp='1273064856' post='886275']
My wife is a head start teacher....

Most of the kids she gets it is obvious they are not given any attention to at home. The parents rely on Head Start to feed the children and usually expect it to be a day care.

It is funded for poor families who can not afford a standard preschool. If you are a parent then you realize preschool is no longer a luxury....it is pretty much standard and needed so kids are not behind when they start kindergarten.
[/quote]


Those sound like the people that are working, not the lazy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Tigers Johnson' date='05 May 2010 - 09:08 AM' timestamp='1273064885' post='886277']
What do you see as unfair tax rates?
[/quote]


You really dont see a problem with this?

[quote]Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent[/quote]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='CincyInDC' date='05 May 2010 - 09:07 AM' timestamp='1273064864' post='886276']
Back to immigration:

someone I know just had his roof in northern Kentucky re-done. The contractor has 2 roofing crews: 1 American, 1 Mexican. The Mexican worked on the friend's house.

1) should KY State Police (or the local cops) be able to demand papers from the workers while they're nice and visible (as roofers generally are)?
2) if the contractor knows they were illegals what should be penalty be?
3) anyone know what the penalty would be now? I assume whenever I get a job and have to fill out an I-9 there's a reason.
4) what about my friend? is he liable for giving illegals (assuming they are not here legally) work, even though he's working through a contractor to get his roof done?
5) does he get leniency for ratting the Mexicans out?
6) would that require a particular level of certainty? e.g., did he overhear the contractor say "they're my illegals," vs. my friend just disliking brown people and reporting them based on racism.
[/quote]

1. No. Only when there is probable cause to inquire. Like one of them had done something illegal first for the officer to make initial contact.

2. No idea..... Jail Time? Fine?

3. No Idea

4. No. That is the contractors problem.

5. No.

6. Refer to number 1.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Jamie_B' date='05 May 2010 - 09:12 AM' timestamp='1273065172' post='886281']
You really dont see a problem with this?
[/quote]

yes I see a problem with that.....


I need more details....

Did the secretary do her own taxes? Did she take advantage of all possible deductions? Does she have kids? Is she married? etc etc etc....


How many loop holes did buffet take advantage of? Yes....some loopholes need closed.

why did she get 30% at 60,000? 34000 to 82400 is 25%...and only the money from 34000 up is taxed at 25%.

not much....but still 5%.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Tigers Johnson' date='05 May 2010 - 09:15 AM' timestamp='1273065326' post='886283']
yes I see a problem with that.....


I need more details....

Did the secretary do her own taxes? Did she take advantage of all possible deductions? Does she have kids? Is she married? etc etc etc....


How many loop holes did buffet take advantage of? Yes....some loopholes need closed.

why did she get 30% at 60,000? 34000 to 82400 is 25%...and only the money from 34000 up is taxed at 25%.

not much....but still 5%.
[/quote]


Buffet said he wasnt trying to avoid the higher taxes, so I imagine he didnt take advantage of any of the loopoles.

But my entire argument was that people get much more angry, and you specifically, at the poor for their "suckling at the teet" than they do the rich. I continue to see a rabid furvor at the poor but a almost lackadaisical attitude towards the rich (keeping in mind that were talking in generalities and not "all" here) with some even ok with the way they are ripped off by the rich, but those poor...oh those poor...:shakesfist:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a pretty misleading title, but...

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2010/02/11/narrow-tax-burden/

[quote]Tax Burden Between Wealthy And Middle Class Is Narrower Than At Any Time In Modern History
There has been a lot of consternation recently regarding the Obama administration’s continuing commitment to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire for the wealthiest American households. House Democrats are pushing to leave “well-enough alone for now” — with Rep. Mike McMahon (D-NY) even saying that those making $250,000 per year are “barely making ends meet” — while Republicans are trying to convince the President to “back off the marginal rate tax hikes.”

But today the administration’s Council of Economic Advisers released its annual Economic Report of the President, which bolsters the case for allowing the cuts to expire. For instance, the report notes that “in recent years nearly half of all income — including both wages and salaries and nonlabor income — has gone to 10 percent of families. The top 1 percent of families now receive nearly 25 percent of income, up from less than 10 percent in the 1970s.”

