From Jeff Taylor, June 2006 Reason, “Wall of Confusion” [print only]:
Arizonal lawmakers worried about illegal immigration have paired an old idea, an anti-immigrant wall, with new one: a state tax on bank wire transfers to and from other countries. The state’s House Appropriation Committee has approved an 8 percent tax on all out-of-country wire transfers, with proceeds earmarked for building a wall at the border.
Extrapolating from the estimated $20 billion that is wired from Arizona to Mexico each year, the measure’s backers say it could raise up to $80 million annually. They argue that the levy would recover some of the tax revenue lost from illegals who work off the books.
Yet the punitive tax would also hit law-abiding residents and citizens. Maybe Arizonans just don’t like wire transfers.
A lot packed into this, so it won’t do to be flip—
especially as emotions tend to run high, even among the broad umbrella group ”conservatives” (which include classical liberals and right-leaning libertarians) over how exactly to handle the problem of illegal immigration.
And the first step, of course, is to acknowledge that it is a problem—particularly to border states in the southwest.
As somebody with many libertarian tendencies, I am bothered by the idea of a punitive tax on wire transfers for precisely the reason Taylor lays out: law-abiding citizens and residents are being economically “punished” for moving money out of the country, which it should be their right to do without the govenment presuming to take a kickback.
On the other hand, though, if the measure passes the legislature into law, then we must agree that the initiative, supported by enough of the state’s representatives, closely aligns with the will of the Arizona voters, who wish to do something to subsidize the strain on state resources, and the loss of revenue that would otherwise (“naturally,” if you will) be poured back into the state’s economy.
So the question becomes, is it a violation of natural rights to be selectively taxed for legal activities?
As with so-called “sin” taxes, I have a real philosophical problem with graduated and selected taxation based on contemporary morality and populism; instead, I’d like to see a consistency in taxation (I support a flat tax), and I don’t believe we should be picking and choosing which legal activities to tax at a higher rate (this mostly applies, on the national level, to cigarettes and porn of late, but we’ll soon likely see this spread to “junk food,” which some states are already implementing). So I have a problem with this punitive tax initiative—even though I realize that Arizonans are simply trying to find a way to deal with a complex problem that many other states don’t have to suffer through to quite the extent Arizona does.
The answer for me lies in some sort of compromise—one that involves applying the punitive taxes only to transfers initiated by undocumented residents. Of course, to do this, we need to first document residents, and one way to do that would be to begin by stemming the flow of illegals with the wall.
Or, to put it another way, Arizona should take a loan out on the wall, then, once the flow of illegals has been made manageable, they should work on finding illegals and, depending on your point of view, 1) getting them on the books, so that they pay taxes to the state; 2) singling them out for the wire transfer tax; or 3) deporting them (which, to my mind, is the most difficult solution, given the complications of citizenship granted children of illegals born on US soil); or 4) levying harsh fines on those businesses who use illegal labor off the books.
To my mind, the best solution is the first, which requires that everything follow from the building of the wall. Then, some sort of guest-worker program can be established for illegals who have settled in and who have families that include US citizens so that they are being taxed for the work they do—which makes it unnecessary to tax a legal and innocuous activity like international wire tranfers.
As I say, however, these are complicated problems, and any plan I can come up is sure to inflame a multitude of both liberals and conservatives. Such is the nature of the illegal immigration problem.
Nevertheless, I think Mr Taylor dimishes the problems the Arizonans face—even if he is correct (as I believe he is) about the pitfalls of punitive taxation, which have a tendency, once lawmakers acquire a taste for them, to be the first things down that slippery slope to increased state taxes.
****
See also, Michelle Malkin’s “Vent”; Misha, and Lorie Byrd at PoliPundit, who approaches the whole “impeach George Bush” meme generated by the right in a manner I think is absolutely (and importantly) spot on.
****
update: much more related material here.
I’m parting company with you on this one, Jeff. State and local initiatives, including taxation, are the purview of the taxing authority as long as there are no constitutional violations. It happens all the time in all the states.
Some states have no income tax, yet higher tobacco and alcohol taxes. Living on the state line between KS & MO, I see it all the time. KS has a much higher tobacco tax than MO and a higher gasoline tax. MO is trying to pass a per head tax on “Gentlemen’s Clubs”. Some states are very “pro business” with little or no corporate taxes, while other states tax the hell out of commercial enterprises.
