It's about time!.....
QuoteA group of House Republicans on Thursday introduced the first major bill to fund President Trump's border wall, saying the government could collect billions of dollars by imposing a 2 percent fee on all the money Mexicans and other immigrants send back home.
Estimates vary, but remittances from those in the U.S. to their relatives back home could top $130 billion a year. A 2 percent tax could net more than $2 billion a year if it applied to all money regardless of who's sending it.
"This bill is simple — anyone who sends their money to countries that benefit from our porous borders and illegal immigration should be responsible for providing some of the funds needed to complete the wall," Rep. Mike Rogers, Alabama Republican, said in a statement. "This bill keeps money in the American economy, and most importantly, it creates a funding stream to build the wall."
Mr. Rogers and Rep. Lou Barletta of Pennsylvania are leading the effort.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/mar/30/mike-rogers-pushes-border-wall-bill/
Oh yeah...like all good revenue bills, after the wall actually does get built...keep the 2% fee. Call it payback for the stolen jobs.
Doubt Ryan will let it go anywhere.
The only problem I see with this is they should be charging 3-5% depending on the amount of the money order. The larger the amount, the larger the fee.
Quote from: quiller on April 02, 2017, 01:58:39 AM
It's about time!.....
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/mar/30/mike-rogers-pushes-border-wall-bill/
Oh yeah...like all good revenue bills, after the wall actually does get built...keep the 2% fee. Call it payback for the stolen jobs.
I don't see how this could be implemented and monitored.
Quote from: supsalemgr on April 02, 2017, 05:23:24 AM
I don't see how this could be implemented and monitored.
The same way the States get there tax dollars. Business collect it and pass it on.
Quote from: supsalemgr on April 02, 2017, 05:23:24 AM
I don't see how this could be implemented and monitored.
Quite easily. The entity (bank, Western Union, check cashing places) who makes out the money order charges a fee. That fee gets recorded, reported and sent to Uncle Sam. At the end of the year Uncle Sam returns a portion of those fees to the entity who sent in the fees.
A person does not necessarily have to reveal who or where a money order is for when purchasing. I do not purchase MOs often, but when I have, I am always the one who fills in the recipient's name after the purchase. They would have to include a regulation requiring a recipient AND their location to be declared when an MO is purchased, or there is no way to enforce this.
Quote from: zewazir on April 02, 2017, 08:08:57 AM
A person does not necessarily have to reveal who or where a money order is for when purchasing. I do not purchase MOs often, but when I have, I am always the one who fills in the recipient's name after the purchase. They would have to include a regulation requiring a recipient AND their location to be declared when an MO is purchased, or there is no way to enforce this.
That is my point. Who it is made out to has no value. Where it is going is the issue. No way to monitor that.
Quote from: supsalemgr on April 02, 2017, 08:22:48 AM
That is my point. Who it is made out to has no value. Where it is going is the issue. No way to monitor that.
MOs could be changed to good in the U.S. only.
Quote from: supsalemgr on April 02, 2017, 08:22:48 AM
That is my point. Who it is made out to has no value. Where it is going is the issue. No way to monitor that.
I smell more govt bureaucracy about to take place. We can expect new laws governing banking transactions, as in new money laundering laws.
Now every transaction, not just a $10.K deposit will be subject to govt eyes and potential audits, most likely any suspicious transaction that isn't within your normal banking. One more reason to be rid of the IRS.
Sad thing is, it will be computers triggering all of this.
Quote from: Solar on April 02, 2017, 09:40:56 AM
I smell more govt bureaucracy about to take place. We can expect new laws governing banking transactions, as in new money laundering laws.
Now every transaction, not just a $10.K deposit will be subject to govt eyes and potential audits, most likely any suspicious transaction that isn't within your normal banking. One more reason to be rid of the IRS.
Sad thing is, it will be computers triggering all of this.
Probably would cost more to administer than revenues collected. The same as other government programs.
Quote from: supsalemgr on April 02, 2017, 09:50:38 AM
Probably would cost more to administer than revenues collected. The same as other government programs.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Commonsense? When has that ever been an impediment?
Quote from: supsalemgr on April 02, 2017, 05:23:24 AM
I don't see how this could be implemented and monitored.
I can only see how it could be monitored when $ is wired. If a $ order is purchased to be sent by usps, don't see how. Of course the BIG $ would be in going after the companies hiring, but political donations might go down if that happened and as we know, political donations come before country.
Do the math 2% on 63 BIllion a year that we KNOW about transfered thru legit wire services. How many billions smuggled out? We'll see.
When have you ever know the Dems to NOT support a tax....any tax?
I like this! We've been funding the Mexican people for too long because their own government is more corrupt than a New York crime family.
Quote from: The Boo Man... on April 04, 2017, 08:22:59 PM
I like this! We've been funding the Mexican people for too long because their own government is more corrupt than a New York crime family.
Hillary is not going to be happy your talking about her and Bill. :lol:
Quote from: walkstall on April 04, 2017, 08:33:54 PM
Hillary is not going to be happy your talking about her and Bill. :lol:
Hillary is never going to be happy...Period.
