DACA amnesty to cost taxpayers $115 billion

[_Chap]

Still seems like a bargain, sorry.

If people like the young DACA immigrants (in the great majority well educated, hard working and law abiding) are going, overall, to cost the US government large amounts of money during their working lifetime, I have to ask:

Who on earth are the kind of US citizens who do NOT cost the US government money?

I'm hoping for an answer to my question about the DACA people. If people like that are not likely to be a net lifetime gain to the US economy, who else will be?

On the same reckoning, what proportion of the current legally settled US citizen population generates a net lifetime loss for the US?

[_Maxine Waters]

I'm hoping for an answer to my question about the DACA people. If people like that are not likely to be a net lifetime gain to the US economy, who else will be?

People who don't have kids are taxed at a higher rate and use fewer government resources. They usually earn too much money to get free healthcare. People that die in their 50s and 60s before they become disabled or get onto social security dole subsidize those who live longer, i.e. many young black men actually subsidize the retirements of white women because of when they die.

[_The CCC]

Incorrect. Taxpayers without children are taxed at the same rate as taxpayers with children. The tax payers with children have deductions that taxpayers without children don't have.

Incorrect. Taxpayers without children are usually on the lowest rung of the socioeconomic scale.

Incorrect. Dead people don't collect any Social Security. It is their surviving family that does.

True. All you have to do is die before you turn 65 or become totally disabled. Then you too can "beat the system".

[Guest]

You know, we could consolidate ALL policing municipalities into one state-ran organization eliminating redundancy and streamlining procedure. This would save billions per year, and we could pay for the Dreamers!

I don't think I've seen any solutions from Majax, yet. I just want it on record I've provided, I think, four solutions now.

- Doc

[_Doctor Steuss]

According to the Migration Policy Institute, the total DACA-eligible population is 1,932,000. If the Dreamers are supposedly going to cost taxpayers $115 Billion, then just have each DACA-eligible person pay $8,000 to become a citizen. Dreamers will then not only cost taxpayers nothing, but they’ll net taxpayers almost $40 Billion. The government can then send each citizen a check for $100 as a thank-you gift from their new brown neighbors.

Tah-dah!

[_Jersey Girl]

According to the Migration Policy Institute, the total DACA-eligible population is 1,932,000. If the Dreamers are supposedly going to cost taxpayers $115 Billion, then just have each DACA-eligible person pay $8,000 to become a citizen. Dreamers will then not only cost taxpayers nothing, but they’ll net taxpayers almost $40 Billion. The government can then send each citizen a check for $100 as a thank-you gift from their new brown neighbors.

Tah-dah!

Hey slip President a little sticky note on that one, k?

[_Maxine Waters]

You know, we could consolidate ALL policing municipalities into one state-ran organization eliminating redundancy and streamlining procedure. This would save billions per year, and we could pay for the Dreamers!

Does this really solve the problem?

A 2010 poll by Gallup showed that roughly 6.2 million Mexicans wish to migrate into the United States, as do 23 million Chinese, 17 million Indians, 9 million Ethiopians, 7.8 million people Bangladesh, 77 million people from Brazil, 5 million from Vietnam and many millions more. “If all of the adults worldwide who tell Gallup they would like to move to another country actually did so, the United States could see a net population gain of 60%,” Gallup reported.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... n-borders/

[_Doctor Steuss]

Hey slip President a little sticky note on that one, k?

Hmmm… let me see if I can condense this into 140 characters.

[_subgenius]

Still seems like a bargain, sorry.

If people like the young DACA immigrants (in the great majority well educated, hard working and law abiding) are going, overall, to cost the US government large amounts of money during their working lifetime, I have to ask:

Who on earth are the kind of US citizens who do NOT cost the US government money?

I'm hoping for an answer to my question about the DACA people. If people like that are not likely to be a net lifetime gain to the US economy, who else will be?

On the same reckoning, what proportion of the current legally settled US citizen population generates a net lifetime loss for the US?

your question fails to note the distinction between citizens costing money and non-citizens costing money. The character and work ethic of any particular DACA immigrant is not under debate (and its rather irrelevant), but rather why should they benefit from a system (a.k.a. cost) which they have made no real effort to join? If the US is so valuable to these DACA immigrants why haven't they made a more collective effort to become citizens? Only little over half of those estimated as eligible have even bothered to apply.


So, yeah citizens do cost money but the topic is about how much non-citizens cost.


per board requirements this is the required period at the end of my post prior to "clicking submit" -----> .

[_Chap]

The point of my question is still being avoided.

It is alleged in the OP that admitting people under DACA will end up inflicting a huge net cost on the US.

So I asked:

If people like the young DACA immigrants (in the great majority well educated, hard working and law abiding) are going, overall, to cost the US government large amounts of money during their working lifetime, I have to ask:

Who on earth are the kind of US citizens who do NOT cost the US government money?

These young people seem on the whole likely to make ideal members of the US working community, the kind of people who get good qualifications, earn a good living, contribute to society, and pay plenty of tax. Yet it is alleged that over their lifetimes they will be a net cost to the US - meaning that the result of the subtraction

(lifetime tax paid, direct and indirect) - (lifetime costs to government) will be negative.

How on earth can that be? If people like that are a net cost to the US, then we would have to conclude that the great majority of its current citizens must also be a net lifetime cost to the US, which is plainly absurd.