As far as “targeting” a group with a specific tax (and inadvertently snaring some stray locals) look at the taxes in most major cities on hotel rooms or rental cars. Those type of taxes are more akin to “user fees”. Every state and local taxing authority has specific taxes targeting a specific user group, many of those taxes earmarked for a “dedicated” purpose. Hell, Kansas has an “illegal drug” tax. If you’re a drug dealer in KS you need to buy stamps or there’s an additional charge if you’re caught.
I LOVE ITALICS!!
I called once about getting me one of those drug stamps. Couldn’t get a straight answer out of anyone.
As a conservative and a capitalist, I believe in the free flow of capital. Putting up barriers of this kind would have huge consequences on foreign investments within our country. Why would foreign money come into this country when it’s restrained from leaving. This type of thinking is why many third world countries stay economic basket-cases.
I agree with the first part of what you say, rls—and I don’t think taxing wire transferers is constitutionally problematic. In fact, that was where my hesitation came from—and why I mentioned that I don’t think such state voted taxes are violations of natural rights so much as they are philosophically probematic as pertains to the idea of taxation to begin with. For me, at least.
But like I say, I’m a flat taxer; I’ve always found “progressive” taxation a slap in the face to true equality.
Which is to say, just because I know states do it doesn’t mean I have to like it or agree with it (even if it isn’t necessarily unconstitutional; still, it violates the spirit of equality. And that’s what bugs me).
Well, this you don’t get much argument from me. I am so anti-tax that some lable me an anarchist. I personally favor a national consumption tax, where we tax individual spending and reward the building of equity (savings), and bring all of the “underground” economy into the tax base. (Even ill gotten booty gets spent!)
I’m not in favor of “purpose” taxes like this, I was just pointing out the legality and commonality of these things. At least with local taxing authorities, you have a better chance of repealing or ousting those that voted for it. Or….you can vote with your feet.
One of the dangers of politics is that the politicians, finding themselves unable to do something substantive (or their favorite solutions) about a particular problem, then proceed down the list of solutions until they find something they can get away with.
Which is one of the reasons we have so many stupid, contradictory and counterproductive laws.
Our political system may be better than the alternatives, but it ain’t pretty.
But no, I don’t think targeted taxes like this are generally a god idea, if only because it creates a labyrinthine tax and legal system and encourages a lot of wasted compliance and avoidance costs.
The answer for me lies in some sort of compromiseâ€â€one that involves applying the punitive taxes only to transfers initiated by undocumented residents. Of course, to do this, we need to first document residents, and one way to do that would be to begin by stemming the flow of illegals with the wall.
So then the wall must also be extended to the border with California, to prevent “undocumented residents” (i.e., illegal aliens) from merely taking a short detour around it?
tw elements: perhaps we will count on the harshness of the elements to deter them?
Color me unworried about the “hobgoblin of little minds” (to turn a phrase, not meant to impugn or insult anyone here). I too favor less taxation and disfavor sin taxes, etc. That being said, as an Arizona resident, I am all for this. The plain fact of the matter is that the large illegal population here does put a strain on public services, a strain that is not made up proportionally in taxes from the group causing the costs. The large numbers of Arizona hospitals that have declared bankruptcy or shut their doors due to the large unpaid expenses they incurred providing services to “indigent persons” (i.e., those that can’t or won’t pay) is but one example.
I see it not as a punitive measure per se, but a way to recapture taxes that should have been paid in the first place. While I may disfavor certain forms of taxes, I disfavor even more people getting away with not paying their fair share.
Jeff–
Thanks for the link and the kind words.
Actually, poking around a bit, it looks like the Reason guy is a bit inaccurate:
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0319wiremoney.html
The article linked above seems to indicate they’re going after wire transfers such as those done at Western Union, not bank wire transfers which would more likely use ACH or perhaps Fedwire.
So Alan, your fears are probably unfounded in that case. Highly unlikely that any foreign investors of significance will be using Western Union to move money into and out of the US.
I’m still not sure I think it’s a great idea, though. Just not a big tax fan.
Speaking of detours via California, why wouldn’t the wire-transfers just start to go via a cut out branch in CA? For that matter, if my atm card works when I’m on vacation in Mexico, why would my illegal alien friends need wire transfers again? 8% might be enough to make them investigate other possibilities. I would.
