Trump: Convince me without personal attacks

[Lewis]

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.

I partially agree. As I pointed out earlier, remittances to Iran and Nigeria have been heavily regulated in the past.

Some would definitely raise a stink, but the discussion at this point was regarding ways to raise revenues that would complete the fence. Taxing remittances is a relatively straightforward process, and Mexico would be helping to pay for it, since remittances is a huge source of free income for them. Bigger than oil exports.

And if they wanted to retaliate and tax remittances into the US, they could certainly do it.

 

[TCassidy]

Contributions to Mexican charities are tax deductible per IRS publication 526:

But you are not talking about contributions to Mexican charities. You are talking about all remittances to Mexico.

 

[StefanM]

I partially agree. As I pointed out earlier, remittances to Iran and Nigeria have been heavily regulated in the past.

Some would definitely raise a stink, but the discussion at this point was regarding ways to raise revenues that would complete the fence. Taxing remittances is a relatively straightforward process, and Mexico would be helping to pay for it, since remittances is a huge source of free income for them. Bigger than oil exports.

And if they wanted to retaliate and tax remittances into the US, they could certainly do it.

If it were universal, then it would likely pass muster. A tax on all transfers to a specific country, regardless of the transferring party, is not discriminatory on the US side, except in the destination. The Constitution doesn't outline any right to make tax-free international transfers, and it also doesn't proscribe the ability to target transfers to a specific country.

Universal application avoids equal protection problems and eliminates logistical and legal issues of involving money transfer companies beyond collection of a tax. IMO, requiring businesses to collect a tax has precedent, and it would not represent an undue burden, as it would only require identifying a destination then collecting the tax.

I don't think it's a horrible idea in theory, but I would prefer something more like a 1% tax. I know this would take longer to generate funds, but it's also much more feasible to "sell."

That being said, I do see TCassidy's concern about missionary funding. The 1% tax rate would alleviate the concern somewhat, but it would still be some form of tax.

 

[Lewis]

But you are not talking about contributions to Mexican charities. You are talking about all remittances to Mexico.

I was not advocating for a tax on missions to Mexico. You brought up the issue of missionary donations being taxed, and I responded that they are tax deductible, at least in some cases. As they should be.

 

[TCassidy]

I was not advocating for a tax on missions to Mexico. You brought up the issue of missionary donations being taxed, and I responded that they are tax deductible, at least in some cases. As they should be.

You seem to have missed the point. You advocated taxing "all remittances to Mexico." That would, de facto, include missions support sent from the US to missionaries in Mexico.

 

[Lewis]

You seem to have missed the point. You advocated taxing "all remittances to Mexico." That would, de facto, include missions support sent from the US to missionaries in Mexico.

If legislation to tax remittances were introduced, it would be easy enough to make a distinction between the two things.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Sooo...getting back to the OP....

What are your thoughts on Trump now, Brother StefenM??

 

[TCassidy]

My thoughts on Trump have not changed. He is the worst possible choice for a candidate, except for the alternative.

 

[StefanM]

Sooo...getting back to the OP....

What are your thoughts on Trump now, Brother StefenM??

I'm about 75% leaning toward voting for him at this point. I still disagree with him on a few significant points, but I do see the importance of SCOTUS.

He's definitely not my preferred candidate (Rubio or Kasich), but he's what's available on the GOP side.

My vote doesn't really matter, but I've gotten to the point where I won't bash Trump. I might express some disagreements, but strong opposition is now gone.

 

[SovereignGrace]

I'm about 75% leaning toward voting for him at this point. I still disagree with him on a few significant points, but I do see the importance of SCOTUS.

He's definitely not my preferred candidate (Rubio or Kasich), but he's what's available on the GOP side.

My vote doesn't really matter, but I've gotten to the point where I won't bash Trump. I might express some disagreements, but strong opposition is now gone.

I am thankful you have been open-minded. Yes, Trump has his warts...many. But I never thought of giving Rubio or Cruz my vote in the primary, as they are of the same ilk the GOP has manufactured for years. But I would have voted for them in the general election if they got the nod.

 

[StefanM]

I am thankful you have been openminded. Yes, Trump has his warts...many. But I never thought of giving Rubio or Cruz my vote in the primary, as they are of the same ilk the GOP has manufactured for years. But I would have voted for them in the general election if they got the nod.

I try to be as open-minded and reasonable as possible. I'm not always successful at doing that, but I don't mind admitting when I'm wrong. I'll only hold a position as long as it makes sense to do so. After that, even if I've argued passionately for the position, intellectual honesty compels me to admit defeat and accept that my position was off-base.

I used to be more stubborn in this regard, but being wrong for the sake of consistency has a way of catching up with a person. So I changed my approach on that!

 

[The American Dream]

This is just my opinion, but anyone who voted for Romney in 2012 has got to realize this is a candidate light years better, both on a secular and spiritual basis. On a secular matter, Romney was pro abortion, gay rights, gun control, and government run health insurance as governor of MA. As soon as he ran for President he does a 180 on all four issues. On a spiritual basis, he was a cult member that denies the Deity of Christ. Donald Trump is very rough around the edges, which may cost him the election. The most positive thing I can say about him is he is not a politician. Sure he has made under the table deals. When he did so it was with his money. When people like Mitch McConnell do it, its with my money. I feel Trump could be open to Godly ideals and that is another positive.

 

[SovereignGrace]

My thoughts on Trump have not changed. He is the worst possible choice for a candidate, except for the alternative.

Trump won the GOP nod thanks to Bush and Re-Bush, Dole, Romney, McCain...these were the goons the GOP pushed onto the Republican voters.

 

[Zaac]

Regardless who you vote for, Trump, Clinton, or a third party canidate, someone will be sworn in in January 2017. Now, HilLIARly scares me to death. She is openly liberal, and she and Pocahontas coming out on stage celebrating the slaughtering of unborn babies, who will push leftist SJ down our throats, who will open our borders to ISIS, who covered upon her involvement with Benghazi, who will go full throttle against Christians and their values, imo, [bold]Trump is the only choice we, as Christians, have.[/bold]

Hilarious. Perhaps it is time for Christians to stop thinking they are doing God a favor because of abortion, while conveniently ignoring all of the other immorality associated with the adulterous Trump?

I too would like to know why I as a follower of Jesus Christ would support a candidate who seems to show nothing but disdain for the way of Christ?

It would be like the Jews trying to make a case for supporting Hitler.



Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk[/QUOTE]

 

[Revmitchell]

I am thankful you have been open-minded. Yes, Trump has his warts...many. But I never thought of giving Rubio or Cruz my vote in the primary, as they are of the same ilk the GOP has manufactured for years. But I would have voted for them in the general election if they got the nod.

Cruz is not of that ilk. That is completely wrong.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Six Hour Warning

This thread will be closed sometime after 5pm Pacific.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

This thread is closed.

Six Hour Warning

This thread will be closed sometime after 5pm Pacific.