Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The addition of that $40K immigrant doesn't reduce my income at all. In fact, that immigrant may provide goods and/or services that I prefer to spend a portion of my income on.

Let's put it another way--what's better? An immigrant or a native-born American child?

• The immigrant comes pre-educated. None of my tax dollars need to be spent to educate them.
• The immigrant comes ready to work. The child spends 18(+) years as a non-producing dependent of other people, just draining the system of resources.
• The immigrant doesn't mean that any existing workers have to remove themselves from the workforce in order to be a parent. We can have more single-person or two-person households where both are working and adding to the tax system, instead of one working part-time or perhaps leaving the workforce entirely to be a full-time parent.

I think if we assume people are bad for the economy, we should prioritize which is worse. Let's have more immigrants and fewer babies!

• The immigrant comes pre-educated:  Well . . . some of them.  My dad's cardiologist was an Indian immigrant.  Whether or not he came pre-educated, I'm sure he contributed a lot more to the economy than he took out of it.  A large fraction of our current immigrants, especially the illegal ones, have at best a rudimentary education and work menial low-paying jobs.  The math is a LOT different at the extremes on either end.  Immigration policy should benefit us not the politicians (Democrats through more Democratic voters) and their paymasters (Democrats AND Republicans who want cheap labor and more A-Holes*).  
• Immigrants ready to work:  Kids are only a resource drain on the economy to the extent that the State pays for them.  If you or I pay for our own kids that is only mixing up what we spend out money on.  Ie, if we weren't parents that would be better for brewers and sellers of the type of expensive toys and luxury goods that non-parents with our incomes could afford but us being parents is better for childcare providers, Pediatricians, and all the other stuff we spend money on for our kids.  
• Immigrants allowing people into the workforce:  On a Macro level in our country it simply isn't working that way.  A ridiculously high percentage of stay-home moms have college degrees.  IIRC you lean libertarian and in some sort of theoretical libertarian paradise I wouldn't care.  We don't live in a libertarian paradise.  Here in reality college is highly subsidized which means that for the stay home moms with college degrees we (through the subsidy) effectively paid a boatload of money for a ridiculously inefficient dating service to get the stay home mom in question an "MRS Degree" so that she'd have a husband who made enough money so that she could stay home and NOT produce anything in the economy.  

Your argument that kids are a drain on the economy doesn't work.  We (parents) spend money but that money is back in the economy same as it would have been if we had stayed single and childless and bought more beers and toys with it.  On a micro level it is good for some and bad for others but on a macro level it just rearranges things.  

• Fatal flaw #1: Conflating SS/Medicare with "the economy". SS/Medicare are government transfer payment programs that, yes, pay out more than people pay in on average. That doesn't mean that they are "the economy", or even a reasonable proxy for the economy.
• Fatal flaw #2: This has always been true of SS/Medicare. They are not retirement investment accounts. The design of the program has ALWAYS required a certain ratio of active workers to retired benefit recipients in order to self-fund. 15.3% has never been about "how much do *I* need to put in to fund my retirement?", it's "how much do we need to tax current workers to pay the recipients?" This is why I spun it around on you. If immigrants are bad for the economy because of the structural nature of SS/Medicare, people are bad for the economy. American children are worse because they cost us much more up front to obtain.
• Fatal flaw #3: Tying this to SS/Medicare makes it very easy for me to turn this around on you again. Let's say we increase the combined SS/Medicare tax to 20.8%. Oh, and we'll make it more spicy by saying that we reduce income taxes to make it revenue-neutral. Now SS/Medicare are self-sustaining and well-funded, and being revenue-neutral, the government total tax revenue is unchanged. Now magically by putting money into a different bucket, immigrants become great for the economy!

You may be able to make arguments that immigration is bad for the economy. We could have a spirited debate on that.

But you swung and whiffed with this one. Sorry.

I'm going to combine these three because they are basically different prongs of the same argument.  

I completely agree with your implied point that the distinction between Social Security and Medicare and all other Government benefits is imaginary.  Government takes a portion of our incomes in various ways including:

• Social Security at 12.4% of earned income
• Medicare at 2.9% of earned income
• Gas and other excise taxes every time we buy gas or pay a cellphone bill, etc
• Income Taxes at different rates based on income and deductions
• etc.  

Then Government provides us with certain services including:

• Defending our borders - just kidding, they don't bother to do that.  
• Defending Ukraine's borders - They do this!
• Defending Israel's borders - They do this too!
• College assistance (see above).  
• Social Security Benefits if we become disabled or achieve the necessary age.  
• Medicare benefits if we achieve the necessary age.  
• Roads and other infrastructure.  
• Welfare if we need it - Or if we can trick them into thinking we need it, the amount of welfare fraud in this country is staggering.  
• National Parks - Does anyone else find it funny that the Agency in charge of everything outdoors is called the Department of the Interior?  
• etc.  

Here is the thing:  
Even taking out the SS/Medicare items, we all know that the Federal Government has had one year in the black in IIRC something like the last 70 years.  So we, all of us on average, are contributing less than we are getting.  Ok, I didn't phrase that well.  There is so much inefficiency inherent in the system that all but the lowest contributors probably pay more than we get so I'll rephrase that as:  We, all of us on average, are contributing less than the government spends on services for us.  


It doesn't matter how you slice it, the average American pays less, a LOT less than the government spends on them.  No matter how hard you try, you can't make that up on volume.  Each individual immigrant incrementally increases revenue and also incrementally increases expenditures.  An immigrant earning an average income increases the deficit incrementally.  A particularly low-earning immigrant increases the deficit more.  A particularly high-earning immigrant increases the deficit less.  A few REALLY high-earning immigrants actually decrease the deficit.  

We get by because some Americans contribute WAY over the average.  A rational immigration policy would aim to allow ONLY those immigrants who are likely to pull the average up.  

My ancestors all arrived before the Civil War.  There was no Social Security, no Medicare, no welfare, few roads, no National Parks, we weren't defending Ukraine's borders, there wasn't an Israel, there was no federal college assistance aside from the Service Academies and recipients paid that back through service in the Armed Forces.  The early United States and earlier British Colonial American Governments that people immigrated to back then didn't need to worry about whether or not those immigrants would be net contributors or net sponges of governmental benefits because there weren't enough governmental benefits to sponge for that to be a concern.  Our modern nation is VERY different.  There are a plethora of governmental benefits and beyond that benefits provided by private actors under governmental mandate (ie, ER care).  

I'll concede without argument that SOME immigrants are net contributors but you cannot possibly argue that no immigrant is a net sponge.  As a society we shouldn't let in ANY net sponges.  There is no shortage of welfare recipients and unskilled laborers.  We have plenty already and don't need any more.  

I'm much less favorable to legal immigration than basically everyone here for four main reasons:

• Because our Immigration Policy is nothing close to rational.  We *SHOULD* favor educated young people so that they will contribute to the economy in a major way and for a LONG time before they need retirement benefits.  Instead we favor family reunification that frequently brings in elderly relatives of people already here (this is a fiscal disaster) and we have almost zero functional favoritism aimed at bringing in high earners.  
• Even if we did have a rational immigration policy, I wouldn't trust the Government to actually stick to it and enforce it based on their track record.  
• Because I have a lot of blue-collar relatives and associates.  While immigration is possibly a net benefit for guys like me (and most everyone on this board) because we are net consumers of unskilled labor, it is an abject disaster for a net provider of unskilled labor who sees greater competition for jobs AND benefits.  
• I live in Ohio.  It is one of the lowest immigration states in the Union.  My county in Ohio is one of the lowest immigration counties in Ohio.  Years ago (long before Trump if anyone is wondering), I noticed that our Municipal Court spends a significant amount of money on interpreters for destitute immigrant defendants who do not speak English.  Now if that is true in one of the lowest immigration Counties in one of the lowest immigration States then I can conclude that it is a MUCH bigger problem in areas with more immigrants and why are we importing criminals?  Even more than with welfare recipients and unskilled laborers, we have plenty of domestic criminals, we don't need any more.  

*Up in the top portion I mentioned Republican donors who want more A-holes.  This was a specific shot at the Koch Brothers.  One of their businesses is producing toilet paper and they have a near monopoly in that.  Thus, they quite literally make more money every time the number of A-holes in America increases.  

Koch Industries doesn't have anything close to a "near monopoly" on toilet paper.  I used to work in that specific industry.  Charmin is the leading brand (unless you consider it as two brands).

And of course the Koch "brothers" now is just "brother", not that is matters.

I'll probably get more out of SS than I paid into it if I live a bit longer.  Younger folks working of course support me in that, just as I did back in the day.

I still wonder how Democrats are restricting legal immigration, maybe they are.  I miss a lot.

