• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump Denies Changing Position on Border Wall

Exquisitor said:
If you really want to make Mexico pay for the wall, you put on a big tariff and say while you pay for the wall, we will reduce the tariff. The tariff doesn't pay for the wall, Mexico does.

I don't think we really want to do this to Mexico though.

How is wildlife going to get to the Rio Grande?
Click to expand...

americanwoman said:
Do that to Mexico? What do you think it would do to our farmers??
Click to expand...

It's already in the works. Mexico is working on a new trade deal with Argentina and Brazil.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-co...-benefit-mexico-brazil-and-argentinas-economy
 
gdgyva said:
no...almost all of that money is sent via wire thru the different money stores available

we just have them collect a fee upfront....$ 700 being sent...minus 7% fee = $ 651 being received in other country

and then they remit to the feds/state just like any other state tax collected

easy to setup and administer
Click to expand...

$18,000,000,000 wall cost divided by 7% means you must tax $257,142,857,142.86 dollars to raise the money.
Not realistic.
 
Lursa said:
Trump doubling down in his tweets this am. :lamo

Continuing to undermine his staff and leaving them with mess after mess to clean up and 'restate.'
Click to expand...

I would so watch a mockumentary office style TV show about what those staff members think about their crazy boss. It would be hilarious.
 
americanwoman said:
Do that to Mexico? What do you think it would do to our farmers??
Click to expand...

I thought it was refrigerators we would be paying for although this relates to farming what does it have to do with the debate?

I think tariff on South American Produce would produce less competition for our farmers giving them a higher priced market.

Lursa said:
Trump doubling down in his tweets this am. :lamo

Continuing to undermine his staff and leaving them with mess after mess to clean up and 'restate.'
Click to expand...

Why should anyone care what he says?

americanwoman said:
If that's what it's about we might as well tax every dollar that leaves the country.
Click to expand...

Hey, and get that money going into offshore accounts too.

azgreg said:
It's already in the works. Mexico is working on a new trade deal with Argentina and Brazil.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-co...-benefit-mexico-brazil-and-argentinas-economy
Click to expand...

Then instead of having expensive refrigerators we don't have no refrigerators at all?
 
SMTA said:
$18,000,000,000 wall cost divided by 7% means you must tax $257,142,857,142.86 dollars to raise the money.
Not realistic.
Click to expand...

really?

Migrant workers will send home $450 billion this year - Jun. 15, 2017

Global remittances were worth more than $445 billion in 2016, representing an increase of 51% over the past decade, the UN International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) said.

That total is expected to rise by another $5 billion this year, when IFAD predicts one in seven people globally will either send or receive money earned abroad.

Around 200 million migrant workers currently support 800 million family members back home, the report said.

the mexican, central american, and south american part is approx 60 billion per annum

@ 7% it would take approx 5 years to pay for the wall

very doable in my eyes
 
gdgyva said:
no...almost all of that money is sent via wire thru the different money stores available

we just have them collect a fee upfront....$ 700 being sent...minus 7% fee = $ 651 being received in other country

and then they remit to the feds/state just like any other state tax collected

easy to setup and administer
Click to expand...

Great, so you're targeting the poorest immigrants, and exempting from the tax immigrants with enough money to use regular banks. Sounds kind of backwards to me.

Want to send a few $hundred? Sorry, you'll have to pay the tax! But if you want to transfer $100 million out of the country, TAX FREE!!! :confused:
 
gdgyva said:
really?

Migrant workers will send home $450 billion this year - Jun. 15, 2017

Global remittances were worth more than $445 billion in 2016, representing an increase of 51% over the past decade, the UN International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) said.

That total is expected to rise by another $5 billion this year, when IFAD predicts one in seven people globally will either send or receive money earned abroad.

Around 200 million migrant workers currently support 800 million family members back home, the report said.

the mexican, central american, and south american part is approx 60 billion per annum

@ 7% it would take approx 5 years to pay for the wall

very doable in my eyes
Click to expand...

So Trump brags that Mexico will pay.
When they did not, which was no surprise, now we go after individuals.
Bull**** it is.
That wall will do nothing to help anyhow.
 
gdgyva said:
really?

Migrant workers will send home $450 billion this year - Jun. 15, 2017

Global remittances were worth more than $445 billion in 2016, representing an increase of 51% over the past decade, the UN International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) said.

That total is expected to rise by another $5 billion this year, when IFAD predicts one in seven people globally will either send or receive money earned abroad.

Around 200 million migrant workers currently support 800 million family members back home, the report said.

the mexican, central american, and south american part is approx 60 billion per annum

@ 7% it would take approx 5 years to pay for the wall

very doable in my eyes
Click to expand...

Don't pay for the wall with the tax, make them pay for the wall and tax them until they do.

I want to tax the undocumented worker five percent, but you can't have taxation without representation, so you's have to give them a couple of some seats and if you calculate how many undocumented at 5% (not the specific calculation) person-hood like the slaves you might find how much trouble we're in.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Exquisitor said:
Don't pay for the wall with the tax, make them pay for the wall and tax them until they do.

I want to tax the undocumented worker five percent, but you can't have taxation without representation, so you's have to give them a couple of some seats and if you calculate how many undocumented at 5% (not the specific calculation) person-hood like the slaves you might find how much trouble we're in.
Click to expand...

Pardon quoting myself;

Even if you count every undocumented as one person you only need to to represent twice Minnesota or one third California, but I want to count them as one quarter a person, because this is what the lowest workers will be paying more in taxes and because I want to do something to somebody! (Wouldn't he make a great President?)