[img]http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/19.jpg[/img]

[b]And at the same time that more and more income has become concentrated at the top of the scale, tax rates on the highest earners have been falling.[/b]

[img]http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/110.jpg[/img]

[b]In the 2010 fiscal year, the Bush tax cuts will actually give millionaires more in tax breaks than 90 percent of Americans will earn in income.[/b] So the result of all of this is “a compression in the tax burdens applied to taxpayers with different incomes — the difference between the average tax rates on high-income groups and those on middle-class households is narrower than at any other time in modern history.”

And it’s not as if the administration is proposing any sort of radical tax increase. The expiration — which is a part of current law, mind you — merely returns tax rates for the highest earners to the level at which they were in the 1990’s, which is still far below their historical level. If we want to seriously address long-term deficits, which we have to in order to keep the country in some semblance of fiscal shape, revenue increases have to be part of the equation, and it makes sense to both look to where the money is and to address historic levels of income inequality and a shifting tax burden.[/quote]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Tigers Johnson' date='05 May 2010 - 05:45 AM' timestamp='1273063516' post='886263']
You want a radical idea.......

I think if you want welfare a birth control shot should be required......
[/quote]

Plus Infinity.

There is the root of most problems. People having kids they can't afford.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Jamie_B' date='05 May 2010 - 09:23 AM' timestamp='1273065789' post='886284']
Buffet said he wasnt trying to avoid the higher taxes, so I imagine he didnt take advantage of any of the loopoles.

But my entire argument was that people get much more angry, and you specifically, at the poor for their "suckling at the teet" than they do the rich. I continue to see a rabid furvor at the poor but a almost lackadaisical attitude towards the rich (keeping in mind that were talking in generalities and not "all" here) with some even ok with the way they are ripped off by the rich, but those poor...oh those poor...:shakesfist:
[/quote]

just for clarification...

you're pissed at the rich because "they're not paying enough" and not at the poor because they're not paying any? A goodly percentage that are poor / on welfare of their own accord...

I'll agree that tax structure needs to be modified, which is why I want to go to the fair tax model...

Reason I ask is... from appearance, you're defending the social programs to a fault and blaming the rich percentage because "they're not paying enough"... just want to know make sure I know where you stand in that regard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Vol_Bengal' date='05 May 2010 - 10:45 AM' timestamp='1273070720' post='886304']
just for clarification...

you're pissed at the rich because "they're not paying enough" and not at the poor because they're not paying any? A goodly percentage that are poor / on welfare of their own accord...

I'll agree that tax structure needs to be modified, which is why I want to go to the fair tax model...

Reason I ask is... from appearance, you're defending the social programs to a fault and blaming the rich percentage because "they're not paying enough"... just want to know make sure I know where you stand in that regard.
[/quote]


No what I am saying is that the burden on the economy is far greater by what the rich do to dodge paying vs what the poor do, and the outrage is far far greater at the poor than it is the rich.

The only social programs I will defend tooth and nail are the ones that are investments in the poor to help them change that status and the ones that help people who simply cant work.

Also isnt the fairtax just a national sales tax?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would have to agree that unaffordable children are a big part of the problem as well.

Jaime, why would it matter to me what the rich are paying in taxes, or if they pay less than I do? (btw I GET 60% of my paycheck, but I think you meant that anyway and it was a typo). I am not happy that MY money is going to the pockets of Lazy Leaches, but the rich or very well off have no bearing on my ability to make money or collect more of what I've earned. I control my own destiny in terms of my income, until the Gov't takes money out.

I just dont understand the outrage towards people who make more than you. Regardless of what they make, why should they pay an insane amount of money for using the same roads, same emergency services, same public school districts (not that their kids use it) etc etc etc... why should a family of four pay $1,000,000 in taxes when a less well off family of four has to pay $5000? Just because they've worked harder or smarter than you? Why should more of their money go to pay for neccesary services and the lazy people out there? I understand inevitably they will pay much more just for the sake of not taking home 99.9% of what they earn and completely messing up the taxation system, but to expect them to pay an OBSCENE amount of money for taxes (while using the EXACT same services as you, or less) is just ludicris. I dont think someone paying $1,000,000 (or 27%) needs to pay a higher percentage than I do (at 40%). Just because he worked hard enough to get ahead in life he needs to be penalized even more?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='big_dish' date='05 May 2010 - 11:19 AM' timestamp='1273072768' post='886314']
I would have to agree that unaffordable children are a big part of the problem as well.

