Home Main Category Second Amendment/Politics

A quesiton about the border wall: who's really gonna pay for it?

breamfisherbreamfisher Senior MemberPosts: 13,961 Senior Member
Obviously nothing's been firmed up yet, but in the end, who's really going to pay for the border wall, if it gets built?

Some are suggesting it'll be paid for by imposing tariffs on Mexican products. However, in pretty much any endeavor businesses don't pay any taxes: they just include those costs in the cost that consumers pay, and so the consumer eats the cost in the end. So say the wall gets paid for by tariffs on Mexican goods.... what's to stop Mexican companies from just increasing their costs to keep their profit margins the same, and get the tariffs paid? To that end, we'd pay for the wall, just indirectly.

Mexican government gets billed? (This is unlikely in my mind, but let's roll with it.) So the government has to pay for it through taxes. Wouldn't those taxes just be paid for by consumers, like us? Again, we indirectly pay for the wall.

I have nothing against tightening our border security, I'm actually for it, but I just wonder if trying to get someone else to pay for it will actually cause us to pay for it in the end?
I'm just here for snark.
«13

Replies

  • Make_My_DayMake_My_Day Senior Member Posts: 7,917 Senior Member
    How about letting the trade deficit increase to about 100 Billion, and tell Mexico we ain't paying the whole thing and take it off the top of the bill? :jester:
    JOE MCCARTHY WAS RIGHT:
    THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE NEW COMMUNISTS!
  • shootbrownelkshootbrownelk Senior Member Posts: 2,035 Senior Member
    Rand Paul had a good idea. Keep all the money we give to countries that hate us, and use it for the wall.
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,961 Senior Member
    How about letting the trade deficit increase to about 100 Billion, and tell Mexico we ain't paying the whole thing and take it off the top of the bill? :jester:
    That could happen.

    Monkeys could also fly out my posterior, but it's unlikely. Highly unlikely.

    And I'm asking "how will we get Mexico to pay for it" as a legitimate question. I'm not trying to argue against the wall or increased security, just wondering how one manages to get another country to keep the costs to themselves.
    I'm just here for snark.
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,961 Senior Member
    Rand Paul had a good idea. Keep all the money we give to countries that hate us, and use it for the wall.
    That's doable, but it also means that Mexico's not going to pay for it.

    Only reason I bring up Mexico paying for it is because that's been the refrain out of D.C.: Mexico's going to pay for it one way or another.
    I'm just here for snark.
  • Make_My_DayMake_My_Day Senior Member Posts: 7,917 Senior Member
    That could happen.

    Monkeys could also fly out my posterior, but it's unlikely. Highly unlikely.

    And I'm asking "how will we get Mexico to pay for it" as a legitimate question. I'm not trying to argue against the wall or increased security, just wondering how one manages to get another country to keep the costs to themselves.

    In all seriousness, it's probably damn near impossible to have them actually write us a check. Shootbrownelk's (Rand Paul's) suggestion was pretty good though. The net effect would be the same.
    JOE MCCARTHY WAS RIGHT:
    THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE NEW COMMUNISTS!
  • Make_My_DayMake_My_Day Senior Member Posts: 7,917 Senior Member
    That's doable, but it also means that Mexico's not going to pay for it.

    Only reason I bring up Mexico paying for it is because that's been the refrain out of D.C.: Mexico's going to pay for it one way or another.

    We do give Mexico all kinds of aid, so withholding the aid would work. Perhaps tell them if they don't pay for the wall, they won't be getting any free money anymore.
    JOE MCCARTHY WAS RIGHT:
    THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE NEW COMMUNISTS!
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,961 Senior Member
    We do give Mexico all kinds of aid, so withholding the aid would work. Perhaps tell them if they don't pay for the wall, they won't be getting any free money anymore.
    From what I've read, we give Mexico $320 million per year in aid. The border wall's supposed to cost $18 billion. Assuming those numbers are correct...

