Deploying U.S. troops within the border, not sure that’s a good idea…
I understand the frustration, but I think securing the border is doable and I certainly don’t support shooting people on sight because they might be here illegally.
I think they are criminals and should be treated as criminals within the confines of the 8th amendment. I don’t view, at least the vast majority of them, as enemy combatants.
Edit:
However, there are millions within the border already. The logistics let alone the morality of rounding them up and deporting them are iffy. I think a better solution is to secure the border, fix the visa program, and then offer amnesty to those that want to stay here. To me, that avoids both the economic disruption and increased size of the federal government that would be required to deport all 12+ million illegals.
When talking about the physical border I agree, but what about visa overstays? ~40% of illegal immigration happens through airports.
I think you have to go after employers. The illegal immigration problem changes a lot if no illegal immigrant can legally get a job.
I agree very much with this.
That’s much more a bureaucratic obstacle than a real one. We already have troops within our borders. Letting them operate within a small distance of the border is hardly a significant change.
What if an illegal immigrant owns the business? If they employ 10 actual citizens, can they keep their money?
I think this is a great idea, except that I would prefer for it to be a tax rather than a fine. The real problem here is enforcement. If you structure it as a tax and simply allowed the tax to be waived for any employee that can be proven to be working legally, then companies have to self enforce in order to file their taxes.
So my proposal would be something like: Ridiculously punitive tax for every employee. Tax is waived for any employee that passes e-verify or a similar check. As part of filing taxes, all companies must prove that all of their employees are legal to work or else pay the tax.
Is there a state where an illegal immigrant can even own a business? I would think Federal law would preclude this from happening.
I wouldn’t support this because:
A) It’s an added cost of employment simply for the sake of bureaucracy
B) It’s a guilty until proven innocent mentality, which I’m against.
C) I’m generally against new taxes as they usual morph into lord knows what over time.
Up to 8-10% of illegals May own businesses.
If you’re willing to break the law to get into the US to make money, you’re not going to let some other law stop you from making money when you get into the US.
That’s interesting, but under my plan they would be given amnesty and if they don’t take it then they’d be deported. So, imo, no they wouldn’t get to keep their money because they’d wouldn’t get to stay post amnesty.
There is no evidence that military spending leads to economic decline by skyrocketing the national debt. The most significant explanatory variables for an increase in the United State’s public debt are income and corporate tax cuts.
http://m.cmp.sagepub.com/content/early/2016/10/26/0738894216674953.full.pdf
Don Frye???
That’s an odd way of looking at it. It’s as if the authors think government spending is fixed, but it isn’t.
If tax revenue is reduced (tax cuts), but government spending/government programs are not also cut, i.e. the level of spend remains flat, then, yes, you’ll have to find funding from somewhere. In this case, through an increased national debt.
So, it’s really not at all surprising that someone would claim the single greatest driver of debt is/are tax cuts, but I think that’s a flawed way of looking at it.
The bottom line is, what is the money being spent on? The answer, government programs. One of the largest items being the U.S. military.
So, if you reduce spend you can also reduce debt/deficit.
As a side note, this is why when Trump has repeatedly said he’s going to cut taxes I’ve repeatedly said what programs will he cut and this is why even the Tax Foundation thinks he’ll drive the national debt up by trillions.
Isn’t the hope behind this strategy that by reducing taxes on businesses, they will be unencumbered and there will be a big upswing across the boards in business and employment?
Has that ever actually happened, or is it just a wishful hypothesis?
That’s the idea, at least economically. I think Trump is just playing lip service to a certain portion of his base.
I don’t know if there’s been a study or anything done to corroborate the theory or not. I think there are so many conflating factors it’d be difficult to say with any amount of certainty. Logically, it makes sense.
I’m personally against a corporate income tax fwiw.
One of the problems with the theory, though, is that economic conditions will play a factor in how employers use the additional dollars. During times of economic uncertainty, they may just put the money in something safe like a bank account. One thing we saw after the recession was many companies build large amounts of cash on hand and that doesn’t translate to higher pay or a reduced unemployment rate. However, you might see an uptick in risk if more of the bottom line is kept by a business. You may see higher capital investment, new projects/product lines undertaken, and an increase in employment.
There are also other factors. You may save in corporate income tax, but if you hire a bunch of people then your payroll taxes go up essentially zeroing the cut. So, there’s a cost/benefit issue there that needs to be looked at. Plus you have to think long term. Tax cuts don’t last for long and then you’re back to where you were; except, if you hired a bunch of people your tax liability is actually higher than it was before. Plus all of your other employment costs like healthcare, insurance, etc… are up too.
That’s the idea, at least economically. I think Trump is just playing lip service to a certain portion of his base.
That has been my opinion too. Granted, it’s just what I’ve heard, but all my life I’ve been hearing this line from small business guys. "If I didn’t have to pay so much in taxes… (fill in the blank). Everybody would get raises, we would have better equipment etc. ad nauseum.
Any increase in manufacturing in US will have to address several factors:
- Decrease in Corporate Tax rate, including provision to repatriate existing offshore profits
- Revision of Energy policy to encourage one of manufacturing’s greatest desire (and a US strength) - cheap power
- EPA working with, instead of against every industry that isn’t just moving bits in the ether
- Education that fulfills need of technologically versed workforce.
Those are off of the top of my head, but agree with @anon50325502 efficiency is also cutting jobs permanently. So much so, that I wonder if there will be more than 1 per household (on avg) in the future.
All of this blathering to say, planning on MMs of new jobs to raise tax base w/o shrinking programs is conjecture rather than proven fact. I’ve mentioned 2 edged sword of interest before, so we better get to deficit / debt issue sooner than later.