Shortly after the 9/11 attack there was an effort to move the transfer of money across the border from small money changing businesses to large banks to improve the visibility of the transactions. The national security goal was to make it harder for terrorists to move funds because the banks would be able to show the transactions on their computers. This tax the illegals plan would be a step back the other way. If the money is taxed at the bank, then the money will find a cheaper and less transparent way to flow. Also it would make Arizona just a little more dependent on illegal workers and a little less likely to actually do anything to stem the tide.
Something tells me the constitution would bar this.
So would a tax just on the undocumented.
Unless it is the Constitution itself, I would ignore it.
LOL
There’s a subtext to this action taken in AZ. People are pissed, and feel that Bush and Congress don’t really want to deal with this issue, preferring to pander to the illegal immigration groups and the Mexican government. If this story about our government coluding with Mexico’s is true, it speaks volumes about where the political winds are blowing in Washington.
The politicians don’t give a damn about this issue. It’s too combustible to handle safely, especially in an election year. It would not only take patience, but an incredible leap of faith to believe that electing pro-immigrant yet anti-illegal immigrant pol’s would change the landscape anytime soon, if at all. I used to read Polipundit daily, but found that they and their commenters bend over backwards to apologize for and defend Bush and his administration. Some of us have our limits, and this collusion-gate may be it.
Drastic times call for drastic measures, and if the process doesn’t seem to be responding, and I believe that in this case that’s true, the public will take matters into their own hands, even if it means short-term pain (i.e. taxation on a specific service or commodity) to send the message no one seems to listen to. I would be fine building a damn wall and being done with it. Heck, build TWO walls. But everyone knows it’ll never happen. The political will does not exist for it to be realized, and the media would kill it before the foundation is poured.
Hey, we penalize oil companies and gas users with taxes all the time already. Why should immigrant gardeners and busboys be any different?
As an American that lives out of the country, I find this to be a horrible tax. I don’t have the right answers for Arizona, and I understand their desire to fight against the illegal alien problem. But this idea is awful. We get paid in the US, in US dollars, and already spend ungodly amounts trying to get our money moved around. Bank fees on the US end, bank fees in Japan, fluctuations in the exchange rate, conversion charges, the loss of interest from having to split money into different accounts. Not to mention that (and this is different for people living in the US transfering money out), I’m already paying income tax in two countries. If my home base were Arizona, I’d get my money to another state pronto.
This just sounds like one more thing for the average, wage earning citizen to have to deal with.
And Lorie Byrd is correct about the calls for impeachment. How embarassing that this is the way we express disagreement anymore.
I really do fear that we are becoming ungovernable. I didn’t get what I want and I can’t wait for an election! Impeach!
Just photoshop together a pic of President Hillary and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and send it to the fainting Repubs and ask ‘em how they feel.
I have to agree with Brian and Great Mencken’s Ghost regarding the points they made.
GMG was correct in observing that selective taxation already occurs on a large scale. A great example being, as he noted, the push to penalize oil companies for the laws of supply and demand, which are as bad as anything being proposed in Arizona. For another really egregious example of governmental confiscatory policy, look at the civil forfieture laws.
Brian is also correct in his observation that this is a real problem that the politicians are afraid to touch, especially in an election year.
If the federal government won’t act to secure this country’s borders, then the border state governments are forced to act.
Unfortunately, until the national political will to secure our borders exists, the federal politicians will ignore this problem. Their prime concern it seems, is the perpetuation of their own careers, whatever the cost to the ’greater good.’
Jeff hits on part of an answer when he says,
I agree with Jeff on that point. Perhaps social security numbers and driver’s licenses could be used as one set of citizenship verification? But how will that stop individuals from charging illegals, say just 6% to do transfers for them? Unless we put a serious penalty on doing that.
Arizona and other states, as well as the federal government also need to meaningfully punish employers of illegal aliens and make the price high enough to merit serious consideration by employers. Presently, penalties for hiring illegal immigrant labor are a joke, if I am correctly informed. This will take the political courage to anger the employers (aka political donors) who hire the illegals. But until the employers can be weaned off of cheap labor and by extension, the public weaned off of its appetite for cheap goods, their will be a demand for the illegals. They wouldn’t be flocking here if the labor demand didn’t exist.
