Skip to comments.Hiring Joe Legal versus Hiring Jose Illegal!!!
Posted on 06/22/2009 7:55:52 AM PDT by ignorancerunsrampant
Here is an example of why hiring illegal aliens is not economically productive for the State of California ...You have 2 families..."Joe Legal" and "Jose Illegal". Both families have 2 parents, 2 children and live in California . "Joe Legal" works in construction, has a Social Security Number, and makes $25.00 per hour with payroll taxes deducted.... "Jose Illegal" also works in construction, has "NO" Social Security Number, and gets paid $15.00 cash "under the table".
Joe Legal...$25.00 per hour x 40 hours $1000.00 per week, $52,000 per year Now take 30% away for state federal tax. Joe Legal now has $31,231.00.
Jose Illegal...$15.00 per hour x 40 hours $600.00 per week, $31,200.00 per year. Jose Illegal pays no taxes... Jose Illegal now has $31,200.00
Joe Legal pays Medical and Dental Insurance with limited coverage $1000.00 per month [$12,000.00 per year]. Joe Legal now has $19,231.00.
Jose Illegal has full Medical and Dental coverage through the state and local clinics at a cost of $0.00 per year. Jose Illegal still has $31,200.00.
Joe Legal makes too much money is not eligible for Food Stamps or welfare. Joe Legal pays for food. $1,000.00 per month [$12,000.00 per year]. Joe Legal now has $ 7,231.00
Jose Illegal has no documented income and is eligible for Food Stamps and Welfare. Jose Illegal still has $31,200.00.
Joe Legal pays rent. $1,000.00 per month [$12,000.00 per year]. Joe Legal is now in the hole minus (-) $4,769.00.
Jose Illegal receives a $500 per month Federal rent subsidy. Jose Illegal pays rent. $500.00 per month (section 8 housing). $6,000.00 per year. Jose Illegal still has $25,200.00.
Joe Legal now works overtime on Saturdays or gets a part time job after work.
Jose Illegal has nights and weekends off to enjoy with his family (and eat out!).
Joe Legal's and Jose Illegal's children both attend the same school. Joe Legal pays for his children's lunches while Jose Illegal's children get a government sponsored breakfast & lunch, and they also qualify to be "bused to school" at tax payer expense.
Jose Illegal's children have an after school ESL program. Joe Legal's children have to find a way to get to school and go home after school as, "latch-key kids" with no adult supervision.
Joe Legal and Jose Illegal both enjoy the same Police and Fire Services, but Joe paid for them and Jose did not pay.
Jose Illegal can send most of his money back home to build a new home for retirement, and have money to buy a new truck (and still have Medi-Cal benefits while living in a foreign country; until someone turns him in to authorities....if they ever find out!!)
Joe will be lucky if he has any money for retirement, a new vehicle, medical/dental benefits, or a place to live.
I have done the math, all you have to do is to look at it yourself. Don't hire illegal aliens.....Don't vote for any politician that supports illegal aliens.....And most important of all, write your politicians and let them know how you feel
PS: You forgot, Jose illegal's wife claims "single, no head of Household" and collects additional benefits that Joe legal's wife cannot claim.
No wonder our country is in trouble!! Think about it!
What exactly does it mean when you get a reply that say “ping”?
they are so interested in the comments that they will check back later and/or want to see how other people respond
great work by the way... its sad but true everything that is written here
Thank you! I just posted it, not my thoughts. Never heard it explained that way.
Jose makes nearly three times as much as I do and that’s before SS and taxes are withheld from my paycheck.
It's a way of saying "look here".
Do not take this in any way as support for illegals but if you are going to post an argument be prepared to defend it.
Even if you had an amnesty, there would still be incentives to remain Joe Illegal and to recruit more Joe Illegals. Good analysis.
It is so sad that being “legal” puts someone at a disadvantage compared to those who don’t follow the law.
Even moreso that those that DO try to follow the law can get tripped up by that very law, twisted about for no good purpose. (Mattress-tags anyone?)
Take this portion of the Lacey Act (16 USC 3370):
It is unlawful for any person to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, possess, or purchase any fish, wildlife, or plant taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of any Federal, State, foreign, or Indian tribal law, treaty, or regulation.
This means that if some country (say Uganda) forbids the possession of a goldfish, then all goldfish owners are law-breakers... oh, and look federal ones! Felony charges? You bet!
How would you like to be denied your right to vote or own firearms because you owned a goldfish? Or how about mint? ( http://www.reason.com/blog/show/114166.html )
Seriously, there are enough laws out there to turn anyone into a felon. Just like the DHS report turns virtually everyone into a possible extremist; it is painted in such wide brushes that it could be argued that ascribing to a religion makes you a possible extremist.
The Illegal’s kids can also take a college seat away from the Legal’s kids. They can pay In-state tuition which is covered with scholarships the Legal kids aren’t eligible for. Or if they bypassed college for MS-13 and a criminal record, they can still get job training if they live in San Francisco. Viva la Estados Unidos del Mexico.
But that has absolutely nothing to do with the inequalities between Jose and Joe.