I don't want to give Citizenship to anyone who wasn't born here, I for one have never had a special use for my Citizenship.

Offspring should pay 3, 2, 1 percent per generation, again, because; I want to do something to somebody! (Wouldn't he make a great President?)
 
Rexedgar said:
The chief of staff normally does not speak without being told what to say. I would wager the chief of staff speaks for POTUS more so that the press secretary. According to Twitter, the CoS and POTUS aren’t on the same page. I’m confused....


EDIT this link is more clear??

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/18/trump-border-wall-position-john-kelly-345500
Click to expand...

Yes, thanks. It's about Mexico funding it. I thought it was suggesting he changed about wanting the wall. Clear now.
 
gdgyva said:
yeah...i wonder how many migrant farmers, or construction workers have drones to use

and someone on the other side they can trust to get it

sure....
Click to expand...

It would be a service. With "employees" at both ends.
 
JasperL said:
Great, so you're targeting the poorest immigrants, and exempting from the tax immigrants with enough money to use regular banks. Sounds kind of backwards to me.

Want to send a few $hundred? Sorry, you'll have to pay the tax! But if you want to transfer $100 million out of the country, TAX FREE!!! :confused:
Click to expand...

same rules apply if it is going to those countries

whether it is $ 100, or as you say 100 million

same 7% fee

banks can collect as easy as western union can
 
SMTA said:
So Trump brags that Mexico will pay.
When they did not, which was no surprise, now we go after individuals.
Bull**** it is.
That wall will do nothing to help anyhow.
Click to expand...

did he specify HOW they would pay?

and if you look at all the money leaving, mexico sends the lions share

i like things that make sense...
 
gdgyva said:
same rules apply if it is going to those countries

whether it is $ 100, or as you say 100 million

same 7% fee

banks can collect as easy as western union can
Click to expand...

Yeah, but if you extend it to banking transactions, it becomes a compliance nightmare because I'm guessing the total flow of $$ to and from foreign countries approaches $trillions every year, or at least many $hundreds of billions. And if you exempt transfers to businesses, then all it requires is the person on the other end setting up a corporate or other entity to get around the rules, and you're back to imposing it only on poor people who don't know better or don't have the money to set up a corporation with its own bank account.

And just as a matter of principle, if we want a wall, then we as a country should finance the wall. We don't charge e.g. Russian immigrants for the cost of the military in Europe to hold Russia in check for example - that's funded out of general funds. Why is a wall any different? To me it's just another example of us putting the blame, then the cost of a solution, on the poorest people with the LEAST influence and power.

The people sending money abroad are working jobs here in the U.S. So the effect of that policy is the employer gets a good employee at low wages, higher profits, and that's not subject to special taxes. We get lower prices for food, housing, house repairs, hotel rooms, etc. and we pay no special tax for those benefits. The only persons we target are the poor immigrants, who not surprisingly have no power and no influence and are convenient whipping boys for our failed policies over DECADES.
 
Last edited:
holbritter said:
I read that. But how is that Trump changing his position?
Click to expand...

Jan 11, 2017: "On the fence -- it's not a fence. It's a wall..."

Sep 14, 2017: "The WALL, which is already under construction in the form of new renovation of old and existing fences and walls, will continue to be built."

While not a Trump supporter, I have no problem with his changing view of border security. But as far as construction materials is concerned, the President HAS quite dramatically changed his position.
 
americanwoman said:
If that's what it's about we might as well tax every dollar that leaves the country.
Click to expand...

I would br fine with that. Any funds transferred to a foreign bank gets a tax. Corporations Organizations Churches Poor Rich Black White One eyed One Horned Flying Purple People Eaters all pay. For the new techie folks any crypto currency would be taxed also.
 
DickBanks said:
Jan 11, 2017: "On the fence -- it's not a fence. It's a wall..."

Sep 14, 2017: "The WALL, which is already under construction in the form of new renovation of old and existing fences and walls, will continue to be built."

While not a Trump supporter, I have no problem with his changing view of border security. But as far as construction materials is concerned, the President HAS quite dramatically changed his position.
Click to expand...

Who cares; what is his rhetoric?

With a five Trillion dollar Budget an eighteen Billion dollar wall, or thirty Billion dollars we could charge these people doesn't disturb me, what disturbs me is that we have to dither about these figures when everything is out of hand and when people say, "I want smaller Government," the establishment hears, "cut my benefits."

When you reduce the size of Government you have to reduce salaries, lay people off and consolidate agencies.

Nothing else is, "Cutting Government."
 
Last edited:
Chillfolks said:
I would br fine with that. Any funds transferred to a foreign bank gets a tax. Corporations Organizations Churches Poor Rich Black White One eyed One Horned Flying Purple People Eaters all pay. For the new techie folks any crypto currency would be taxed also.
Click to expand...

OK, you can be fine with it but it will never happen. Just for example, lots of our national debt is held by or in foreign countries, and if we tax the interest distributions, then we're effectively lowering the interest rate paid on those treasuries, but only if the holder is somehow foreign. The first problem is that makes no sense, is almost surely highly illegal, and would blow up the debt markets in general because so much of our other financial instruments (stocks, bonds, etc.) are also held by or in foreign countries. It would effectively kill inbound investments as well, because what company would invest $billions in the U.S. if it has to pay an "exit" tax of 7% or whatever to get its money out?

Etc. Bottom line is there won't be a general tax on outbound transfers of cash, because it would be catastrophic to the world financial system.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom