Illegal Immigration Fallacies

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
These unfunded obligations are going to come due and the source of the these funds will have to come from somewhere else. There are a few choices here: raise SSI taxes, decrease benefits, print money to pay these unfunded obligations or something else.

[/ QUOTE ]

A "something else" like investing the contributions in a trust would likely do. It's expensive to set up, but it's a better idea than having the government just hold on to the funds.

[ QUOTE ]
I do know what a fraud is, and if this were in the private sector, it would be considered illegal and destined to fail.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's actually not correct. Companies sponsor unfunded benefit plans where there is no security for the promise other than the company's word that benefits will be paid from general revenue.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is two distinctions between corporate unfunded benefits and SS though. CUBs are still accounted for on an accrual basis so the expense related to their accrual reduces current income. Also, though technically "unfunded" in order to exclude them from ERISA requirements they are almost always secured through trusts that are funded.

Its irrelevant though. Governments are not corporations and corporate accounting standards are inappropriate for government entities.

[AzDesertRat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In the case of unfunded pension liabilities, somehow these companies conned the government into having taxpayers pay for ir (see United and other companies lately).

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you mean unfunded or underfunded? These are two different things. Unfunded plans are not supported by tax payers.

[/ QUOTE ]

I meant underfunded, when talking about retirement benefits.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
These are also noted on the financial statements. There is risk with everything--as long as it is quantified or spelled out, Caveat emptor. While the risks are spelled out in the private sector, the government feels no need to say anything about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is your problem with government reporting or with the system itself? If you could get your hands on an annual report on financial obligations would you be satisfied?

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I wouldn't mind seeing a balance sheet and a statement of cash flows at least, and something like a full blown audit would be nice once in a while. Seeing one statement wouldn't be much of an indicator, but seeing what trends are developing would be what is most important here.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
There is two distinctions between corporate unfunded benefits and SS though. CUBs are still accounted for on an accrual basis so the expense related to their accrual reduces current income.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, given how much deferral of recognition of experience there is in benefits accounting, I'm not sure how related the "benefit expense" on a FAS basis is to the "true cost" in the year. Sure, though, it's better than booking the benefit payments.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, though technically "unfunded" in order to exclude them from ERISA requirements they are almost always secured through trusts that are funded.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Almost always" is definitely not true. While rabbi trusts and such mechanisms are frequently used, many unfunded arrangements are completely unfunded and, in the event of sponsor bankruptcy, the beneficiaries would have to get in line with all other debt holders to make a claim on assets.

[ QUOTE ]
Its irrelevant though. Governments are not corporations and corporate accounting standards are inappropriate for government entities.

[/ QUOTE ]

Be that as it may, wouldn't it enhance benefit security to segregate assets and invest them with a funding policy? And wouldn't it enhance cost transparency to record the cost on an "accrual" basis as you suggest and disclose a better allocation of the annual cost of the plan?

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In the case of unfunded pension liabilities, somehow these companies conned the government into having taxpayers pay for ir (see United and other companies lately).

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you mean unfunded or underfunded? These are two different things. Unfunded plans are not supported by tax payers.

[/ QUOTE ]

I meant underfunded, when talking about retirement benefits.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
These are also noted on the financial statements. There is risk with everything--as long as it is quantified or spelled out, Caveat emptor. While the risks are spelled out in the private sector, the government feels no need to say anything about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is your problem with government reporting or with the system itself? If you could get your hands on an annual report on financial obligations would you be satisfied?

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I wouldn't mind seeing a balance sheet and a statement of cash flows at least, and something like a full blown audit would be nice once in a while. Seeing one statement wouldn't be much of an indicator, but seeing what trends are developing would be what is most important here.

[/ QUOTE ]
Two brief excerpts:

"The federal government recorded a $1.3 trillion loss last year — far more than the official $248 billion deficit — when corporate-style accounting standards are used, a USA TODAY analysis shows.

The loss reflects a continued deterioration in the finances of Social Security and government retirement programs for civil servants and military personnel. The loss — equal to $11,434 per household — is more than Americans paid in income taxes in 2006.

and

"Bottom line: Taxpayers are now on the hook for a record $59.1 trillion in liabilities, a 2.3% increase from 2006. That amount is equal to $516,348 for every U.S. household. By comparison, U.S. households owe an average of $112,043 for mortgages, car loans, credit cards and all other debt combined."

USATODAY: Rules Hiding Trillions of Debt

[AzDesertRat]

See that's what I want to see--the real picture. And I love this line [ QUOTE ]
The White House and the Congressional Budget Office oppose the change, arguing that the programs are not true liabilities because government can cancel or cut them.

[/ QUOTE ]

When was the last time the government actually eliminated a program it started? [img]/images/graemlins/ooo.gif[/img]

[EricOF]

[ QUOTE ]
Most reputable economists that I've read believe that immigrants pay more in taxes than they receive in services. Most of those immigrants that do in fact receive lots of government services reside in the very large mega-cities, think LA and NYC. The best arguments against immigration IMO are social disconnection, maybe a future propensity to vote themselves those future provisions, and "national security". Of course, I suspect that again the grandstanding by most Republicans and some Democrats is just political demagoguery designed to exploit the xenophobia prevalent in many parts of the Rust and Bible Belts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Illegal immigrants on the verge of a new amnesty are low-skilled. They do not pay more in taxes than they are given in services. Opening up new services to them will only increase the imbalance even considering increased tax revenue.

One of the things that open-borders proponents often do is conflate all immigrants with illegal immigrants. How many college graduates do you believe are sneaking across the border?

[EricOF]

[ QUOTE ]
I think I remember hearing in this forum that the 'center for immigration studies' was acually founded and it's core group run by... people with strong biases againt foreigners.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's all bet our life's fortune that this is a completely incontrovertible fact and not merely an aspersion from those who disagree with their supported policies.

[EricOF]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, the "Center for Immigration Studies" was a spin-off of the Federation For Immigration Reform, which is essentially a restrictionist lobbying group that, as the Wall Street Journal chronicles, is unsurprisingly funded by white supremacists.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well if the WSJ says they are white supremacists, they must be! It's fun to read without questioning isn't it? The Pioneer Fund does fund research into the genetic causes of human differences, much of which actually places East Asians above Europeans in IQ. Perhaps they are Asian supremacists? Well, no reason to try to think logically about these things. Let's just assume the WSJ knows what it's talking about and leave the thinking to them.

[Brainwalter]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think I remember hearing in this forum that the 'center for immigration studies' was acually founded and it's core group run by... people with strong biases againt foreigners.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's all bet our life's fortune that is a completely incontrovertible fact and not merely an aspersion from those who disagree with their supported policies.

[/ QUOTE ]

Illegal immigrants aren't threatening my life's fortune. If they're threatening yours, I suggest you go to community college and/or learn a job skill.

The welfare/warfare state threatens a large percentage of my life's fortune though.

[EricOF]

[ QUOTE ]

That and slaughtering some Indians to illegaly obtain their property rights to large areas of the land.

[/ QUOTE ]

Property rights? I can't believe someone would even use the phrase in relation to American Indians. How important were those "property rights" among Indians themselves? You do realize that tribal warfare was quite common. Tribes expanded primarily via conquest of other tribes.