Trump estimates his wall would cost $12 billion; others say $20 billion. How much, as a percentage, are you going to tax the money transfers?
Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Trump: Convince me without personal attacks
- Thread starter StefanM
- Start date
- Status
Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo
CNN estimates it would cost about $10 billion. LINK
InTheLight said:
A 1 % tax on banks and money transfer Companies could generate $100 million to $150 million annually. According to Forbes.
Anything suggested would take many, many years. Even if possible (I don't think it is), funding the wall is going to be done by America in the meantime.
I don't think the wall is a bad idea. I just think we should be realistic--we're going to borrow money to pay for it.
We should answer the questions in this order:
1) Is building the wall a worthy venture?
2) Is it cost effective? (regardless of who pays--look only at cost/benefit)
3) How will we pay for it in the short term?
4) How will we pay for it in the long term?
If we decide 1 and 2 Yes, then we should proceed, period.
I don't think the wall is a bad idea. I just think we should be realistic--we're going to borrow money to pay for it.
We should answer the questions in this order:
1) Is building the wall a worthy venture?
2) Is it cost effective? (regardless of who pays--look only at cost/benefit)
3) How will we pay for it in the short term?
4) How will we pay for it in the long term?
If we decide 1 and 2 Yes, then we should proceed, period.
So you are going to tax American persons sending the money, not the government, or the people receiving the money?
The border fence is 35% complete and, so far, has cost $3 billion. Total cost to complete the entire 2000 mile border - $7 billion more for a total of $10 billion.
Where the fence is complete it has proven to be very effective. The problem is that some places where a fence is a huge problem. The entire Rio Grande Valley, from Brownsville in the east to El Paso in the west (about 800 miles) is protected wetland. The fence will have to be built well to the north of the border to avoid the wetlands, and will isolate US residents who live between the fence and the river.
Where the fence is complete it has proven to be very effective. The problem is that some places where a fence is a huge problem. The entire Rio Grande Valley, from Brownsville in the east to El Paso in the west (about 800 miles) is protected wetland. The fence will have to be built well to the north of the border to avoid the wetlands, and will isolate US residents who live between the fence and the river.
Taxing remittances??
I can see the lawyers on both sides of the border having fun and profit with such a law in light of Article 1 Section 9 Clause 5:
I can see the lawyers on both sides of the border having fun and profit with such a law in light of Article 1 Section 9 Clause 5:
No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.
The taxation would apply to those 'migrants' in the US sending money back to Mexico. There's no reason that it couldn't be taxed at 4% or 5%.
Last edited:
Yes the fence is effective where it's been completed. There will be problems with property rights, protected areas and grazing cattle. But then the US interstate highway system involved many of the same problems, and ways were found to complete it.
So I suppose lawyers could argue that cash sent from so-called migrants to friends and family back home as an export. Lawyers can argue anything if they have a mind to.
Article 1 Section 9 Clause 5 had to do with interstate commerce, not international commerce.
Last edited:
Those "migrants" are US persons. And you want to tax them because of where they are from and how they spend their hard-earned money?
Come to think of it, to make it SCOTUS proof, they'd try to make it apply to all remittances. Considering how many legal US residents and citizens send money back to friends and relatives from all over the world, there will be a hurricane strength storm of protest.
Well large numbers of them did not enter legally, and are not legally supposed to be working here. They are US persons only in the sense that they currently reside in the US. But then to make it non-discriminatory we could tax all remittances leaving the US. Even though 1/2 of all remittances leaving the US go to one country, that being Mexico.
That is to be expected. For one thing, companies such Western Union make a mint on the whole transfer industry. But the US has at various times restricted remittance to Iran and Nigeria. It is not unheard of. We won't block it, just tax it.Squire Robertsson said:
No, Lewis. A "US Person" is a person who is legally residing in the US but is not a citizen.
No, Lewis. A "US Person" is a person who is legally residing in the US but is not a citizen.
So you would tax the support of every missionary on the foreign field who receives support from the US?
Thank you TCassidy, for defining the legal use of the term US person. I assumed you were using it in the informal sense of one residing in the United States.
TCassidy said:
If I am not mistaken, support for foreign missions is tax deductible.
It is only deductible if given to a 501c3 entity. Such entities exist only within the political jurisdiction of the US. You are planning to "tax all remittances leaving the US."
I can't imagine this holding up to judicial review unless it's a tax on ALL remittances to Mexico, regardless of the sender. If it's for people legally present in the US, we're looking at an "equal protection" issue. And anything targeted based on immigration status would ultimately turn Western Union et al. into de facto customs agents. You'd be looking at a lawsuit from a major corporation with deep pockets, not just a small time suit from an individual.
Pretty much my thoughts. Also too much red tape and Western Union et al will stop doing direct business with Mexico.
Contributions to Mexican charities are tax deductible per IRS publication 526:
"Under the U.S.-Mexico income tax treaty, a contribution to a Mexican charitable organization may be deductible, but only if and to the extent the contribution would have been treated as a charitable contribution to a public charity created or organized under U.S. law."
I do not pretend to be very knowledgeable in tax law. But we are talking about minor tweaks. Congress is able to do such things, and a willing president can sign said tweaks into law.
- Status