Quote from: Billy's bayonet on April 03, 2017, 04:48:52 PM
Do the math 2% on 63 BIllion a year that we KNOW about transfered thru legit wire services. How many billions smuggled out? We'll see.
When have you ever know the Dems to NOT support a tax....any tax?
There is no doubt an export fee on currency would generate some significant revenues. But the trick is still how to apply it. MOs can be purchased at WallyWorld and filled out who it is for and where it is going after leaving the store. So the question becomes how to apply a tax on an items that cannot be tracked? If you can't track it across the border, you cannot apply an across-the-border tax. And while a "Tax 'em all and let God sort it out." approach would definitely get the DIms on board, I don't think it would fly. I doubt even a rebate of the tax for items cashed domestically would fly.
Quote from: zewazir on April 04, 2017, 09:29:08 PM
There is no doubt an export fee on currency would generate some significant revenues. But the trick is still how to apply it. MOs can be purchased at WallyWorld and filled out who it is for and where it is going after leaving the store. So the question becomes how to apply a tax on an items that cannot be tracked? If you can't track it across the border, you cannot apply an across-the-border tax. And while a "Tax 'em all and let God sort it out." approach would definitely get the DIms on board, I don't think it would fly. I doubt even a rebate of the tax for items cashed domestically would fly.
All transfers of money go through a certain bank, now different "wally world" type of M.O's go through different banks or they are a subsidiary of a certain bank, but all are recorded and all can be tracked easily. Thus all can have the tax attached when it is initiated.
Quote from: Billy's bayonet on April 05, 2017, 05:37:40 AM
All transfers of money go through a certain bank, now different "wally world" type of M.O's go through different banks or they are a subsidiary of a certain bank, but all are recorded and all can be tracked easily. Thus all can have the tax attached when it is initiated.
Yep, this is why I said expect to see new laws attached to these taxes.
All they have to do is order the bank the MO was written on, to withhold 2.0% during payment.
Quote from: Billy's bayonet on April 05, 2017, 05:37:40 AM
All transfers of money go through a certain bank, now different "wally world" type of M.O's go through different banks or they are a subsidiary of a certain bank, but all are recorded and all can be tracked easily. Thus all can have the tax attached when it is initiated.
So when a cashed $200 MO comes back to the U.S. asking for the funds it represents, the U.S. banks only send them $196 and pays the other $4 as the export fee?
Quote from: zewazir on April 05, 2017, 07:19:01 AM
So when a cashed $200 MO comes back to the U.S. asking for the funds it represents, the U.S. banks only send them $196 and pays the other $4 as the export fee?
Now the big question. Where does that money go within the government?
Quote from: supsalemgr on April 05, 2017, 12:00:09 PM
Now the big question. Where does that money go within the government?
JUST like SS, IOU.
Quote from: supsalemgr on April 05, 2017, 12:00:09 PM
Now the big question. Where does that money go within the government?
General fund. After it miraculously filters through the GOP coffers... :biggrin:
Quote from: supsalemgr on April 05, 2017, 12:00:09 PM
Now the big question. Where does that money go within the government?
Well, I would suggest it go to pay for the wall, and anything left over be used to patrol it. It is, after all, a specific tax for a specific purpose.
Quote from: Solar on April 05, 2017, 12:03:37 PM
General fund. After it miraculously filters through the GOP coffers... :biggrin:
Bingo! It would never find its way to the "wall account".
Quote from: supsalemgr on April 05, 2017, 12:21:27 PM
Bingo! It would never find its way to the "wall account".
Yep...
I have no doubt that'll be the name of the Bill, but we've both been around long enough to know that's not where the money will go.
Quote from: Solar on April 05, 2017, 01:10:27 PM
Yep...
I have no doubt that'll be the name of the Bill, but we've both been around long enough to know that's not where the money will go.
The one factor that may just have a chance of putting at least SOME of the revenues where they belong is Trump's campaign promise of making Mexico pay for the wall. Passing this legislation and putting the money into building the wall as promised would be a HUGE ego boost for Trump to parade around, "TOLD YA SO!!" Considering practically no one, anti-Trump, Pro-Trump, Dim or 'Pub, you, or myself actually believed it could be done.
Trump LOVES "I Told You So!"'s.
Quote from: zewazir on April 05, 2017, 02:27:52 PM
The one factor that may just have a chance of putting at least SOME of the revenues where they belong is Trump's campaign promise of making Mexico pay for the wall. Passing this legislation and putting the money into building the wall as promised would be a HUGE ego boost for Trump to parade around, "TOLD YA SO!!" Considering practically no one, anti-Trump, Pro-Trump, Dim or 'Pub, you, or myself actually believed it could be done.
Trump LOVES "I Told You So!"'s.
True and if they pull it off, audit the shit out of it on a daily basis, make the numbers public.
Even though it may go towards the Wall, the problem is, govt just grew another appendage if they pass this law.
Quote from: supsalemgr on April 05, 2017, 12:00:09 PM
Now the big question. Where does that money go within the government?
Right now it will probably go towards keeping Obamacare afloat.