1. 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!

Featured Trump: Convince me without personal attacks

Discussion in 'Political Debate & Discussion' started by StefanM, Aug 18, 2016.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Top Posters
Page 6 of 7
  1. InTheLight

    InTheLight Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    24,988
    Likes Received:
    2,268
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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
     
    #101 InTheLight, Aug 20, 2016
  2. Lewis

    Lewis Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2013
    Messages:
    863
    Likes Received:
    104
    CNN estimates it would cost about $10 billion. LINK

    A 1 % tax on banks and money transfer Companies could generate $100 million to $150 million annually. According to Forbes.
     
    #102 Lewis, Aug 20, 2016
  3. InTheLight

    InTheLight Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    24,988
    Likes Received:
    2,268
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Tax on all money transfers? Or only those to Mexico?

    Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo
     
    #103 InTheLight, Aug 20, 2016
  4. StefanM

    StefanM Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,333
    Likes Received:
    210
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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.
     
    #104 StefanM, Aug 20, 2016
  5. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,080
    Likes Received:
    3,490
    Faith:
    Baptist
    So you are going to tax American persons sending the money, not the government, or the people receiving the money?
     
    #105 TCassidy, Aug 20, 2016
  6. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,080
    Likes Received:
    3,490
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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.
     
    #106 TCassidy, Aug 20, 2016
  7. Squire Robertsson

    Squire Robertsson Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2000
    Messages:
    15,371
    Likes Received:
    2,405
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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:
    No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.​
     
    #107 Squire Robertsson, Aug 20, 2016
    • Like Like x 1
  8. Lewis

    Lewis Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2013
    Messages:
    863
    Likes Received:
    104
    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%.
     
    #108 Lewis, Aug 20, 2016
    Last edited: Aug 20, 2016
  9. Lewis

    Lewis Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2013
    Messages:
    863
    Likes Received:
    104
    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.
     
    #109 Lewis, Aug 20, 2016
    • Agree Agree x 1
  10. Lewis

    Lewis Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2013
    Messages:
    863
    Likes Received:
    104
    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.
     
    #110 Lewis, Aug 20, 2016
    Last edited: Aug 20, 2016
    • Agree Agree x 1
  11. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,080
    Likes Received:
    3,490
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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?
     
    #111 TCassidy, Aug 20, 2016
  12. Squire Robertsson

    Squire Robertsson Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2000
    Messages:
    15,371
    Likes Received:
    2,405
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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.
     
    #112 Squire Robertsson, Aug 20, 2016
    • Agree Agree x 1
  13. Lewis

    Lewis Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2013
    Messages:
    863
    Likes Received:
    104
    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.
     
    #113 Lewis, Aug 21, 2016
  14. Lewis

    Lewis Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2013
    Messages:
    863
    Likes Received:
    104
    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.
     
    #114 Lewis, Aug 21, 2016
  15. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,080
    Likes Received:
    3,490
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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?
     
    #115 TCassidy, Aug 21, 2016
  16. Lewis

    Lewis Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2013
    Messages:
    863
    Likes Received:
    104
    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.

    If I am not mistaken, support for foreign missions is tax deductible.
     
    #116 Lewis, Aug 21, 2016
  17. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,080
    Likes Received:
    3,490
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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."
     
    #117 TCassidy, Aug 21, 2016
  18. StefanM

    StefanM Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,333
    Likes Received:
    210
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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.
     
    #118 StefanM, Aug 21, 2016
    • Agree Agree x 1
  19. Squire Robertsson

    Squire Robertsson Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2000
    Messages:
    15,371
    Likes Received:
    2,405
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Pretty much my thoughts. Also too much red tape and Western Union et al will stop doing direct business with Mexico.

     
    #119 Squire Robertsson, Aug 21, 2016
    • Agree Agree x 2
  20. Lewis

    Lewis Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2013
    Messages:
    863
    Likes Received:
    104
    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.
     
    #120 Lewis, Aug 21, 2016
Page 6 of 7
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...