So just to be clear, people with low 90s IQ are clearly net fiscal recipients, and Hispanics have low 90s IQ, but you've "discovered" that they are in fact net fiscal payers. Amazing.
God help us when you figure out the net fiscal impact of lows 80s IQ Arabs or Africans.
Here is the short version of debunking as I've seen this before.
1) Immigrants grow old and collect retirement one day.
2) Immigrants have kids that need education, and yes they are "immigrants" if they are born here from Hispanic parents.
3) Native = White (we know blacks are a drain)
4) Immigrants = Hispanic (USA), Middle East (Europe), or non-elite African (Open Borders)
Asians aren't the big driver of immigration resistance. It's mass low IQ brown immigration that scares people.
Some of these are just silly BTW. Social Security pays out based on how you pay in over 35 years. So of course higher earnings groups get paid out more, they paid in more. If anything there is a bias towards subsidizing lower earners relative to their contribution.
One could say this about the entire work, it's both a problem that immigrants take and that they don't pay in much. It's fine to receive a lot from the state if you pay in a lot (the Nordic Model).
As another person pointed out, a lot of this ignores state/local spending such as the big kahuana, education. Growth in state and local spending has been the big driver of growth of government for decades now. And growth in state and local spending has been highest in regions with more immigrants. Immigrants helped turn CA and the Northeast into one party democratic states and caused an explosion in state spending. The pain of this was hidden by SALT but now it's gone.
So much for the idea that diversity reduces welfare.
And yes education is welfare. If you pay $5k in taxes towards schools and receive $30k in education spending, you are a net fiscal deficit.
I've seen CREDIBLE net fiscal studies that account for this and Hispanic cost the state over $500k over their lifetimes in direct expense. Let alone indirect expense. Blacks are worse, as I imagine mass immigration from the Middle East or Africa would look like.
Again, I just can't even imagine how you could twist the numbers until people with average low IQ are putting in more then they are taking out.
“Social Security’s chief actuary estimated that the bill would have improved the 75-year financial balance of the Social Security program by an amount equal to 0.03 percent of payroll subject to Social Security taxes. By itself, the provision in the bill that permitted the legalization of current unauthorized residents would have improved Social Security’s long-run balance by 0.01 percent of taxable payroll.[13]. “ This quote pertains to a 2007 senate bill designed to legalize undocumented immigrants. From center on budget and policy priorities.
1) Are you familiar with this particular study? I am very concerned about the quality of their work.
2) My priors suggest that making people legal or simply allowing them to work would substantially increase their upward mobility. If the authors did not take that into account then increased migration could help balance the social security books.
I always think that it’s strange that these studies never address the cost of publicly educating children of immigrants as part of the consideration. Under Plyler v. Doe, the state cannot discriminate against non-citizen children when it comes to education.
Don’t get me wrong, I think educating immigrant children is a good idea. One of the reasons we draw more entrepreneurial immigrants is because immigrants are willing to work hard to make a better life for their kids. But the cost of educating an influx of immigrant children is substantial and is another cost that can fall disproportionately on locales with large immigrant populations.
So just to be clear, people with low 90s IQ are clearly net fiscal recipients, and Hispanics have low 90s IQ, but you've "discovered" that they are in fact net fiscal payers. Amazing.
God help us when you figure out the net fiscal impact of lows 80s IQ Arabs or Africans.
Here is the short version of debunking as I've seen this before.
1) Immigrants grow old and collect retirement one day.
2) Immigrants have kids that need education, and yes they are "immigrants" if they are born here from Hispanic parents.
3) Native = White (we know blacks are a drain)
4) Immigrants = Hispanic (USA), Middle East (Europe), or non-elite African (Open Borders)
Asians aren't the big driver of immigration resistance. It's mass low IQ brown immigration that scares people.
Some of these are just silly BTW. Social Security pays out based on how you pay in over 35 years. So of course higher earnings groups get paid out more, they paid in more. If anything there is a bias towards subsidizing lower earners relative to their contribution.
One could say this about the entire work, it's both a problem that immigrants take and that they don't pay in much. It's fine to receive a lot from the state if you pay in a lot (the Nordic Model).
As another person pointed out, a lot of this ignores state/local spending such as the big kahuana, education. Growth in state and local spending has been the big driver of growth of government for decades now. And growth in state and local spending has been highest in regions with more immigrants. Immigrants helped turn CA and the Northeast into one party democratic states and caused an explosion in state spending. The pain of this was hidden by SALT but now it's gone.
So much for the idea that diversity reduces welfare.
And yes education is welfare. If you pay $5k in taxes towards schools and receive $30k in education spending, you are a net fiscal deficit.
I've seen CREDIBLE net fiscal studies that account for this and Hispanic cost the state over $500k over their lifetimes in direct expense. Let alone indirect expense. Blacks are worse, as I imagine mass immigration from the Middle East or Africa would look like.
Again, I just can't even imagine how you could twist the numbers until people with average low IQ are putting in more then they are taking out.
“Social Security’s chief actuary estimated that the bill would have improved the 75-year financial balance of the Social Security program by an amount equal to 0.03 percent of payroll subject to Social Security taxes. By itself, the provision in the bill that permitted the legalization of current unauthorized residents would have improved Social Security’s long-run balance by 0.01 percent of taxable payroll.[13]. “ This quote pertains to a 2007 senate bill designed to legalize undocumented immigrants. From center on budget and policy priorities.
1) Are you familiar with this particular study? I am very concerned about the quality of their work.
2) My priors suggest that making people legal or simply allowing them to work would substantially increase their upward mobility. If the authors did not take that into account then increased migration could help balance the social security books.
If there is literature on this please post.
Alex,
I always think that it’s strange that these studies never address the cost of publicly educating children of immigrants as part of the consideration. Under Plyler v. Doe, the state cannot discriminate against non-citizen children when it comes to education.
Don’t get me wrong, I think educating immigrant children is a good idea. One of the reasons we draw more entrepreneurial immigrants is because immigrants are willing to work hard to make a better life for their kids. But the cost of educating an influx of immigrant children is substantial and is another cost that can fall disproportionately on locales with large immigrant populations.