A change in NAFTA that brings more production back to the USA, the taxes of which would pay for the wall.
I’m not really sure wtf trump means. Noone does, it just sounds good to people who are pissed off that both parties are throwing American citizens under the buss in the name of free market fundamentalism.
There is no a chance in hell it would work. Simply creating the infrastructure to catch remissions would cost more than you’d get in taxing them. It’s an asinine idea.
I mean, there’s this thing called “Paypal” now. You might’ve heard of it. How do you tax that? How do you stop it? Who at the IRS can do this?
You can tax wire transactions. You could tax Paypal. You just tell Paypal or Western Union to collect a tax. Those transactions are heavily regulated- I am a expert in this subject.
There wouldnt have to be a "infrastructure’ just a law. Paypal and Western union, etc would just collect and pay. They are already examined & regulated on a regular basis.
Of course if the tax was too high, that would drive them to switch to MO and cash. But those arent secure and sometimes not legal.
You could do that, but not even Trump could pretend that that was a levy on remittances to Mexico. That would be a tax on all payments to either (under your first option) every country in the world or (under your second option) Mexico and countries south of Mexico. Remittances to Mexico are stated in this thread to be $2bn a month, or $24 bn a year. Total US imports, however (all of which have to be paid for) are $2.3 trillion, and that’s before we consider funds sent abroad to acquire assets in foreign countries. So a tax on “all wired funds leaving the USA” can’t really be presented as a levy on remittances to Mexico. Even a tax on “all payments to Mexico and points south”, apart from being trivially easy to evade, is not really the same thing.
You want to impose a 1% tax on all imports, and on all US foreign direct investment? Say so, and stop pretending it’s a tax on “remittances to Mexico”. Also stop pretending that it would be legal; such a tax on foreign trade and foreign investment would certainly be problematic under WTO and NAFTA rules.
The remittances to Mexico that Trump seeks to tax are emigrants’ remittances for which nothing is received in return. You need to find a way to distinguish between those payments to Mexicans, and other payments such as payments for goods and services received, payments to acquire assets, etc.
You’re overlooking the fact that a lot of American economic interests wouldn’t want that wall built too high, either. Moreover, the wall wouldn’t be just a wall between the US and Mexico; it would be a wall between the US and Latin America. Sure, it might be more of a symbolic wall than an actual trade barrier, and maybe the wall in and of itself isn’t a problem, but America’s got a history in Latin America and Trump’s tone would probably leave an entire hemisphere pissed off at us. Mexico’s one thing, but sour relations with all or most of Latin America? Not sure we’d want that.
Well, actually you could, and I am a subject matter expert on this. See, a Business, if they want to wire funds, doesnt send Bob from accounting down with a bucket of cash to Western Union. They call their bank, the bank wires the funds.
You’d simply put a tax on cash remittences, those paid for on the spot at the Envio Dinero Wire place, those paid for by cash, originating in the USA and to a Individual in Mexico.
easy-peasy.
I could write the regs in a day. Hell, I have done similar regs.
Now sure, those aren’t 100% Emigrant to family. Some might be to American expatriates, or a college student needing money to come home from a crazy spring break. But if the tax is low enough, it wont kill them.
So an emigrant with a bank account in the US would be exempt from the levy? 'Cause, you know, he wouldn’t have to pay in cash for the transfer; he could pay by transfer from his own account. Here in the developed world, that’s how most individuals transfer money abroad; it can only be a matter of time before the US catches up. And it’ll catch up even quicker with the incentive that you have designed.
And an emigrant with a friend or associate in a country other than Mexico? He could transfer funds to his associate in that country, for onward transfer. As long as the cost of doing so is less than 5%, people will do that rather than pay the levy.
What you’re describing here is a token levy, trivially easy to evade.
I’m sure you could write the regs. But, as someone who writes regs, you’ll be aware that writing the regs is the relatively easy part. The hard part is devising regs which will have the outcome you want, and will not have unintended outcomes.
All of the Mexicans I know (legal, middle class, with checking accounts) that wanted to send money home simply sent ATM cards home. Wire transfers tend to be pricey, even from your own bank, even arranging it all online.
Well, there you go. Either such an arrangement would escape Dr Deth’s regulations aimed at wire transfers paid for in cash, or they would be caught by it, in which case people will switch to some other method of transferring money. There’s no intrinsic reason why cross-border account-to-account electronic fund transfers have to be expensive; they’re quite cheap in other parts of the world, and if there’s a market for them in the US (from expatriates who want to send money home without incurring a levy aimed at other kinds of transaction) then the banks will no doubt respond.
It’s pretty silly to think that they pay federal taxes at all, when they can simply claim 6 dependents and have their tax burden effectively reduced to 0. Yes, they pay sales tax (on the cars they drive?, the boats they buy?, the what exactly?) Food isn’t taxed.
I do not disagree that for the most part illegal immigrants have a positive effect on some portions of the economy (like keeping pricing lower in some sections of industry) but to claim that they ‘pay their fair share’ is laughable.
I don’t know what state you live in, but in these parts (Topeka, KS) food is taxed at 9.15%. So are clothes and toiletries and all manner of household goods. Moreover, claiming six dependents won’t reduce your social security or medicare taxes by a single penny, and property taxes will be built into the rent for wherever you’re living.
No tax on food here (as long as it’s the take home and prepare kind)
In a $750/week, paycheck, medicare and SSN are ($30) negligible taxes compared to the federal withholding though, if they were legally taxed. As far as property taxes go, i’ll just agree so as not to go too far astray.
Several states with which I’m familiar (including Kansas and Oklahoma) tax groceries at the exact same rate as any other consumer product; Missouri has a reduced tax rate on groceries, but in most cities it’s still in the 5-6% range.
A $750/week paycheck is well over twice minimum wage, so probably not really representative of the income levels of undocumented workers. Even at that level, though, a single adult with zero dependents is paying maybe $75/week in federal income taxes. At minimum wage ($7.25 * 40 hours = $290), a fully and legally taxed single adult with zero dependents is paying more in SocSec/Medicare taxes than in federal income tax.