BajaNomad - ....US border Fee$ coming!?

....US border Fee$ coming!?

micah202 - 4-22-2013 at 12:38 PM

...I just heard that the DHS has proposed to start charging 'traveller taxe$' at it's land borders similar to those charged at airports.
...this sounds like it'd be a nasty hit to those who regularly cross,if the charge takes effect-it's in a budgetary proposal stage right now,,,no mention of the amount .

http://kitchener.ctvnews.ca/snowbirds-upset-with-proposed-u-...

[Edited on 4-22-2013 by micah202]

Ateo - 4-22-2013 at 12:48 PM

Just charge $50 to cross and that'll cut down on the long border wait.

. Kidding.

Timo1 - 4-22-2013 at 12:51 PM

They're doing a 9 month study on it

Already a lot of opposition from border buisnesses stateside
That depend on cross-boarder shopping

DENNIS - 4-22-2013 at 12:57 PM

They bring out this topic occasionally and for some reason it always hits a deadend.
I would be willing to pay if they would speed up the process, but I wouldn't particularly care to pay if all I got was abuse.

OK...check this out: Around ten years back, I applied for a new passport as mine was about to expire.
Well....I did everything including pay for it, but I never received it in the mail.
I went to the passport office in Chula Vista and all they would say was don't tell us, call this number.
I was on my way to the VA, and I had a bag of change, so when I got there I tried to call from a pay phone only to find out the telephone number was a 900 number, just like the phone sex sites, and no matter how hard you try, you can't call a 900 number from a pay phone.
That afternoon back at the motel, I again called the number using my credit card, and when I got through, I asked the lady on the other end about the 900 number and she told me it was an effort by the passport agency to become self-sufficient.
So much for taxes.

DianaT - 4-22-2013 at 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ateo
Just charge $50 to cross and that'll cut down on the long border wait.

. Kidding.

Yes it would. :biggrin:

Seriously, bad idea for commerce. I am sure San Diego will oppose it.

DENNIS - 4-22-2013 at 01:10 PM

Mexico would likely follow suit in their newborn push for fiscal solvency. We just have to wait and see if either side restricts the fee to foreigners. That would be Hari Kari.

DaliDali - 4-22-2013 at 02:05 PM

Well shucks.....they fund robot squirrels so why not something that at least has some merit.

DHS Hopes To Explore Border Crossing Fee

Whale-ista - 4-22-2013 at 05:18 PM

From http://www.kpbs.org/news/2013/apr/22/dhs-explore-border-cros...

DHS Hopes To Explore Border Crossing Fee
Monday, April 22, 2013
By John Rosman
The Department of Homeland Security wants to study establishing a crossing fee along the Southwest and Northern borders.

In the DHS 2014 budget proposal, the agency asks Congress to allow a study assessing the feasibility and cost associated with establishing fees for crossers at the international borders.

The study would also look at collecting from existing operators like toll operators and commercial buses as well.

The study would be conducted within nine months of the budget’s passage.

Here’s the entire text in the congressional Budget Justification FY 2014:

Sec. 544. (a) The Commissioner of the United States Customs and Border Protection shall: (1) conduct a study assessing the feasibility and cost relating to establishing and collecting a land border crossing fee for both land border pedestrians and passenger vehicles along the northern and southwest borders of the United States; the study should include: (A) the feasibility of collecting from existing operators on theland border such as bridge commissions, toll operators, commercial passenger bus, and commercial passenger rail; (B) requirements to collect at land ports of entry where existing capability is not present; 17and (C) any legal and regulatory impediments to establishing and collecting a land border crossing fee; and (2) complete the study within 9 months of enactment of this Act.

Explanation: The Department requests insertion of this provision to enable the Department to examine the feasibility and costs of establishing a land border fee.

More details from KPBS website

Whale-ista - 4-22-2013 at 05:21 PM

http://www.kpbs.org/news/2013/apr/22/dhs-explore-border-cros...

User Fees are Fair ................

MrBillM - 4-22-2013 at 07:48 PM

And, ALWAYS preferable to taxes where practical.

The user has the option to engage (or not) in the subject activities.

They are the ONE Libertarian idea which (in theory) makes sense.

Pay YOUR OWN way. Don't expect others to subsidize your decisions.