    That means it'll only take 50+ years just to pay initial costs for the wall. But hey, it's a start...
    I'm just here for snark.
  • earlyearly Senior Member Posts: 4,950 Senior Member
    The monkeys in the mirror, the monkeys in the mirror.
    My thoughts are generally clear. My typing, not so much.
  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,428 Senior Member
    Put a 10% surcharge on money transfers from the US to Mexico. Walmart and Western Union probably handle a billion a year or more in payments from illegals to families back home.
    Jerry
  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 16,244 Senior Member
    Teach wrote: »
    Put a 10% surcharge on money transfers from the US to Mexico. Walmart and Western Union probably handle a billion a year or more in payments from illegals to families back home.
    Jerry
    At that rate, it would take 180 years to pay for the wall.
    Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it.
    -Thomas Paine
  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 16,244 Senior Member
    Mexico is our 3rd largest trading partner. In 2016, we sent them $262 billion of our crap and they sent us $317 billion of their crap leaving a $55 billion deficit. Tequila HAS to be made in Mexico in order for it to be called tequila, just like Scotch needs to be made in Scotland, Canadian Whiskey in Canada, and Bourbon in the USA. Tequila sales alone were $7.5 billion in 2016-- we could have shaved off almost 14% of that deficit by switching from tequila to bourbon.
    Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it.
    -Thomas Paine
  • Big Al1Big Al1 Senior Member Posts: 8,590 Senior Member
    Maybe they can put in toll booths!!
  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 16,244 Senior Member
    Here is where are big trade deficits are going. Compared to Gina, Mexico is nothing. Canada is less than nothing....
    https://www.thebalance.com/trade-deficit-by-county-3306264
    Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it.
    -Thomas Paine
  • JayJay Senior Member Posts: 4,440 Senior Member
    Best way I can see them getting something out of Mexico is through NAFTA restructuring negotiations. When NAFTA was put in place, a lot of factories on the US side packed up and moved to Mexico. Cheap labor and less government restriction. There are lots of jobs and money in those factories and they rely on the flow of goods and materials across the border every day. And Teach's suggestion of charging a percentage fee on money being exported to Mexico could produce a little funding. Of course, all that will do is have them mailing or carrying cash across the border, as risky as it is. Which already happens anyway on a massive scale. The amount of US money going into Mexico would be pretty staggering, if an actual number could be put on it.
  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,428 Senior Member
    Well, we could continue as we're doing now - - - -bitch, gripe and moan, and point fingers. Other than that, do nothing. Shoot down every suggestion with snarky comments that show just how obsessed a few people are, with their manties in a wad because their favorite crook didn't win. Sounds wonderful to me!
    :roll:
    Jerry
  • Make_My_DayMake_My_Day Senior Member Posts: 7,917 Senior Member
    Big Al1 wrote: »
    Maybe they can put in toll booths!!

    Yeah, but going north only.
    JOE MCCARTHY WAS RIGHT:
    THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE NEW COMMUNISTS!
  • Make_My_DayMake_My_Day Senior Member Posts: 7,917 Senior Member
    That's not quite how the trade deficit works. It's merely an accounting meause of net import and export flows. It's not like the government has any real control over it, it's caused by individual trade transactions between private actors. All that it means is that on net people and companies in the US buy more from Mexico than people and companies in Mexico buy from US.

    I knew how the first part of it worked, but every time the financial news talks about trade deficits they seem to tie it in with the government debt and deficit, so I assumed somehow it was a government obligation of sorts, but thanks for the clarification.
    JOE MCCARTHY WAS RIGHT:
    THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE NEW COMMUNISTS!
  • BigslugBigslug Senior Member Posts: 9,516 Senior Member
    This is not hard: The U.S. government registers with Home Depot and Lowe's on a "Gift Registry". People who want the wall go online to purchase the requested quantities of cinderblock, concrete, etc. . ., have them shipped to specified construction locations, and get a tax writeoff in return.
    WWJMBD?

    "Nothing is safe from stupid." - Zee
  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 16,244 Senior Member
    Teach wrote: »
    Well, we could continue as we're doing now - - - -bitch, gripe and moan, and point fingers. Other than that, do nothing. Shoot down every suggestion with snarky comments that show just how obsessed a few people are, with their manties in a wad because their favorite crook didn't win. Sounds wonderful to me!
    :roll:
    Jerry
    First off-- You need to get over the fact that I do not like the "stable genius" in the Whitehouse. You really do. Just because you like him does not mean that I have to. Anyone that thinks I am dumb enough to suspend reality and believe that Mexico is going to pay for our border wall doesn't deserve my support. That example and many others (I could list them all night), I find insulting to both myself and the American public. Make him your hero if you choose. He isn't mine.