Jaime, why would it matter to me what the rich are paying in taxes, or if they pay less than I do? (btw I GET 60% of my paycheck, but I think you meant that anyway and it was a typo). I am not happy that MY money is going to the pockets of Lazy Leaches, but the rich or very well off have no bearing on my ability to make money or collect more of what I've earned. I control my own destiny in terms of my income, until the Gov't takes money out.

I just dont understand the outrage towards people who make more than you. Regardless of what they make, why should they pay an insane amount of money for using the same roads, same emergency services, same public school districts (not that their kids use it) etc etc etc... why should a family of four pay $1,000,000 in taxes when a less well off family of four has to pay $5000? Just because they've worked harder or smarter than you? Why should more of their money go to pay for neccesary services and the lazy people out there? I understand inevitably they will pay much more just for the sake of not taking home 99.9% of what they earn and completely messing up the taxation system, but to expect them to pay an OBSCENE amount of money for taxes (while using the EXACT same services as you, or less) is just ludicris. I dont think someone paying $1,000,000 (or 27%) needs to pay a higher percentage than I do (at 40%). Just because he worked hard enough to get ahead in life he needs to be penalized even more?
[/quote]


You really think its fair that you get 40% of your money taken out of your paycheck while someone like Buffet gets far less than that?

How can you not see how a system like that is not even remotely what the american dream is supposed to be about? You know where if you work hard enough and save enough one day you can be rich too. Thats a farce, if you work hard enough your getting taxed at a higher rate than the rich are which makes it far harder for you to move up in economic class than it does if your already there. American dream my ass.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Jamie_B' date='05 May 2010 - 11:15 AM' timestamp='1273072534' post='886312']
No what I am saying is that the [b]burden on the economy is far greater by what the rich do to dodge paying[/b] vs what the poor do, and the outrage is far far greater at the poor than it is the rich.

The only social programs I will defend tooth and nail are the ones that are investments in the poor to help them change that status and the ones that help people who simply cant work.

Also isnt the fairtax just a national sales tax?
[/quote]

really?

Call it dodging or playing within the rules given or whatever... but a rich guy wants to keep as much of his money as possible, just like you and I, and the loopholes are there to allow him to do all sorts of funking things to do so is a greater burden on the economy??? Because he's paying a shit load and you want him to pay more?

Jamie - that is like you donating to a charity every pay check and them getting pissed at you because they think you ought to give them more than you do now...


as for the fairtax... yes, it is a national sales tax. You're taxed on what you spend, not what you make.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Vol_Bengal' date='05 May 2010 - 11:40 AM' timestamp='1273074047' post='886323']
really?

Call it dodging or playing within the rules given or whatever... but a rich guy wants to keep as much of his money as possible, just like you and I, and the loopholes are there to allow him to do all sorts of funking things to do so is a greater burden on the economy??? Because he's paying a shit load and you want him to pay more?

Jamie - that is like you donating to a charity every pay check and them getting pissed at you because they think you ought to give them more than you do now...


as for the fairtax... yes, it is a national sales tax. You're taxed on what you spend, not what you make.
[/quote]


Who do you think lobbies for those loopholes? And what exactly is a shitload in percentages? It isnt as big of a burden as you might think for them to pay a fair share.

Disagree, essential services are not charity.

How do you generate enough revenue that way? wouldn't it just curtail unnecessary spending and hurt the economy in terms of people not buying products that one might consider luxury?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Vol_Bengal' date='05 May 2010 - 10:45 AM' timestamp='1273070720' post='886304']
just for clarification...

you're pissed at the rich because "they're not paying enough" and not at the poor because they're not paying any? A goodly percentage that are poor / on welfare of their own accord...

I'll agree that tax structure needs to be modified, which is why I want to go to the fair tax model...

Reason I ask is... from appearance, you're defending the social programs to a fault and blaming the rich percentage because "they're not paying enough"... just want to know make sure I know where you stand in that regard.
[/quote]

Vol, it's not that the rich aren't paying enough, it's that percentage wise, it's not the same share. to be totally frank, that's why I wouldn't mind the fair tax model either. The benefits of taxing consumption are that not only do you get the same amount from everyone, but you also tax black market money because when they spend they are taxed, and if they don't show real income they get no non disposable income rebates, and you eliminate the need to tax businesses so the businesses make real business decisions with zero tax implications. It would probably keep more jobs here and promote lower unemployment rates overall.

For once, something we can agree on!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Jamie_B' date='05 May 2010 - 11:28 AM' timestamp='1273073338' post='886317']
You really think its fair that you get 40% of your money taken out of your paycheck while someone like Buffet gets far less than that?

How can you not see how a system like that is not even remotely what the american dream is supposed to be about? You know where if you work hard enough and save enough one day you can be rich too. Thats a farce, if you work hard enough your getting taxed at a higher rate than the rich are which makes it far harder for you to move up in economic class than it does if your already there. American dream my ass.
[/quote]


Also...

How can you not see how a system like this promotes people not work as hard as they might if they thought they had a real chance to move up in economic class?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='big_dish' date='05 May 2010 - 08:19 AM' timestamp='1273072768' post='886314']
I would have to agree that unaffordable children are a big part of the problem as well.
[/quote]

It's the biggest problem in the world. There needs to be honour (british version) and shame again. If you can't afford to take care of your kids or raise them lovingly, then you should be shamed to the point of seppuku. If you need government assistance to raise your kids, it should be the most shameful thing in the world. It should be something that you wouldn't even dream to do because of the negative stigma. It should have the same reputation as incest or Roethlisbergering someone.

In reality though, it's for some reason something that people think they need to be congratulated for. Having a kid is not a fun game. It's a serious commitment.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Jamie_B' date='05 May 2010 - 11:44 AM' timestamp='1273074259' post='886324']
Who do you think lobbies for those loopholes? And what exactly is a shitload in percentages? It isnt as big of a burden as you might think for them to pay a fair share.

Disagree, essential services are not charity.

How do you generate enough revenue that way? wouldn't it just curtail unnecessary spending and hurt the economy in terms of people not buying products that one might consider luxury?
[/quote]

But those taxpayers are a bigger burden on the economy than non-taxpayers??? That makes absolutely zero sense. Just say it this way... a person that is paying into the system, because you think they're not paying enough, is a bigger burden than someone who is drawing from the system and is paying nothing... that makes just no sense.

Also, you're not understanding my charity comment. For arguments sake, lets say you pay the United Way (or pick whatever charity organization you choose) $20 out of every pay check... well, they decide they're budget is tight this year and they come back to you and say "well, Mr. Jamie, it appears here that you've paid $20 last year and we'll assume that you've received a raise since and feel that you need to donate more than $20..." how would you feel about that. Disregard what it is for, who it is to, or any of that. Just the premise that you're paying but the receiving organization just feels like "that isn't enough" I'd tell them to go screw themselves...

[quote name='kennethmw' date='05 May 2010 - 11:50 AM' timestamp='1273074638' post='886327']
Vol, it's not that the rich aren't paying enough, it's that percentage wise, it's not the same share. to be totally frank, that's why I wouldn't mind the fair tax model either. The benefits of taxing consumption are that not only do you get the same amount from everyone, but you also tax black market money because when they spend they are taxed, and if they don't show real income they get no non disposable income rebates, and you eliminate the need to tax businesses so the businesses make real business decisions with zero tax implications. It would probably keep more jobs here and promote lower unemployment rates overall.