The usual problem is that (like various alternative tax proposals), they end up being in addition to, rather than replacing, existing taxation.

micah202 - 4-22-2013 at 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MrBillM
And, ALWAYS preferable to taxes where practical.

The user has the option to engage (or not) in the subject activities.

They are the ONE Libertarian idea which (in theory) makes sense.

Pay YOUR OWN way. Don't expect others to subsidize your decisions.

The usual problem is that (like various alternative tax proposals), they end up being in addition to, rather than replacing, existing taxation.

...sounds all fine until you think of the 1000's of mexicans who cross the border -daily- to service low-paying work in SanDiego

Subsidizing Service Jobs ?

MrBillM - 4-22-2013 at 08:33 PM

That would seem a poor argument against user fees.

IF those crossing to work find it uneconomical, they will need to find an alternative. It should not be MY (or anyone's) involuntary task to support THEIR life decisions.

IF they are necessary to the employment market and no others are available, the employers involved would pay the necessary costs to keep them.

IF the economics dictate that the employer can find alternative employees at a better cost considering the fees, so be it.

The market should ALWAYS prevail.

rts551 - 4-22-2013 at 09:04 PM

Is the border there to service border crossers or close off the border for the many who never cross?

ncampion - 4-23-2013 at 08:36 AM

Both...........

Protect and Serve ?

MrBillM - 4-23-2013 at 09:34 AM

The primary purpose of border enforcement is SECURITY and protection of U.S. commerce within our National, State and Local laws to OUR National interests.

ALL other considerations are secondary, tertiary, ................

There is NO responsibility to make life convenient for those who wish to travel back and forth beyond the borders.

rts551 - 4-23-2013 at 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by MrBillM
The primary purpose of border enforcement is SECURITY and protection of U.S. commerce within our National, State and Local laws to OUR National interests.

ALL other considerations are secondary, tertiary, ................

There is NO responsibility to make life convenient for those who wish to travel back and forth beyond the borders.

Then based on your own definition, those are the ones who aught to pay.

Pay YOUR Way

MrBillM - 4-23-2013 at 12:52 PM

Those who make the Voluntary decision to cross the border and return should have NO objection to paying for their usage IF it reduces the cost-burden for those who don't.

As an alternative to GENERAL taxation, User Fees make sense.

ALMOST always.

howabouti - 4-23-2013 at 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MrBillM
Those who make the Voluntary decision to cross the border and return should have NO objection to paying for their usage IF it reduces the cost-burden for those who don't.

As an alternative to GENERAL taxation, User Fees make sense.

ALMOST always.

This is really a hot issue for us here in Canada who cross into the US often.

rts551 - 4-23-2013 at 01:14 PM

Quote:

If I take this further, then I shouldn't pay taxes for the FAA since I voluntarily don't fly. Correct? and since I don't feel threatened ( I spend most of my time in Mexico) I should not be paying taxes for defense. Correct? or where does the voluntary decision part stop

NEXUS

bajaguy - 4-23-2013 at 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by howabouti

Quote:

This is really a hot issue for us here in Canada who cross into the US often.

If you cross often, why don't you get in the NEXUS program???

ncampion - 4-23-2013 at 01:20 PM

Quote:

With this logic, you imply that US citizens should be confined to the country by the government? I don't think so.

howabouti - 4-23-2013 at 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by rts551

Quote:

Paying taxes for the common defence is a burden that should be shared by all. You benefit from having a standing army, whether or not you feel threatened. I think the issue of defending the borders is also a component of common defence, and the burden should be borne equally by all.

howabouti - 4-23-2013 at 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bajaguy

If you cross often, why don't you get in the NEXUS program???

Will being in the NEXUS program mean the US will waive the proposed new border crossing fee?

BajaRat - 4-23-2013 at 01:32 PM

I'd rather get rid of all the border patrol stops in state and cut back federal spending. :fire:

rts551 - 4-23-2013 at 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by howabouti

Quote:

Originally posted by rts551

Quote:

DENNIS - 4-23-2013 at 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by howabouti
I think the issue of defending the borders is also a component of common defence, and the burden should be borne equally by all.

If the payment is commensurate with the quality of protection and defense we get at the border, I'll be looking for a rebate in the mail.

