- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: .
Posted on 1/26/17 at 11:20 am to WildTchoupitoulas
Posted on 1/26/17 at 11:20 am to WildTchoupitoulas
When they nominated a guy who is good pals with the teamsters. MAGA
0
Posted on 1/26/17 at 11:20 am to Hawkeye95
but the money is here and has to be transferred here initially
i've looked into alternative banking myself and it's just really hard to keep money off the grid, and the avenues that do exist are almost assuredly outside the reach of illegal immigrants
i've looked into alternative banking myself and it's just really hard to keep money off the grid, and the avenues that do exist are almost assuredly outside the reach of illegal immigrants
Posted on 1/26/17 at 11:27 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Then why are you arguing that it would be effective?
i think it's a negotiating tactic being used to break Mexico so they offer better trade deals with the US, honestly
same with the wall
Posted on 1/26/17 at 11:39 am to mmcgrath
i'm arguing that if the fedgov wants to attack this issue they will "win"
also, i will admit i'm somewhat of a fan of the policy as an indirect way to disincentivize illegal immigration. naturally i'm an open borders guy, but we can only have open borders when our luscious welfare state is decimated. so until that happens, i can't support illegal immigration (and it's the DEMs' fault, b/c they could address the welfare state to get me on board)
also, i will admit i'm somewhat of a fan of the policy as an indirect way to disincentivize illegal immigration. naturally i'm an open borders guy, but we can only have open borders when our luscious welfare state is decimated. so until that happens, i can't support illegal immigration (and it's the DEMs' fault, b/c they could address the welfare state to get me on board)
Posted on 1/26/17 at 11:39 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
i've looked into alternative banking myself and it's just really hard to keep money off the grid, and the avenues that do exist are almost assuredly outside the reach of illegal immigrants
it doesn't have to be off the grid, it just can't look like a remittance, a much lower bar. And in addition, since you are going to be moving masses of $$, you can mix in a bit of travel.
Here is one way.
I go down to mexico and buy a lot of moneypaks
I come back to the US, and cell them at my Kwik-e-mart, but charge and extra fee ($10)
Immigrant buys moneypak, texts the number to their family in mexico, they reload their greendot card
Looks like it takes place all within mexico.
I could think of quite a few schemes like this.
Hell, you could do a bitcoin transfer scheme and set it up pretty easily. There are already places that do this, so the model is set up it would just need to grown.
Posted on 1/26/17 at 11:41 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
i'm arguing that if the fedgov wants to attack this issue they will "win"
Fedgov has been trying to attack the drug trade for decades and have failed. They have been going after darknet markets and failed.
They can probably slow it down, but it will be whackamole.
Posted on 1/26/17 at 11:42 am to Hawkeye95
and what happens if the feds make it a serious crime for any financial institution to thwart the remittance? moneypak would either have to institute policies to ensure they're not smacked or do their own due dilligence (fedgov loves to free ride)
yeah there are theoretical schemes, but they're easily made too costly to engage in by the feds
also, going down to mexico will add a good bit of transaction costs to these transactions, likely more than the tax
yeah there are theoretical schemes, but they're easily made too costly to engage in by the feds
also, going down to mexico will add a good bit of transaction costs to these transactions, likely more than the tax
This post was edited on 1/26/17 at 11:43 am
Posted on 1/26/17 at 11:43 am to Hawkeye95
quote:
Fedgov has been trying to attack the drug trade for decades and have failed.
i've already said this is the one area they've failed
quote:
They have been going after darknet markets and failed.
Ross Ulbricht agrees
This post was edited on 1/26/17 at 11:44 am
Posted on 1/26/17 at 11:53 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
and what happens if the feds make it a serious crime for any financial institution to thwart the remittance? moneypak would either have to institute policies to ensure they're not smacked or do their own due dilligence (fedgov loves to free ride)
This hasn't worked for money laundering fwiw.
quote:
yeah there are theoretical schemes, but they're easily made too costly to engage in by the feds
as long as the transaction costs are less than the tax, I think they will find a way. Western Union transaction costs are very high already, so users are used to paying for them.
quote:
also, going down to mexico will add a good bit of transaction costs to these transactions, likely more than the tax
Naw, you would just have to get the right scale. And actually you wouldn't even need to go down there, just a trusted party at each end. Should be easy enough to do.
I am way more confident in the industrious people figuring out a way than I am with the fed gov't.
Posted on 1/26/17 at 12:41 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
because they want to protect illegals and are giving an excuse why they won't comply with federal law
Please tell me where in the federal law it requires local municipal police forces to enforce federal law. Don't they have federal agencies tasked with enforcing federal law - like maybe with something like "U.S. Immigration Enforcement" in the title? How's that working for them?
quote:
the ACA was a huge takeover of healthcare by the leviathan...
...Health insurance corporations. It was yet another example of corporate America running the government because the People have given up their ownership of it.
quote:
if you had any real comprehension of all of my posts in this thread you'd understand why this comment is absurd
I've found your comments in this thread absurd (at least the ones directed at me, I haven't read any others) due to my knowledge of your previous posts.