Google is a wondrous invention

• The immigrant comes pre-educated:  Well . . . some of them.  My dad's cardiologist was an Indian immigrant.  Whether or not he came pre-educated, I'm sure he contributed a lot more to the economy than he took out of it.  A large fraction of our current immigrants, especially the illegal ones, have at best a rudimentary education and work menial low-paying jobs.  The math is a LOT different at the extremes on either end.  Immigration policy should benefit us not the politicians (Democrats through more Democratic voters) and their paymasters (Democrats AND Republicans who want cheap labor and more A-Holes*). 
• Immigrants ready to work:  Kids are only a resource drain on the economy to the extent that the State pays for them.  If you or I pay for our own kids that is only mixing up what we spend out money on.  Ie, if we weren't parents that would be better for brewers and sellers of the type of expensive toys and luxury goods that non-parents with our incomes could afford but us being parents is better for childcare providers, Pediatricians, and all the other stuff we spend money on for our kids. 
• Immigrants allowing people into the workforce:  On a Macro level in our country it simply isn't working that way.  A ridiculously high percentage of stay-home moms have college degrees.  IIRC you lean libertarian and in some sort of theoretical libertarian paradise I wouldn't care.  We don't live in a libertarian paradise.  Here in reality college is highly subsidized which means that for the stay home moms with college degrees we (through the subsidy) effectively paid a boatload of money for a ridiculously inefficient dating service to get the stay home mom in question an "MRS Degree" so that she'd have a husband who made enough money so that she could stay home and NOT produce anything in the economy. 

Your argument that kids are a drain on the economy doesn't work.  We (parents) spend money but that money is back in the economy same as it would have been if we had stayed single and childless and bought more beers and toys with it.  On a micro level it is good for some and bad for others but on a macro level it just rearranges things. 
I'm going to combine these three because they are basically different prongs of the same argument. 

The point about kids was meant to be humorous and a reductio ad absurdum, because obviously we're not going to stop having kids. 

But it's also true. My kids have lived a combined 41 years in this country and have not combined produced goods or services useful to other humans on par with what my unskilled/manual labor gardening crew does in a month. They absolutely ARE a drain on resources... Until they reach the age to actually participate in the productive side of the economy, that is. 

On a micro level, paying someone to dig a hole and then fill it back up can be good for some and bad for others. But on a macro level, that's just a drain on resources because it's not actually productive work. 

And I'm going to highlight one bit from your quote because again I think it's a fatal flaw:

Kids are only a resource drain on the economy to the extent that the State pays for them.  If you or I pay for our own kids that is only mixing up what we spend out money on.

Government spending is not "the economy." Government spending is ONE PART of the economy. Obviously it's the one that is tax-funded (which I'll address below) and thus the one where MY kids can cost YOU money, which I understand why it's important to talk about. 

Those people who choose to have kids are doing so out of personal preference, but I think the point still stands that until those kids reach an age where they are able to contribute to the productive side of the economy, you can't describe them economically as anything but a drain.

I completely agree with your implied point that the distinction between Social Security and Medicare and all other Government benefits is imaginary.  Government takes a portion of our incomes in various ways including:

• Social Security at 12.4% of earned income
• Medicare at 2.9% of earned income
• Gas and other excise taxes every time we buy gas or pay a cellphone bill, etc
• Income Taxes at different rates based on income and deductions
• etc. 

Then Government provides us with certain services including:

• Defending our borders - just kidding, they don't bother to do that. 
• Defending Ukraine's borders - They do this!
• Defending Israel's borders - They do this too!
• College assistance (see above). 
• Social Security Benefits if we become disabled or achieve the necessary age. 
• Medicare benefits if we achieve the necessary age. 
• Roads and other infrastructure. 
• Welfare if we need it - Or if we can trick them into thinking we need it, the amount of welfare fraud in this country is staggering. 
• National Parks - Does anyone else find it funny that the Agency in charge of everything outdoors is called the Department of the Interior? 
• etc. 

Here is the thing: 
Even taking out the SS/Medicare items, we all know that the Federal Government has had one year in the black in IIRC something like the last 70 years.  So we, all of us on average, are contributing less than we are getting.  Ok, I didn't phrase that well.  There is so much inefficiency inherent in the system that all but the lowest contributors probably pay more than we get so I'll rephrase that as:  We, all of us on average, are contributing less than the government spends on services for us. 