Confined ?

MrBillM - 4-23-2013 at 06:47 PM

It's a bit illogical to equate a user fee with citizens being confined within the borders.

Anyone is FREE to leave. they're just studying a re-entry fee to mitigate costs.

As already noted, such is the case with Air Travelers who seem to do just fine traveling.

Speaking of Air Travel, there likely should be a further shift towards User Fees for FAA costs to those utilizing the system.

Border crossing FEE

Retireded - 4-26-2013 at 10:20 AM

According to Yesterday's news on a San Diego tv channel, the department of homeland security is now planning to charge us for crossing the border into the U.S. If they do, first time they want to look inside my car, I'm going to tell them Sure, that will be ten bucks.
:lol:

durrelllrobert - 4-26-2013 at 11:07 AM

The Canadians are saying they will reciprocate by charging US citizens the same fee to enter Canada. Can Mexico be far behind?

sancho - 4-26-2013 at 11:14 AM

Seems the way to pay for the crossing back would
be a real cluster, I suppose go online pay by credit
card, seems a reach, they can't even get more than
70% of crossers to
have proper documents, Passport/Passcard

DENNIS - 4-26-2013 at 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by sancho
Seems the way to pay for the crossing back would
be a real cluster, I suppose go online pay by credit
card, seems a reach, they can't even get more than
70% of crossers to
have proper documents, Passport/Passcard

Just a few more toll booths.

Didn't we just have a discussion about this?

chuckie - 4-26-2013 at 12:14 PM

Dont go back...works for me..

Tell it to THE MAN ?

MrBillM - 4-26-2013 at 01:40 PM

"According to Yesterday's news on a San Diego tv channel, the department of homeland security is now planning to charge us for crossing the border into the U.S. If they do, first time they want to look inside my car, I'm going to tell them Sure, that will be ten bucks".

In the 50 years that I've been crossing the border on my own, I have TOLD the (now) ICE agents a wide variety of things, some of which I found quite witty.

But, they didn't.

What I DID find out from ALL of those encounters was that THEY always had the LAST word.

Sometimes having that last word involved me spending a number of hours in their company.

Although it took me a number of years longer than it should, nowadays it's ALL "Yes, SIR".

But, more power (and luck) to those who want to headbutt that wall.

msawin - 4-26-2013 at 09:55 PM

And of course we have the LARGER government employee base with a LARGE $$$$ retirement program that votes YES..

Bajafun777 - 4-26-2013 at 11:45 PM

Never going to happen, so "Don't Worry Be Happy!!" Take Care & Travel Safe---" No Hurry, No Worry, Just FUN" bajafun777

Alan - 4-27-2013 at 06:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by BajaRat
I'd rather get rid of all the border patrol stops in state and cut back federal spending. :fire:

With that thinking did you also remove all of the locks from the doors to your house to save on keys? :lol:

Bajaboy - 4-27-2013 at 06:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by msawin
And of course we have the LARGER government employee base with a LARGE $$$$ retirement program that votes YES..

And we all know that larger government employee base is far more powerful than any lobby in Washington :lol:

fee for crossing

akshadow - 4-28-2013 at 07:30 PM

Fine with me, but wasn't paying for Sentri paying a fee for faster crosssing?
As long as they have an electronic card like some toll road booths use where you prepay and get in a faster lane. Could leave some lanes for people who do not want to pay for better service.
People who attempt to cross without a prepaid would need to have way to quickly pay.

Quicker crossings are worth a lot of money to many people.

Finding the Way to Pay for Play

MrBillM - 4-29-2013 at 09:03 AM

In theory a good idea, BUT:

In all likelihood, the study will determine that the difficulties of implementing the system will preclude its adoption. Especially, given the ponderous nature of the Federal Bureaucracy.

There ARE ways that it "could" work, including (initially) providing incentive to pay by making one (or more) pay lines more convenient than others.

For that matter, yearly charges associated with Sentri and the Ready lanes could be adopted. Those of us already paying for the Sentri usage would, no doubt, pay more. Albeit, with some grumbling.

ANY shift to User Fees is a desirable goal where it can be practically implemented and provide an economic advantage.

[Edited on 4-29-2013 by MrBillM]