For once, something we can agree on!!
[/quote]

here, here!
:drinks: :drinks:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Vol_Bengal' date='05 May 2010 - 12:11 PM' timestamp='1273075897' post='886331']
But those taxpayers are a bigger burden on the economy than non-taxpayers??? That makes absolutely zero sense. Just say it this way... a person that is paying into the system, because you think they're not paying enough, is a bigger burden than someone who is drawing from the system and is paying nothing... that makes just no sense.

Also, you're not understanding my charity comment. For arguments sake, lets say you pay the United Way (or pick whatever charity organization you choose) $20 out of every pay check... well, they decide they're budget is tight this year and they come back to you and say "well, Mr. Jamie, it appears here that you've paid $20 last year and we'll assume that you've received a raise since and feel that you need to donate more than $20..." how would you feel about that. Disregard what it is for, who it is to, or any of that. Just the premise that you're paying but the receiving organization just feels like "that isn't enough" I'd tell them to go screw themselves...



here, here!
:drinks: :drinks:
[/quote]


In terms of potential revenue that is lost vs money drawn from the system yes I absolutely believe that.

No I get your charity comment, there is a difference to me between charity and essential services.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Jamie_B' date='05 May 2010 - 12:14 PM' timestamp='1273076088' post='886332']
In terms of potential revenue that is lost vs money drawn from the system yes I absolutely believe that.

No I get your charity comment, there is a difference to me between charity and essential services.
[/quote]

Then I guess we've got a vastly different viewpoint of "essential services" then... yes, there are those that are essential.

Career welfare recipients isn't one of them... as an example.


And, Jamie - you and I just see things a lot differently.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='sois' date='05 May 2010 - 12:03 PM' timestamp='1273075406' post='886330']
It's the biggest problem in the world. There needs to be honour (british version) and shame again. If you can't afford to take care of your kids or raise them lovingly, then you should be shamed to the point of seppuku. [b]If you need government assistance to raise your kids, it should be the most shameful thing in the world. It should be something that you wouldn't even dream to do because of the negative stigma.[/b] It should have the same reputation as incest or Roethlisbergering someone.

In reality though, it's for some reason something that people think they need to be congratulated for. Having a kid is not a fun game. It's a serious commitment.
[/quote]

I share your dis-like for people having kids when they shouldn't...but that statement is pretty unfair to the folks who really have had some bad luck which resulted in them not being able to support the "children they already have," the people who these government assitance programs were designed to help.

What bothers me is that few, if any, of the people hating on Welfare and other such programs talk about cleaning it up, re-forming it, or fixing it. You're just shouting about your hatred of the leeches and essentially painting every welfare recpient with the same brush. It comes off as a gross over simplification of a difficult situation and makes you seem really callus and/or ignorant of the realities that face the lower class.

Its easy to do, I know I've done it while discussing other topics with people in this thread! :pointlaff:

I think my point is, there needs to be more talk of HOW we rid the system of leeches WHILE recognizing that helping the less fortunate is a burden every human should bear.

Which brings me back to Sois and stupid people breeding...comprehensive, medically accurate sex-education is step 1. A scary percentage of the American population don't know how their reproductive parts work or what they can do to prevent babies and disease.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Squirrlnutz' date='05 May 2010 - 01:57 PM' timestamp='1273082222' post='886355']
I share your dis-like for people having kids when they shouldn't...but that statement is pretty unfair to the folks who really have had some bad luck which resulted in them not being able to support the "children they already have," the people who these government assitance programs were designed to help.

[color="#FF0000"]What bothers me is that few, if any, of the people hating on Welfare and other such programs talk about cleaning it up, re-forming it, or fixing it. You're just shouting about your hatred of the leeches and essentially painting every welfare recpient with the same brush. It comes off as a gross over simplification of a difficult situation and makes you seem really callus and/or ignorant of the realities that face the lower class.[/color]

Its easy to do, I know I've done it while discussing other topics with people in this thread! :pointlaff:

I think my point is, there needs to be more talk of HOW we rid the system of leeches WHILE recognizing that helping the less fortunate is a burden every human should bear.

Which brings me back to Sois and stupid people breeding...comprehensive, medically accurate sex-education is step 1. A scary percentage of the American population don't know how their reproductive parts work or what they can do to prevent babies and disease.
[/quote]



x2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...