Further, Joe will likewise have to put money into the economy (food etc.), at least the amount not already stolen by the government to wrongfully give to Jose as benefits. Additionally, in essence, some of the money given by Jose back to the market is actually Joe’s because if Joe’s money was not taken to give benefits to Jose, it would be used by Joe in the market. Since it was instead given to the government to give to Jose, Jose does not have to pay for those expenses and has more money to spend in the market.
Think of it this way (using overly simplified numbers). Say Joe has $100 left over and there are no taxes at all. He would spend that in the market to improve his living condition or invest it wisely which will benefit him in the future and benefit investment professionals and banks in the short run. If Jose had $100 left over (again assuming no taxes), he would spend $25 of the $100 on services he needs (medical etc.) instead of relying on the government, spends $25 on himself for other items, and sens $50 back home. In essence, $150 in total is placed into the US market
now say Joe is taxed such that $25 of that $100 goes to the government. Joe can now only spend $75 in the market. Jose benefits from programs based on this $25 (actually about $20 after government expenses are taken out but we will pretend it is still $25) to pay what he would have used his excess cash for. So now Joe is contributing $75 to the market and Jose’s $25 medical expenses are paid by Joe. Jose now has $100 cash but since he will still only spend $25 on himself, $75 of this gets sent back home. In essence, the $25 taken from Joe to go to Jose is actually being diverted back to Mexico or wherever Jose is from. The amount put into the US market is no longer $150 but rather $125. It is the people back in Jose’s home country who benefit most from this whole scheme. Even if Jose were to spend $30 instead of $25, the people back home would still benefit at Joe’s expense.
I will be glad to defend it. Exhibit A: California’s budget!
Meanwhile in NJ, there was a construction project out for bid. a companh owned by “Joe” bid to do the work. He emphasized that that his company was 75 years old, he was fully insured, all of his workers were union, the work will comply with OSHA 100%, there would be no subcontractors and it would take 3 weeks to do the work. The bid was $225,000
“Jose” also bid the same job for $175,000, which he said would be done in two weeks, no questions asked.
“Joey the wrench” then approached the owner with a bid for $225,000 - $25,000 for me $25,000 for you, and $175,000 for the Mexicans.
“While Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has called for increases in the sales tax and cuts in services to reduce the budget deficit of $11.2 billion, a population group has noted that the shortfall is about the same as the costs of illegal immigration to the state.”
And don’t forget, Jose Illegal’s employer gets to keep an extra $20,800. That’s why, from his perspective, it’s not a bad idea.
And if “Joe Legal” or his wife or kids get sick, insurance doesn’t cover everything. He’s got deductibles, copays, prescription costs, etc., while Jose Illegal gets everything for free. Plus Joe’s insurance might refuse to cover certain conditions at all, leaving him totally out of luck.
And Joe Legal has to buy car insurance, which is very expensive, partly because of all the “Jose Illegals” who drive drunk or commit hit-and-runs with no licenses and/or insurance. If Jose Illegal has insurance at all, he pays the first premium in order to get the sticker for his vehicle, then simply stops paying.
It goes on and on.
Then there is the other side of the coin: The adverse affect on the businesses who is hiring Joe vs businesses who hires Jose, the competition factor, taxes, health benefits, etc, hmmm!!!
It does though. Jose will spend it on a car that Joe can't afford. Jose will by more tequila that Joe can't afford. Clearly Jose's money will go back into both economies: Black market and real. Joe, unfortunately, has been compromised into subsidizing the man who is doing everything illegal.
With that amount, or more, per employee, I'd guess the employer also wouldn't be too concerned about a measly $5000 fine once every five or ten years.
Verify range to target. One ping only.
Right but my point is that the government stealing from Joe to give to Jose does not have any net benefit on the US economy; if anything it is a loss in favor of Jose’s home country
Without a doubt. But you can't say that Jose's money/earnings is a total loss to the U.S. economy which this article/letter implies.
“Jose Illegal receives a $500 per month Federal rent subsidy. Jose Illegal pays rent. $500.00 per month (section 8 housing). $6,000.00 per year.”
More likely his monthly payment would be less than $50.
I do work on a condo that rents for $1,850/mo. and section 8 pays all but $50 of it.
no. That is true. But it is certainly less of a gain than if Joe did not have to prop up Jose. Further, it is much more of a gain for Mexico or whatever Jose’s home country is than for the US
“Don’t vote for any politician that supports illegal aliens.”
Well, everyone who voted for McShamnesty & Palin did.
How about we learn from our mistakes.
Your post and defense of Jose make a case for a fair tax or national sales tax. Even drug dealers spend money, even ILLEGALS spend money.
McCain was so the wrong guy for the job. I LOVE the Republican party, but we have to move away from the ... “it’s his turn bullshnit”. Anyone could have beaten Clinton one-on-one in his second term run, only Bob Dole could lose in a three way race. But it was his turn. Me thinks Romney would have done a much better job than McCain. Romney/Jindahl, Romney/Palin, Pawlenty/Jindahl, Pawlenty/Palin. Hopefully we find the right candidate for the job and ask the guy who thinks it is his turn to step aside in 2012.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.