As Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders fielded questions during today’s press briefing, ABC’s Jon Karl pressed her to explain why President Trump is threatening a government shutdown over his border wall. During his rally this week in Arizona, Trump said he would allow the government to shut down if that’s what it took to secure funding for the wall’s construction. Karl repeatedly asked Sanders why Trump was doing this when the president told his supporters throughout the 2016 election Mexico will pay for the wall to be built. Sanders declined to answer the question directly, saying: “The president’s committed to making sure this gets done. We know that the wall and other security measures at the border work, we’ve seen that take place over the last decade, and we’re committed to making sure the American people are protected and we’re going to continue to push forward and make sure that the wall gets built.” As the presser went on, Sanders faced more questions about whether Trump’s declaration meant he was conceding that American taxpayers will end up footing the bill for the wall. https://www.mediaite.com/tv/jon-kar...shutdown-if-mexicos-supposed-paying-for-wall/
Do you really believe this nonsense ? Any tax or tariff merely shifts how people do business. A "wire transfer tax" would be no different than Canada forcing US contractors like you ( in recent years ) to hand over a percentage of your earnings ( on top of income tax ) if you want to send the money back to the US.
Hehe, people actually believe this lie? Do you guys stop reading @ the 2nd amendment? The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides, "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
You do realize that there was a federal tax on wire transfers for many years. How does your spew above relate to this issue? It obviously legal for the federal government to re-enact a tax on wire transfers.
Exactly... it would be no different if wire services were used instead of standard bank electronic fund transfers (EFT). In fact the U.S. did have a tax on international wire transfers for many years when performed by wire services (and not by banks). Most illegal immigrants in the U.S. are "un-banked" and use wire transfer services to move money back to Mexico. They bring cash to some exchange place, and are charged a fee to wire it to Mexico where someone will pick up the cash in pesos. Note that I am paid by a U.S. Company in U.S. dollars. In my situation the payment from the bank to the U.S. company would be taxed if a wire transfer service (e.g. Western Union) instead of standard bank inter-change systems -- in your scenario. I doubt if banks will go use Western Union. BTW - you should go take a look at the operation of money exchange shops in Toronto. International wire exchanges in Canada are already taxed I believe, but direct currency exchanges are not.
My bad, should've read more carefully; sure taxing the most common service of remittances would probably be perfectly legal, taxing remittances themselves is what I thought you were implying (which is not, from re-reading, yet an argument I hear too often). There's a few businesses popping up that are willing to handle remittances in crypto, but with volatility who knows how feasible that is (unless using a dollar or gold backed crypto like tether).
That has to go through congress so its no sure thing.Dems will likely be 100 % opposed and western union and the stores that make money off of wire transfers will probably lobby enough GOP congressmen to stop it. If it does pass and the price for transfers get to high people will just send money other ways.Mexico could also fight back by taxing US imports or services Trump said he would make Mexico pay for the wall, he should keep his promise.
Yes, but the powerful bank lobby will support it as they did earlier. As you pointed out if Trump does "make Mexico pay for the wall" it probably has some negative economic repercussions. So driving a policy to make Mexico pay for the wall is probably a lose-lose proposition, in this case we should just pay for it ourselves. Here is the other reality, for most of the border improvements in electronic surveillance, drones, and increased monitoring will do much better than building a physical wall. Trump should pursue a new technology direction for his "wall".