Another idea regarding the wire transfer tax is that it would automatically sunset when the wall is paid for.
Perhaps the wall, in conjunction with a guest worker permit. They are allowed in for a limited time, they are taxed. They make money that they could not at home, we get the tax revenue, supply is regulated by letting in only the necessary amount to make up the labor defecit. Everbody gets something.
Just throwing out some ideas. This is a complex problem and I don’t think that there will be any simple solutions.
Also, I don’t mean to sound anti-immigrant. I’m not at all. I’m just anti-illegal immigrant.
A state is simply not going to be able to tax wire transfers out of the country – Art I section 8 Congress has power to regulate commerce both interstate and with foreign nations. This one is not in doubt at all.
You mean impeach “Our First Mexican President,” as illustrated, with the text of El Presidente’s speech? Amigos, ‘twould be a first, no?
Funny thing is that by switching to a consumption tax instead of an income tax, half the battle is won. If the illegals are being taxed on consumption, they are putting in thier share toward state revenue. They no longer could technically be a ‘drain’ on state resources.
I think the constitution also bans export duties. As well as makes foreign policy like this the province of the feds.
I thought international finance was an exclusively federal issue
One very major problem with this proposal is that the state would then be “profiting” off activities that might be illegal. That might lead some bureaucrat somewhere to try to increase illegal immigration in order to bring in more money.
Punishment and civil suits brought by the state or private parties are the best alternative. Has Western Union violated any laws? Have any of the banks that give home loans to illegal aliens violated our current laws against aiding and abetting illegal aliens?
Another alternative is to completely discredit all those linked to Western Union, of which there are many. For instance, they supported Tancredo’s opponent. And, they held several immigration “debates” featuring a who’s who of supporters of massive illegal immigration, including a UCLA professor who’s trying to profit off illegal immigration.
Regarding impeachment, the more you know about illegal immigration the less respect you have for Bush’s reflexive supporters.
I think any attempt to implement this tax would be met with a lawsuit… and the federal government would have to weigh in on the opponents side.
Come on… read the commerce clause and court decisions surrounding it… taxes on “exports” or international “intercourse” (ummmm… there’s more than one joke there) are the exclusive domain of the Federal government. I’m not a lawyer (thank God… on all levels) but even the most cursory rookie review says this one gets bogged down in court for ever.
Also someone creative would just find a way to route the money through Utah, Nevada, or wherever.
Getting around government regulations is childs play in most developing and third world nations. It is a part of life that everyone grows up learning due to corruption and to even lamer more convoluted nonsensical rules than we have here.
Wall at the border? Go over around under through. Stage mass diversions, put bags over cameras, throw rocks to distract officers, walk without water in 100 degree heat, pile yourself like cordwood into the trunk of a car for 80 miles, hide in a 1 bathroom “safehouse” with 60 others for five days, buy fake documents…
Yeah a tax on wired money to Mexico oughta work… no one will find a way around that (dripping sarcasm at the absolute head up the butt idea this is).
This reminds me of when I went to Myanmar. The US goverment won’t let Americans buy anything there and you better not try to bring anything home from there… well aside from the general ignorance that permeates these sorts of embargos (it hurts the very small business people and their employees that could use the cash the most), the idiocy just encourages people like the Thais to cash in on it… you send or take the obvious Burmese stuff to Thailand, they “buy” it from you, you buy it back and they ship it to the USA… you get a receipt saying you bought it in Thailand…
My point?
The revenue from this idea will never appear… nice try though.
We can complain all we want, but immigration needs fixing at the federal level… state level fixes, Minutemen stuff… all are good for giving voice to dissatisfaction, but in the end the feds will knock aside or implement local ideas as they see fit. Some Congressman from North Dakota (a state with about nine Hispanic immigrants) will cast the deciding vote and (again) no one in Arizona will be happy.
Okay, when it comes to a wall, I got tired of typing the same thing over and over again, so I just posted it here. Or, suffice it to say, a wall is simply not going to work.
I was a flat taxer/negative income taxer (see Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose) up until very recently, when I realized that income taxes of any kind put liberty, especially privacy, in danger. I know that sounds hysterical, but hear me out.