Posted on 1/26/17 at 12:49 pm to therick711
quote:
You. Don't. Have. To. Tax. Every. Transaction. To. Win. With. This. Policy.
I can't make it any more clear than that.
Really? I can:
"You don't have to tax every transaction to win with this policy."
But now that your statement is more clear, can you please define what you mean by "win"? Because usually when someone wins, someone else has to lose. Do you see this as a zero-sum game or something?
tia
Posted on 1/26/17 at 12:49 pm to cahoots
Not every illegal is a drug lord sending tens of thousands back. Do you really think Manuel working his landscaping job is going to transfer money to his offshore account or buy Bitcoins
Taxing remittances is not to raise money, regardless. Its a negotiating tactic. If illegals are going to have to jump through 10 hoops to send money to Mexico, they will have to start considering if it is actually worth it.
Taxing remittances is not to raise money, regardless. Its a negotiating tactic. If illegals are going to have to jump through 10 hoops to send money to Mexico, they will have to start considering if it is actually worth it.
Posted on 1/26/17 at 1:26 pm to cahoots
quote:
And consider that if the wall works too well, you actually lose taxable remittances.
Your money laundering advice is about as helpful as the black magazine salesman's from Office Space. As others have said, the bluest of the blue collar manual laborers aren't going to become deep web bitcoin traders.
What if the feds were classify remittance tax-cheating as an expulsion worthy felony? Wouldn't the illegal immigrant working here have a strong interest in complying with the law? Why do you automatically assume that the payment of the tax by the illegal will be the worst case scenario that the illegal seeks to avoid?
Additionally, if illegal money activities involving cartels were to expand to include remittance tax avoidance, wouldn't that apply to a small percentage of the illegal population (I bet you would argue that a tiny fraction are involved in crime)? Wouldn't increased uses of cartel financial networks to launder money expose the cartels themselves to increased scrutiny?
Wouldn't taxation of remittances further incentivize employers to hire americans? Illegals will have to increase their labor costs to employers in order to compensate for the chunk the wall tax is taking out.
Seems like a good deal all around.
Posted on 1/26/17 at 1:28 pm to Hawkeye95
quote:
Here is one way. I go down to mexico and buy a lot of moneypaks I come back to the US, and cell them at my Kwik-e-mart, but charge and extra fee ($10) Immigrant buys moneypak, texts the number to their family in mexico, they reload their greendot card Looks like it takes place all within mexico. I could think of quite a few schemes like this. Hell, you could do a bitcoin transfer scheme and set it up pretty easily. There are already places that do this, so the model is set up it would just need to grown.
Just as credit card companies have gotten hip to many forms of manufactured spending, I'm sure the feds could keep up with most (never all) forms of money transfer from illegals to the other side of the border.
Posted on 1/26/17 at 1:34 pm to cahoots
quote:they need to make it so you have to prove legal residency to open a bank account. This is what Canada does
A Mexican worker can open a Chase account in the US, mail the debit card to Mexico, and draw cash out of an ATM in Mexico.I just got cash out of an ATM in Mexico City last month.
Posted on 1/26/17 at 1:53 pm to SlowFlowPro
Yea sort of like the drug war. How long do the Feds get to win that war or have they not yet put their mind to it?
Posted on 1/26/17 at 1:56 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:You just said it was a ploy for negotiations.
i'm arguing that if the fedgov wants to attack this issue they will "win"
quote:A remittance tax wouldn't disincentive illegal immigration at all. Maybe legit immigration or legit business...
also, i will admit i'm somewhat of a fan of the policy as an indirect way to disincentivize illegal immigration
Posted on 1/26/17 at 1:58 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
but the money is here and has to be transferred here initially
i've looked into alternative banking myself and it's just really hard to keep money off the grid, and the avenues that do exist are almost assuredly outside the reach of illegal immigrants
That's what these people are failing to realize. Most illegal aliens are not savvy enough to skirt the system. They are not going to be willing to mail money back, even in a safe form like money orders. Usually their family needs the money in a timely manner.
Some people will bypass. Most won't. I also doubt the fee will be 25 percent. Probably much less.
This is all just speculation anyway. Mexico could pay any number of ways.
Posted on 1/26/17 at 2:00 pm to Hawkeye95
quote:As a side note, it appears to only be a 1% charge to send money to Mexico via Western Union. Much cheaper than sending money to another state.
as long as the transaction costs are less than the tax, I think they will find a way. Western Union transaction costs are very high already, so users are used to paying for them.
Posted on 1/26/17 at 2:00 pm to joshnorris14
quote:
It's like your retarded.
Right. The person who thinks a 25% tax on remittances will NOT be a successful revenue stream for the US government is the stupid one. Only on this lunatic board.
This post was edited on 1/26/17 at 2:04 pm
Page 6 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News