I think its the malays who should build a wall to stop th3 coolies from coming in 100 odd years ago.
-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
Serious Mexico to pay for the Trump wall News Thread
- Thread starter bodycells
- Start date
I think its the malays who should build a wall to stop th3 coolies from coming in 100 odd years ago.
Yes, Trump can make Mexico pay for the border wall. Here’s how.
Yes, Trump can make Mexico pay for the border wall. Here’s how.
Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto told an assembly of top diplomats last week that “Mexico of course will not pay” for Donald Trump’s wall. His predecessor, former president Vicente Fox, put it more bluntly in a tweet storm last week, declaring: “TRUMP, when will you understand that I am not paying for that [f----n] wall.”
They are both wrong. Trump absolutely can make Mexico pay. And the answer lies in a provision of the corporate tax-reform plan House Republicans are planning to take up after Trump’s inauguration — the so-called “border adjustment.”
Trump criticized the border adjustment this weekend, telling the Wall Street Journal “Anytime I hear border adjustment, I don’t love it.” Here is why he should: It would force Mexico to give us every penny we need to pay for the wall, and then some.
The House Republicans’ plan would lower the corporate tax from 35 percent to 20 percent and apply the tax based on the location of consumption rather than the location of production. It would do this through a “border adjustment” that exempts exports while taxing imports. Under the plan, all imports coming into the United States would be subject to the 20 percent tax, but exports would have the tax refunded — making them tax-free.
Supporters see it as a way for Trump to follow through on his campaign pledge to tax imports and support exports without resorting to tariffs that would provoke a massive global trade fight. Right now, more than 160 countries around the world have a “border adjusted” value-added tax (VAT). So unlike tariffs, a border adjustment should be able to pass muster with the World Trade Organization.
Here is where the wall comes in: As economist Martin Feldstein explains, the border adjustment would raise hundreds of billions in tax revenue — not from U.S. consumers or corporations, but from our foreign trading partners. Under the border adjustment, the United States would refund the tax on exports and charge it on imports — so the net revenue would be negative if we had a trade surplus, and positive if we had a trade deficit.
Because the United States has a trade deficit, Feldstein calculates the border adjustment would bring in about $120 billion a year, or $1 trillion over a decade.
One of the countries with whom we have a large trade deficit is . . . Mexico. The U.S. trade deficit in goods with Mexico was $60.7 billion in 2015 and is expected to be around $65 billion in 2016. So if Mexican imports are taxed at a rate of 20 percent, the United States would raise about $13 billion a year in revenue from Mexico via the border adjustment.
How much will the wall cost? Trump has put the price at between $8 billion and $12 billion. Others have suggested it could be higher, between $15 billion and $25 billion. Either way, the full cost would be more than covered in one or two years by the $13 billion in annual revenues we would collect from Mexico. Indeed, over several years, the border adjustment could force Mexico to pay not only for the wall, but for the costs of a lot of
Trump’s other border-security measures — from expediting the deportation of criminal aliens to hiring more screeners to conduct “extreme vetting.”
In other words, the border adjustment would allow Trump to keep two major campaign promises at once — he could tax imports and subsidize exports, while forcing Mexico to pay for the wall.
And here is the really brilliant part: There is nothing Mexico could do about it. Mexico might find ways to retaliate over specific measures targeting it — such as increased fees for visas or taxing remittances. But with the border adjustment, Mexico would have no recourse to complain, because such a measure is global in nature and would affect all U.S. trading partners equally. Plus, how could Mexico object when it is one of the 160 countries around that world that has a “border adjusted” VAT of its own?
So yes, thanks to the border adjustment, Donald Trump can indeed make Mexico pay for the BLEEP-ing wall. And Mexico would be powerless to stop him.
Mr. President-elect, what’s not to love?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...3375f271c9c_story.html?utm_term=.865b9adbef4b
Yes, Trump can make Mexico pay for the border wall. Here’s how.
Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto told an assembly of top diplomats last week that “Mexico of course will not pay” for Donald Trump’s wall. His predecessor, former president Vicente Fox, put it more bluntly in a tweet storm last week, declaring: “TRUMP, when will you understand that I am not paying for that [f----n] wall.”
They are both wrong. Trump absolutely can make Mexico pay. And the answer lies in a provision of the corporate tax-reform plan House Republicans are planning to take up after Trump’s inauguration — the so-called “border adjustment.”
Trump criticized the border adjustment this weekend, telling the Wall Street Journal “Anytime I hear border adjustment, I don’t love it.” Here is why he should: It would force Mexico to give us every penny we need to pay for the wall, and then some.
The House Republicans’ plan would lower the corporate tax from 35 percent to 20 percent and apply the tax based on the location of consumption rather than the location of production. It would do this through a “border adjustment” that exempts exports while taxing imports. Under the plan, all imports coming into the United States would be subject to the 20 percent tax, but exports would have the tax refunded — making them tax-free.
Supporters see it as a way for Trump to follow through on his campaign pledge to tax imports and support exports without resorting to tariffs that would provoke a massive global trade fight. Right now, more than 160 countries around the world have a “border adjusted” value-added tax (VAT). So unlike tariffs, a border adjustment should be able to pass muster with the World Trade Organization.
Here is where the wall comes in: As economist Martin Feldstein explains, the border adjustment would raise hundreds of billions in tax revenue — not from U.S. consumers or corporations, but from our foreign trading partners. Under the border adjustment, the United States would refund the tax on exports and charge it on imports — so the net revenue would be negative if we had a trade surplus, and positive if we had a trade deficit.
Because the United States has a trade deficit, Feldstein calculates the border adjustment would bring in about $120 billion a year, or $1 trillion over a decade.
One of the countries with whom we have a large trade deficit is . . . Mexico. The U.S. trade deficit in goods with Mexico was $60.7 billion in 2015 and is expected to be around $65 billion in 2016. So if Mexican imports are taxed at a rate of 20 percent, the United States would raise about $13 billion a year in revenue from Mexico via the border adjustment.
How much will the wall cost? Trump has put the price at between $8 billion and $12 billion. Others have suggested it could be higher, between $15 billion and $25 billion. Either way, the full cost would be more than covered in one or two years by the $13 billion in annual revenues we would collect from Mexico. Indeed, over several years, the border adjustment could force Mexico to pay not only for the wall, but for the costs of a lot of
Trump’s other border-security measures — from expediting the deportation of criminal aliens to hiring more screeners to conduct “extreme vetting.”
In other words, the border adjustment would allow Trump to keep two major campaign promises at once — he could tax imports and subsidize exports, while forcing Mexico to pay for the wall.
And here is the really brilliant part: There is nothing Mexico could do about it. Mexico might find ways to retaliate over specific measures targeting it — such as increased fees for visas or taxing remittances. But with the border adjustment, Mexico would have no recourse to complain, because such a measure is global in nature and would affect all U.S. trading partners equally. Plus, how could Mexico object when it is one of the 160 countries around that world that has a “border adjusted” VAT of its own?
So yes, thanks to the border adjustment, Donald Trump can indeed make Mexico pay for the BLEEP-ing wall. And Mexico would be powerless to stop him.
Mr. President-elect, what’s not to love?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...3375f271c9c_story.html?utm_term=.865b9adbef4b
Its time for Singapore to build a wall and make Malaysia (JB) pay for it by imposing a 20% import tax on all goods shipped across the Causeway. We will of course pay for it first, but eventually malaysia will foot the bill by absorbing the deficit over the long run.
President Donald Trump will seek a tax on goods imported from Mexico and use the revenue to build a border wall, the White House spokesman has said.
The plan was announced just after the Mexican president cancelled a visit to Washington, amid a row sparked by the question of who will pay for the wall.
