Thursday, April 11, 2019

A Comment on the Undocumented Using Roads and Other Government Services

At the post, Is the Country Full?, a commenter objects to the undocumented this way:
So keep letting in more and more people that will result in more or larger:


1) Government schools
2) Government roads
3) Government assistance programs
4) Government transit
5) Government police forces
6) Government fire departments
7) Government operated welfare programs
8) Government owned/operated/contracted prisons
9) government employees
10) elected government office holders
11) government provided medical care

Should I go on? And I can't neglect that even without increasing anything government is getting more expensive.

Who pays for it all?
This is shallow lefty like thinking.

Taxes are most certainly being paid by the landlords where these people live. Businesses who employ these people are paying business taxes and for the most part where these people work they pay income and payroll taxes?

So what is the problem?

But on a more fundamental level, this is ass-backwards thinking from a libertarian perspective. The problem is government intervention in how an economy works. This should be eliminated for all the services above. But even if one believes, incorrectly, that some of these services can only be provided by government then isn't the solution to structure taxes in a way that everyone pays, documented and undocumented for the services?

Bottom line: The "who pays for the services" objection is faulty on many levels.

-RW

7 comments:

  1. "This is shallow lefty like thinking."

    Not at all. Shallow lefty like thinking is not considering how present system functions. Lefties "feel" for the people just wanting to escape some horrible place and let them in then take from the american taxpayer and give to the new arrivals without any deeper consideration. That's shallow lefty thinking.

    "Taxes are most certainly being paid by the landlords where these people live. Businesses who employ these people are paying business taxes"

    So you're saying to raise the taxes on property owners and businesses? Or just hope that new businesses and rental units appear in the face of ever more government? Or that businesses that can't avoid taxes grow? And not only grow, but grow enough to cover everything and show a profit after taxes and impositions. If you want immigrants, make things good for immigration first.

    "and for the most part where these people work they pay income and payroll taxes?"

    But mostly they won't be net taxpayers. The rolls of tax donkeys doesn't get expanded fast enough to keep up. Government in its present form is expensive.

    "this is ass-backwards thinking from a libertarian perspective"

    You want to welcome all comers with the existing system in place, ignoring its nature or pretending it's already something akin to a PPS. That's ass-backwards thinking.

    "The problem is government intervention in how an economy works"

    Of course it is and it attracts people seeking "to improve their lot in life." That's why government needs to be reduced first. You aren't going to be able to reduce it after.

    "But even if one believes, incorrectly, that some of these services can only be provided by government"

    Government has taken monopoly, that's the functional reality. I don't believe only government can provide them but the functional reality is that only or almost only government provides them.

    "then isn't the solution to structure taxes in a way that everyone pays"

    That is only accomplished by taking most them out of government hands or at least voluntary fee for use and that must be done to fix the root cause issue.

    Until then the more people that arrive the more the tax donkeys must produce and pay. And maybe it takes being one to understand the problem. Saying the country is full is stupid, I'm pointing out that the cart is full and tying another one to it and expecting the donkeys to keep pulling is simply not realistic.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jimmy is spot on and the black and white application of Libertarianism isnt going to serve anyone. Government has taken monopoly is only part of it there is also no capitalism existing in the system and the Oligarchy is actively marginalizing Anyone not in the top 10% and this exerts pressure on those that are trying to maintain.

      Immigration does not live in a bubble.

      Delete
    2. "But mostly they won't be net taxpayers."

      Your predictive powers are astounding. Without proof, you're able to determine what people who produce and work are going to pay in taxes in the future. Even when taxes are not voluntary, which makes your prediction absurd.

      Delete
    3. "I'm pointing out that the cart is full"

      You're engaging in restrictionist fallacy. The cart ain't full, you would be a hypocrite unless you step out of it.

      Delete
    4. Predictive? Not at all, roughly 60% of US households are not net taxpaying. And that's 2009 data. That's how much is socialized and how expensive government is here. And it certainly hasn't improved in the years since. For it not to be true of immigrants, immigrants would on the whole need to be doing better than those born here by quite a margin.

      Old Mexican, you have no idea of my situation. Let's just say taxes cost me more than everything else combined and leave it at that. I get nothing close to that in "services".

      Delete
    5. Hello, Jimmy,

      You're predicting what a group of people with self-interest and will are going to do or not do in the future based on a statistical snapshot (i.e. what "60% of 'households'" pay in taxes). That's what I am pointing out to: the fallacy of your premise. Saying that 60%^ of households are not taxpayers is like saying 60% of people are wearing jeans. That statement can only provide information on a specific time and place, not indicate that 60% of people are jean wearers. I wear jeans on occasions but that doesn't mean I like to wear jeans all the time. I ma not be a net tax payer today, say, but that doesn't mean I won't be one tomorrow. Do you catch my drift?

      I don't give a rat's patootie about your situation. Your situation is meaningless to me. The fact that you pay taxes doesn't turn you into a victim or a hero, it only means there's a government that wants to collect taxes, that's all. The fact that you are a taxpayer doesn't provide you with special rights to exclude people from coming to this country who are invited by other people who want to engage them freely. It doesn't mean they are going to mooch from you as if it were some sort of personal affront.

      I'm also a taxpayer and the only party I blame for that is the State, not other people and certainly not immigrants. It is clear that exclusionists like you want to use their situation as a 'taxpayer' to justify and to put a veneer or reasonableness in front of their bigotry or their xenophobia or whatever other psychological pathology they suffer. Let me remind you of something: whatever you believe you can achieve by excluding people from coming to this country to work and produce, it's not going to happen. You're still going to be a taxpayer, the State will still be the state, but I guarantee you, your food and other necessities will be much more expensive.

      Delete
    6. Why should the ratio improve? Why should we expect more low productivity people would improve it? Why should we expect the level of government services to decline or simply not increase? Why should it be just a snap shot in time? Because it's not, it's a trend heading towards proportionally fewer and fewer people being taxed in the net.

      Of course you don't give a rats ass about my situation. That's very clear by the fact that you don't want to deal with the problem of the state, the cause of my situation. You have no apparent problem growing government. Did you even read my initial comment? It's entirely a complaint about growing government. But apparently you and RW are not concerned in the least about it.

      Where do you get the idea I don't blame the state? I blamed the state from get go. More people for government to serve, more government. That's the nature of the beast. But you don't want to face that.

      "to justify and to put a veneer or reasonableness in front of their bigotry or their xenophobia or whatever other psychological pathology they suffer."

      You are hand waving away my points by playing a racism card. 15 yard penalty, loss of down. That's lefty tactics.

      Did I make any point about excluding anyone? No. I don't give a damn where anyone comes from. I give a damn about government getting bigger. You don't want to face the consequences of more and more people, especially ones that will find benefit in demanding government services. The state grows. Grows faster and faster.

      You don't even offer agreement that government should be removed from providing all these services. That government should shrink or even stop growing. I'm guessing because its personally beneficial to you. Much like RW's tales of cheap services. In the end you must marginalize anyone who objects to subsidizing it.

      Delete