I’ve worked in the computer business for over a decade now, and I know that with off-the-shelf technology it is now completely technically feasable for the government to essentially track the vast majority of individuals’ buying, selling and earning transactionsâ€â€in near real-time in order to detect undeclared income and unpaid taxes. The government is the government, and they will spend 99¢ to recover a dollar.
As long as we give the government a reason to resort to such measures to protect itself institutionally, it’s just a matter of time before the government is truly all up in our business, to a degree most of us have never really contemplated.
This is why now I am a national sales tax supporter. With a national sales tax, the government no longer has an incentive to invade individuals’ financial privacy. Instead, the government’s attention is redirected to retailers. It’s a tradeoff, sure, but I believe ultimately a good one.
For example, just think how much simpler life would be. There would be no more forms, no more huge expense for all of us and our employers simply to comply with multiple webs of tax law.
I’ve been accused of being Eutopian because I personally believe that a conversion to a national sales tax would bring about the end of unemployment as we know it when all of the price distortion in the labor market caused by income taxation is cleaned out of the knowledge stream conveyed throughout the market via labor prices. It will come in the form of shallower troughs in the business cycle: no more whip-saw employment, also known as fewer and smaller layoffs.
National sales taxes’ effect on the poor can also be mitigated by lowering or waiving altogether taxes on food, medicine and rental housing.
And finally, a national sales tax is 100% In Yo’ Face.â„¢ With fewer of our taxes hidden from us embedded in the prices of the goods and services we purchase the more intelligent decisions we will be able to make about the “services” we wish to purchase with our taxes.
yours/
peter.
So all you have to do to avoid the tax is to have a bank account? Or do you have to be bank?
Because if its the firs, then we’re really going after the bottom of society aint we?
Negative Commerce Clause preemption. The Constitution grants to Congress exclusive power to regulate interstate commerce. This measure won’t fly, and it will be deemed unconstitutional, as it creates an undue burden on interstate commerce.
What’s the use of a wire-transfer tax when immigrants and drugs flow across the border with little pause?
It’s foolish to think that people who have smuggled themselves into the country will not find a illegitimate way to get their money out.
Come on now.
Even a wall can’t stop that.
Peter
What happened to you man? You used to be cool. Now you’re just another plastic-fantastic, button-down Eutopian!
I personally believe pigs could fly but …
Are you saying people without bank accounts are socially inferior, actus?
More attention-getting behavior.
I’m with Peter and the others as far as support of a consumption-based tax.
My only fear in that regard–and why I’d hesitate to support any efforts to institute one–would be that we’d end up with both. I may be a cynic, but the Feds’ appetite for money to spend is apparently insatiable.
I’m saying they’re at the bottom of the pecking order.
That is a pretty flippant attitude toward the concerns of people like me. I may not quite be leaning toward impeachment, but I can understand and support the efforts of AZ voters to take matters into their own hands and within legal means.
They have a sheriff in Mariposa County arresting illegals, but the ACLU will put a stop to him eventually. The wall is not their choice to build. The reasons for their hands being tied?: the national border is a federal issue. We learned that here in CA, when courts overturned measures to curtail benefits for illegal aliens. It’s a legal and media mine field for any state to try and take it on directly. The states’ only recourse is in using somewhat indirect methods to control the issue to their benefit.
If the Bush administration is actually supporting the Mexican government to the degree reported, the states will start getting more creative in pushing back. At least the states that have the backbone will. I have no illusion that CA has the will to buck its trend of supporting an open border with Mexico, but I applaud the efforts in AZ to do something. To treat their concerns as like being denied some selfish Christmas gift-wish is a blatant and dangerous disregard for an entire segment of the country.
Ah, scratch that last comment. Guess I did’t see the putting Jeff to death remark until hilzoy posted the whole screed.
Here’s a story worth talking about. What happens when President Hillary is using all this info?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm
I give up. What happens?
Longer actus:
The same thing that happened when the last President Hillary was using it. Duh!
Brian, if you aren’t leaning toward impeachment, I’m not sure how a comment about people who want impeachment applies to your concerns at all.
I completely understand the desires of frustrated people to get support for issues that concern them. I applaud any reasonable effort to get your concerns addressed or to convince politicians of the correctness of your cause.
I think people who call for impeachment are ridiculous.