But soon after revealing it, the White House said that was only one option.
Mr Trump on Wednesday signed an executive order to create a wall on the US southern border with Mexico.
Making Mexico pay for it was one of his key election campaign pledges.
But President Enrique Pena Nieto has always insisted that will not happen and on Thursday he pulled out of next week's White House meeting.
The plan was announced just after the Mexican president cancelled a visit to Washington, amid a row sparked by the question of who will pay for the wall.
But soon after revealing it, the White House said that was only one option.
Mr Trump on Wednesday signed an executive order to create a wall on the US southern border with Mexico.
Making Mexico pay for it was one of his key election campaign pledges.
But President Enrique Pena Nieto has always insisted that will not happen and on Thursday he pulled out of next week's White House meeting.
President Trump Says Mexico Will Pay for the Wall. But His Tax Plan Means Americans Will
Shawn Tully,Stephen Gandel
12:36 AM Malay
Donald Trump's peso politics may end up poisoning American pocketbooks.
On Thursday, President Trump floated a possible plan to pay for a wall between Mexico and the U.S.—a 20% tax imposed on importers of the stuff that is made in Mexico and shipped to the United States. And there is a lot of that stuff: About $295 billion worth of goods last year alone.
Trump said the plan, which was detailed by Trump's press secretary Sean Spicer before he later backed away from the proposal saying it was one of a number on the table, would force Mexicans to pay for building That Wall. And it sounds like it would, if you don't know anything about economics or trade relations between Mexico and the U.S., or really trade relations at all. The people who will ultimately pay aren't Mexicans, but U.S. customers who're currently getting a great deal on their products.
Unfortunately, the plan amounts to what's practically a textbook case in damaging, unintended consequences for the U.S. economy and consumers. The main point is that when a nation imposes a tariff on another nation's goods, it's a tax that, according to classical economics, generally raises the prices, and lowers the volume of sales, of those imports.
As we'll see, that's not a good thing for the US or its consumers. Let's count the ways (and Mr. President, maybe you can count along with us).
Mexican companies would only write the checks. All import duties on cars, plastics, electronic components, and everything else we import from Mexico would at least in part be simply be tacked onto the price of either the final products, or the components sold for final production in the U.S. So it's our shoppers who would mainly pay for those markups. Mexican companies are simply intermediaries who would collect money from U.S. consumers, and send the funds to the Treasury. "To pretend that Mexican companies would really pay is a distortion," says J. Bradford Jensen, an economics professor at Georgetown University. "U.S. consumers who would pay a lot of those costs."
50% of the content of imports from Mexico are components and other materials made in the U.S. The tariff would force Mexican companies to raise prices, though probably far less than the full 20%, since they'd take part of the hit by shrinking margins. That would make their goods less attractive to U.S. consumers. and they'd sell a lot less autos and appliances in the US than they do today. But U.S. manufacturers would take a hit as well, since if Mexican imports fall, so do all the U.S. parts that go into those imports. Those lost sales could go to either foreign companies or U.S. players that manufacture the same goods in the US, using US-made parts. But if Mexico is the world's low-cost producer, the system deprives U.S. consumers of those bargain prices. We'd be buying the same stuff from less efficient domestic producers at what could be inflated prices.
If Mexico sells less to us, we sell less to them. As the flow of goods from Mexico to the U.S. shrinks, Mexican consumers will collect fewer dollars. Hence, by pure math, they'll have less to spend on U.S. exports. "It works against the administration's goal of increasing U.S. exports to eliminate our trade deficit," says Dan Ikensen, an economist at the Cato Institute.
The tariffs would create a new, protective umbrella for high-cost producers that would hit Americans in the wallet.
The plan would be a protectionist boon to inefficient manufacturers. The tariffs would enable U.S. or foreign companies that do everything in the US to grab market share from the Mexicans even if their costs are higher. Or, those sales would go to Canadian or Asian importers that can sell them more cheaply than U.S. competitors. Still not a good deal for consumers, since the foreigner would still charge more than the Mexicans did prior to the new wall—the tariff wall.
