Even Ann Coulter agrees that Trump needs to impose a tax on remittances, money sent out of the US, to pay for the wall. He doesn't even need congressional approval to do it.
Ann Coulter on Twitter
Bad idea. It is exactly taxes like this, that end up being expanded to hit everyday Americans.
Next we'll be getting hit with a remittance tax, when we visit Canada on Vacation.
Just don't do that. The government makes more than enough money on taxes, to pay for the wall... the incompetent congress, just needs to do it.
Disagree that the government gets adequate funding to pay for the wall, the Budget Deficit is over $1T.
We need to pay for the wall and for all government spending, especially the wars in Syria and AFG, or the interest on the Debt will kill entitlements. This thread is only about funding the wall as Trump promised, not with US tax dollars, but with a fee on money transfers out of the US.
Michael Jackson earned over a billion dollars in his lifetime. Before he died, he was on the verge of bankruptcy.
The problem wasn't that he was not getting adequate funding. The problem was he was spending too much money on things he should not have been buying.
Our government collected $3.4 Trillion dollars in taxes. The GDP of the entire economy of Germany is only $3.6 Trillion dollars. There are only 3 nations on the face of this planet, that have a large national GDP, than how much our government collects in tax revenue.
There is no lack of funding. The problem is our government gives out 65% of the budget in entitlements.
Cut entitlements.... which account for 65% of the entire budget.... and you will have so much money left over.... you could build not only a wall around the entire country, but you could build walls between each state if you desired, and still have money left over to pay down the national debt.
instead of cutting 'entitlements' why not close all the bigcorp loopholes that allow for offshore tax havens? & that there estate tax reduction in the 'tax cut' <coughcoughmoneygiveawaycoughcough> to the uber rich.. that increased from 11 million to 22 million NON taxable 'income' could help out, don'tcha think?
I don't understand where you get this idea that they "allow" offshore tax havens.
Do you know how a tax haven works? The company builds a factory elsewhere in the world. They do not 'have to' bring that money back to the US. They could, and use the money earned elsewhere in the world, to invest in the US. But instead, because of taxes, they leave that money elsewhere.
You can't 'force' someone to bring money into the US. There is no law that you can pass, that will force companies to bring the money earned elsewhere in the world, back to the US.
What you can do, is drive companies out of the US.
10 iconic US companies that have left America
If you did come up with a law, that would supposedly prevent tax havens, the results would be the exact opposite of what you want.
Did you know that Burger King, Budweiser, Purina, and dozens of other companies, are all no longer American companies? Canada, Switzerland, and Belgium are the new countries where these companies are based.
Instead of getting more tax revenue, we are getting less.
What do you want to do then? Make it illegal for people to leave the country? Are we going to put up a wall to keep companies from leaving, like Berlin?
Of course not. So trying to figure out new ways to screw over companies is counter productive. Look at California. Highest tax rates in the country, and you have big name companies planning to leave the state. Why is Apply spending a billion dollars, opening up a campus in Texas? Because California is trying to screw them, so they are leaving.
Lastly, jacking up taxes on business isn't going to get you want you want, even if you could do it without them leaving. We had a nearly 40% tax rate on companies, and we were running deficits then. Barely 10% of tax revenue was from corporate taxes, before they cut them to stop driving companies out of the country.