It doesn't matter how you slice it, the average American pays less, a LOT less than the government spends on them.  No matter how hard you try, you can't make that up on volume.  Each individual immigrant incrementally increases revenue and also incrementally increases expenditures.  An immigrant earning an average income increases the deficit incrementally.  A particularly low-earning immigrant increases the deficit more.  A particularly high-earning immigrant increases the deficit less.  A few REALLY high-earning immigrants actually decrease the deficit. 

We get by because some Americans contribute WAY over the average.  A rational immigration policy would aim to allow ONLY those immigrants who are likely to pull the average up. 

My ancestors all arrived before the Civil War.  There was no Social Security, no Medicare, no welfare, few roads, no National Parks, we weren't defending Ukraine's borders, there wasn't an Israel, there was no federal college assistance aside from the Service Academies and recipients paid that back through service in the Armed Forces.  The early United States and earlier British Colonial American Governments that people immigrated to back then didn't need to worry about whether or not those immigrants would be net contributors or net sponges of governmental benefits because there weren't enough governmental benefits to sponge for that to be a concern.  Our modern nation is VERY different.  There are a plethora of governmental benefits and beyond that benefits provided by private actors under governmental mandate (ie, ER care). 

I'll concede without argument that SOME immigrants are net contributors but you cannot possibly argue that no immigrant is a net sponge.  As a society we shouldn't let in ANY net sponges.  There is no shortage of welfare recipients and unskilled laborers.  We have plenty already and don't need any more. 

I'm much less favorable to legal immigration than basically everyone here for four main reasons:

• Because our Immigration Policy is nothing close to rational.  We *SHOULD* favor educated young people so that they will contribute to the economy in a major way and for a LONG time before they need retirement benefits.  Instead we favor family reunification that frequently brings in elderly relatives of people already here (this is a fiscal disaster) and we have almost zero functional favoritism aimed at bringing in high earners. 
• Even if we did have a rational immigration policy, I wouldn't trust the Government to actually stick to it and enforce it based on their track record. 
• Because I have a lot of blue-collar relatives and associates.  While immigration is possibly a net benefit for guys like me (and most everyone on this board) because we are net consumers of unskilled labor, it is an abject disaster for a net provider of unskilled labor who sees greater competition for jobs AND benefits. 
• I live in Ohio.  It is one of the lowest immigration states in the Union.  My county in Ohio is one of the lowest immigration counties in Ohio.  Years ago (long before Trump if anyone is wondering), I noticed that our Municipal Court spends a significant amount of money on interpreters for destitute immigrant defendants who do not speak English.  Now if that is true in one of the lowest immigration Counties in one of the lowest immigration States then I can conclude that it is a MUCH bigger problem in areas with more immigrants and why are we importing criminals?  Even more than with welfare recipients and unskilled laborers, we have plenty of domestic criminals, we don't need any more. 

*Up in the top portion I mentioned Republican donors who want more A-holes.  This was a specific shot at the Koch Brothers.  One of their businesses is producing toilet paper and they have a near monopoly in that.  Thus, they quite literally make more money every time the number of A-holes in America increases. 

Again, the fatal flaw here is that "government spending" is not "the economy". Combined state/federal/local expenditures (going with pre-2020 due to COVID fiscal stimulus) was stable from 2014-2019 at 33% of GDP. 

Immigrants, even low-skilled ones, produce goods and services that are of value to other Americans and in that, they're contributing to the economy. Whether they pay less in taxes than the government provides in services is a different but related factor. Now I don't think that means that we should just start importing hordes of unskilled immigrants, because again, I actually agree with you that some of them WILL be a net drain on "the economy", not just on "the government".

But I don't think you can make an argument that any immigrant who isn't in the top 1% and can finance our government faster than the government spends on goods and services should be shunned. That's not the dividing line for "net sponge" IMHO. Because if it is, you can say that almost everyone in this country--and almost everyone on this board--is a "net sponge" and should go suck off the government teat somewhere else. 

Making it easier for players to tinker with them without impacting the W/L outcome

so, ban this but continue with betting on the W/L outcome that can also be tinkered with?

Not a good subject. That was a bad year on so many levels.

Saving grace for us is we moved to Florida.

Which one of us are natives?

We are all immigrants or decedents thereof.

We need more immigrants. I just want it done the right way. Look at the Cubans in Florida as an example.

Is that an example of the right way or the wrong way?