Mexico might retaliate. Mexico could fight back by imposing tariffs on U.S. exports. In that case, both our imports and our exports would decline in tandem. The Trump goal of lowering trade deficits by raising exports would be lost.
There is actually one scenario where Trump's tax might result in Mexico, or at least companies that are making goods in Mexico and exporting them to the U.S., paying for at least a portion of the wall.
In theory, if the U.S. were to imposing a heavy tariff on another country, like say 20%, it could cause the value of dollar to rise. Americans would buy fewer goods from that country. The supply of dollars outside the U.S. would shrink. And the price of dollars would go up. Classic economic supply and demand theory. So if the value of the dollar rose, Mexican companies could raise their prices in pesos to pay for the tariff, and those higher prices wouldn't be felt by American consumers because higher value dollars would compensate for the difference.
But liberal leaning economist Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy Research says for that to work you would have to impose tariffs on all countries, not just Mexico, because that's the way you can truly limit the supply of dollars outside the United States. But that still might mean that Mexico isn't the one that ends up paying for the wall. The reason: The U.S. imports roughly $500 billion of goods from China, nearly double the amount we get from Mexico. So if you were to impose a tariff on all good imported overseas to drive up the value of the dollar, it would be the Chinese that would end up paying the biggest portion of the bill building the wall between U.S. and Mexico, and not the Mexicans.
And that might not matter to Trump, or American tax payers, but it will certainly matter to the Chinese, who have warned against a trade war and will have all types of unintended consequences (at least by Trump) to impose on U.S. consumers.
"Ttump's plan gets Americans to pay for the wall through another channel, or China," says Baker. "This is not a plan to get Mexico to pay for the wall."
Bottom line: The open border between Mexico and the US has been a huge boon to both economies. A thriving Mexico is great for US exports, and though we're running a big trade deficit, the dollars Mexico collects flow back here in job-creating investments. This is a good deal for both sides. Let's not fix what's not broken.
http://fortune.com/2017/01/26/donald-trump-mexico-pay-tax-wall/
Shawn Tully,Stephen Gandel
12:36 AM Malay
Donald Trump's peso politics may end up poisoning American pocketbooks.
On Thursday, President Trump floated a possible plan to pay for a wall between Mexico and the U.S.—a 20% tax imposed on importers of the stuff that is made in Mexico and shipped to the United States. And there is a lot of that stuff: About $295 billion worth of goods last year alone.
Trump said the plan, which was detailed by Trump's press secretary Sean Spicer before he later backed away from the proposal saying it was one of a number on the table, would force Mexicans to pay for building That Wall. And it sounds like it would, if you don't know anything about economics or trade relations between Mexico and the U.S., or really trade relations at all. The people who will ultimately pay aren't Mexicans, but U.S. customers who're currently getting a great deal on their products.
Unfortunately, the plan amounts to what's practically a textbook case in damaging, unintended consequences for the U.S. economy and consumers. The main point is that when a nation imposes a tariff on another nation's goods, it's a tax that, according to classical economics, generally raises the prices, and lowers the volume of sales, of those imports.
As we'll see, that's not a good thing for the US or its consumers. Let's count the ways (and Mr. President, maybe you can count along with us).
Mexican companies would only write the checks. All import duties on cars, plastics, electronic components, and everything else we import from Mexico would at least in part be simply be tacked onto the price of either the final products, or the components sold for final production in the U.S. So it's our shoppers who would mainly pay for those markups. Mexican companies are simply intermediaries who would collect money from U.S. consumers, and send the funds to the Treasury. "To pretend that Mexican companies would really pay is a distortion," says J. Bradford Jensen, an economics professor at Georgetown University. "U.S. consumers who would pay a lot of those costs."