    But that is not to say that he is useless....
    Neil Gorsuch= Good
    Tax reform= Good
    North Korea= Possibly good (nothing else seemed to work, so what the hell-- why not take his approach?)
    Deregulation= Good

    The Chinese and East Germans already tried the wall thing. It doesn't work. It is a constitutional duty of the federal government to protect the borders and I do support that, and I will concede that building walls on parts of the border may be the best option in some areas, but the simple fact is that they can fly drugs over with a drone at will. Most of it is brought over through our ports anyway. They dig tunnels, they do all kinds of crazy stuff because there is so much money involved in smuggling drugs and people over the border and that is the root of the problem-- money! A bigass wall does not take away the incentive to sneak across to work, or bring drugs that are obscenely profitable. So what do we do?

    Employers are businesses. What is the goal of any business? To make money. How about we require all employers to E-verify every employee and make the penalties so unprofitable that nobody would dare hire an illegal immigrant? Heck, seize the damn businesses if you have to! If there is no demand for illegal workers, they have no reason to come here illegally. The only reason they come here is because they can make a whole lot more money here than they can at home. Take that away. It would eliminate the human smugglers too.

    Make weed legal-- keep a strict ban on imports. People are going to smoke that crap anyway. At the very least, I would like to see all that cash that people are paying for it to stay in our economy as opposed to some thug south of the border. The demand for illegally imported weed would all but disappear and it would free up our customs and border patrol to refocus on more important things.

    Make it easier for people to come to our country to work. There are literally jobs that we can't seem to get our own people to do. The economy is approaching full employment. Our society is aging and we are going to need some more young bodies to keep our economy running smoothly. The only realistic options is to get our kids breeding with a little more enthusiasm, or to start importing them. Europe has the same problem but they have to import Muslims to keep their economy going. At least Mexicans are Christian-- it eliminates quite a bunch of (but not all) cultural issues.

    Citizenship? Piss on that! They are here for the money. They don't give a crap about our country. They want to make money, not be citizens. If you served honorably in our military-- certainly! Welcome citizen. Have you made some good accomplishments in our country, learned the language, and otherwise set yourself on a path to becoming a true citizen of our country and not just some cheap labor... sure.

    Personally-- I want people to come from "craphole" countries as opposed to Norway because the people from crapholes will pick lettuce all day long for cheap and like it. A Norwegian is going to want to take a good job that I would rather see an American citizen have. Don't import people here to take our good jobs unless there is a very real shortage of them.

    In conclusion, between the revenue from weed, extra payroll taxes by eliminating the black market for labor, the fines generated from seizing businesses that refuse to comply, and the savings at the border on law enforcement.... plus an injection of eager young backs from majority Christian Haiti (that make about $1/day as opposed to the highest paid people in the world-- Norway-- that would lift their noses at making crap American wages), I think we could turn a profit as opposed to dumping $18 billion into some goobermint contractor's pocket paying absurdly high Bacon-Davis wages (and boy do I mean bacon) using Chinese steel for some wall that can be defeated with a $100 toy drone... or a shovel.
    Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it.
    -Thomas Paine
  • ZeeZee Senior Member Posts: 27,775 Senior Member
    I love watching people who know Ass Hole from an Ass Clown argue about what the border needs. Truly entertaining.
    "To Hell with efficiency, it's performance we want!" - Elmer Keith
  • SkolnickSkolnick Member Posts: 47 Member
    Mexican government gets billed? (This is unlikely in my mind, but let's roll with it.) So the government has to pay for it through taxes ...
    How about letting the trade deficit increase to about 100 Billion, and tell Mexico we ain't paying the whole thing and take it off the top of the bill? :jester:

    Look up "border adjustments".

    Well over 100 countries have border adjustments, so it is not atypical. A border adjustment is a tax on imports from Country X that is reduced by the amount of exports to Country X.

    In 2015, Mexico exported over $60 billion more to the US than it imported. In 2016, it was about $65 billion. A quarter penny tax on $65 billion is $162,500,000.
  • FisheadgibFisheadgib Senior Member Posts: 5,797 Senior Member
    I don't get why 12 to 18 billion dollars for a border wall is now considered an enormous amount of money to appropriate but when 6 billion dollars was (and still is) unaccounted for from the State Department when Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, it was considered inconsequential and little was said about it.
    snake284 wrote: »
    For my point of view, cpj is a lot like me
    .
  • Make_My_DayMake_My_Day Senior Member Posts: 7,917 Senior Member
    Fisheadgib wrote: »
    I don't get why 12 to 18 billion dollars for a border wall is now considered an enormous amount of money to appropriate but when 6 billion dollars was (and still is) unaccounted for from the State Department when Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, it was considered inconsequential and little was said about it.