50% of the content of imports from Mexico are components and other materials made in the U.S. The tariff would force Mexican companies to raise prices, though probably far less than the full 20%, since they'd take part of the hit by shrinking margins. That would make their goods less attractive to U.S. consumers. and they'd sell a lot less autos and appliances in the US than they do today. But U.S. manufacturers would take a hit as well, since if Mexican imports fall, so do all the U.S. parts that go into those imports. Those lost sales could go to either foreign companies or U.S. players that manufacture the same goods in the US, using US-made parts. But if Mexico is the world's low-cost producer, the system deprives U.S. consumers of those bargain prices. We'd be buying the same stuff from less efficient domestic producers at what could be inflated prices.
If Mexico sells less to us, we sell less to them. As the flow of goods from Mexico to the U.S. shrinks, Mexican consumers will collect fewer dollars. Hence, by pure math, they'll have less to spend on U.S. exports. "It works against the administration's goal of increasing U.S. exports to eliminate our trade deficit," says Dan Ikensen, an economist at the Cato Institute.
The tariffs would create a new, protective umbrella for high-cost producers that would hit Americans in the wallet.
The plan would be a protectionist boon to inefficient manufacturers. The tariffs would enable U.S. or foreign companies that do everything in the US to grab market share from the Mexicans even if their costs are higher. Or, those sales would go to Canadian or Asian importers that can sell them more cheaply than U.S. competitors. Still not a good deal for consumers, since the foreigner would still charge more than the Mexicans did prior to the new wall—the tariff wall.
Mexico might retaliate. Mexico could fight back by imposing tariffs on U.S. exports. In that case, both our imports and our exports would decline in tandem. The Trump goal of lowering trade deficits by raising exports would be lost.
There is actually one scenario where Trump's tax might result in Mexico, or at least companies that are making goods in Mexico and exporting them to the U.S., paying for at least a portion of the wall.
In theory, if the U.S. were to imposing a heavy tariff on another country, like say 20%, it could cause the value of dollar to rise. Americans would buy fewer goods from that country. The supply of dollars outside the U.S. would shrink. And the price of dollars would go up. Classic economic supply and demand theory. So if the value of the dollar rose, Mexican companies could raise their prices in pesos to pay for the tariff, and those higher prices wouldn't be felt by American consumers because higher value dollars would compensate for the difference.
But liberal leaning economist Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy Research says for that to work you would have to impose tariffs on all countries, not just Mexico, because that's the way you can truly limit the supply of dollars outside the United States. But that still might mean that Mexico isn't the one that ends up paying for the wall. The reason: The U.S. imports roughly $500 billion of goods from China, nearly double the amount we get from Mexico. So if you were to impose a tariff on all good imported overseas to drive up the value of the dollar, it would be the Chinese that would end up paying the biggest portion of the bill building the wall between U.S. and Mexico, and not the Mexicans.
And that might not matter to Trump, or American tax payers, but it will certainly matter to the Chinese, who have warned against a trade war and will have all types of unintended consequences (at least by Trump) to impose on U.S. consumers.
"Ttump's plan gets Americans to pay for the wall through another channel, or China," says Baker. "This is not a plan to get Mexico to pay for the wall."
Bottom line: The open border between Mexico and the US has been a huge boon to both economies. A thriving Mexico is great for US exports, and though we're running a big trade deficit, the dollars Mexico collects flow back here in job-creating investments. This is a good deal for both sides. Let's not fix what's not broken.
http://fortune.com/2017/01/26/donald-trump-mexico-pay-tax-wall/
the stench is released and his foxtail is showing............ more to come, hopefully the rednecks will realise what an asshole they hv voted in
This thread is still alive?? US already dropped the idea a few weeks back and Trump has been quiet ever since. He was quick to learn and so should all you dumbfucks here. It's not Mexico that will be paying for the wall if a border tax is imposed. It is the businesses that will be paying and guess who will eventually be paying these taxes?
where is the link for that??? any proof????
Similar threads