    Yeah, kinda' makes you wonder. Someone made a point about "e-verify." I think this along with elimination of welfare and other government payments to illegals, no drivers licenses and free education would go a long way to ridding ourselves of the parasites that come here. The wall would help with the human traffickers and drug haulers.
    JOE MCCARTHY WAS RIGHT:
    THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE NEW COMMUNISTS!
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,457 Senior Member
    $10-20 billion for the wall as a one time cost, or $60-80 billion ANNUALLY as a cost of the illegals sucking the welfare system dry. Which makes more sense? It shouldn't take a degree in brain surgery to figure that one out. Or maybe it does for a lot of folk that use 'the feels' to make decisions, and not simple logic. IDK. The wall seems cheaper in the long run, to me.
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • Make_My_DayMake_My_Day Senior Member Posts: 7,917 Senior Member
    tennmike wrote: »
    $10-20 billion for the wall as a one time cost, or $60-80 billion ANNUALLY as a cost of the illegals sucking the welfare system dry. Which makes more sense? It shouldn't take a degree in brain surgery to figure that one out. Or maybe it does for a lot of folk that use 'the feels' to make decisions, and not simple logic. IDK. The wall seems cheaper in the long run, to me.

    It certainly IS, Ollie.....:applause:
    JOE MCCARTHY WAS RIGHT:
    THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE NEW COMMUNISTS!
  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 16,244 Senior Member
    tennmike wrote: »
    The wall seems cheaper in the long run, to me.
    If a wall worked. So what we will wind up with is the cost of the wall (because let's face it-- Mexico is not paying for the wall. Stop kidding yourselves) AND all the other costs we have already been paying. Instead of getting screwed once, we will be getting screwed twice.

    The only thing that is going to work is if we remove the incentives (jobs and drug money) that are motivating people to come here illegally.
    Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it.
    -Thomas Paine
  • jbp-ohiojbp-ohio Senior Member Posts: 10,749 Senior Member
    Yes, it will cause the price of consumer goods from Mexico to increase. Price increases makes it more competitive to just make it here in the USA........ https://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/chrysler/2018/01/11/fiat-chrysler-investing-billion-dollars-warren-truck/1026517001/
    "The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." Thomas Jefferson
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,457 Senior Member
    Jermanator wrote: »
    If a wall worked. So what we will wind up with is the cost of the wall (because let's face it-- Mexico is not paying for the wall. Stop kidding yourselves) AND all the other costs we have already been paying. Instead of getting screwed once, we will be getting screwed twice.

    The only thing that is going to work is if we remove the incentives (jobs and drug money) that are motivating people to come here illegally.

    Invasion is invasion, peaceful or under arms. One is slow death to a country and the other is an act of war. Look at what is happening to European countries. Do we really want that here? California is the canary in the coal mine, and the canary doesn't appear too healthy. Choose your poison. The drugs aren't muled across the regulated border crossings nearly as often as they are at the unregulated border. A wall would at least stop a lot of that illegal crossing where a wall is needed. A wall isn't needed everywhere, but where needed then it should exist.

    And Wambli's ideas are viable, too. Make it a federal crime to hire illegals and make the fines painful for doing so. Remove the incentive for crossing illegally, and make it impossible for them to make a living here crossing illegally.

    And no amnesty for illegals here. They go home, period. With no jobs for illegals, the problem would tend to solve itself.
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 16,244 Senior Member
    A combination of helping Mexico and other south and central American countries to improve their own economies plus eliminating the viablility of finding work here will dry up a lot of the flows of people.
    That is the other key-- lots of these illegal immigrants are poor slobs trying to make some money to support their family back home. Those people wouldn't even be here and if there were better opportunities at home. NAFTA has a big part in that currently but we could do more to help them develop their economy and make money selling them lots and lots of American crap in the process.
    Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it.
    -Thomas Paine
  • FisheadgibFisheadgib Senior Member Posts: 5,797 Senior Member
    Jermanator wrote: »
    That is the other key-- lots of these illegal immigrants are poor slobs trying to make some money to support their family back home. Those people wouldn't even be here and if there were better opportunities at home. NAFTA has a big part in that currently but we could do more to help them develop their economy and make money selling them lots and lots of American crap in the process.

    Their own governments should accept responsibility for the welfare of their populations. After NAFTA got passed, American companies moved a huge amount of manufacturing to Mexico and we give them over 320 million in aid annually on top of that. How much of that trickles down to rural and lower income citizens? Their own government takes as much advantage of Mexico's population as American companies do.
    snake284 wrote: »
    For my point of view, cpj is a lot like me
    .
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.

Advertisement