3 ms·

I'm already paying you for social security and medicare that I will probably never be eligible to benefit from, and you want me to pay extra 'fuck you' taxes as

I'm already paying you for social security and medicare that I will probably never be eligible to benefit from, and you want me to pay extra 'fuck you' taxes as well? Thanks but no thanks. Aside from that, this wouldn't be simple at all because changing the visas available would in many cases involve renegotiating the deals that they made with other countries that got those visas created in the first place. Sure, it would likely be possible to tell all the other countries to get stuffed, but good luck getting US citizens a visa to travel anywhere if you keep doing that.

dragonwriter 13y ago
> I'm already paying you for social security and medicare that I will probably never be eligible to benefit from, and you want me to pay extra 'fuck you' taxes as well? This was in response to a suggestion about what the government would do if it was interested in serving its citizens. If you would be paying the fees, serving you is very much not the point. Though I'll point out that, by moving from employee sponsorship and charges (and pay limits, etc.) on employers for things like H-1B to charges to the prospective entrant, it means that the entrant has substantially more freedom (and potentially greater net income after charges, too, since instead of the employer paying a fee and dealing with wage limits, the employee pays a flat fee and a share of income, but isn't burdened by salary limits.) > Aside from that, this wouldn't be simple at all because changing the visas available would in many cases involve renegotiating the deals that they made with other countries that got those visas created in the first place. By definition, changing the non-treaty visas, as I specified, would not require that, and many economic visas (including the H-1B) are not treaty-based. Obviously treaty-based econonmic visas like the H-1B1 (Singapore or Chile), TN/TD (NAFTA), E-1/E-2 (Treaty Trader/Treaty Investor) etc. are a separate issue, but at least in theory the government is serving citizens interests with those because of the reciprocal benefit US citizens have with regard to economic entry to the countries involved.
- jacalata 13y ago
  Sorry - I missed the 'non treaty' mention in your post. Doesn't that pretty much mean H1Bs (and maybe all the investor visas)? While I agree that it would increase employee freedom to have them bear the cost and not be tied to the company, I doubt that it would end up with increasing income - in theory, all the Silicon Vally companies are already paying as much as they can to attract talent. edit: actually, there is of course also O, L, P and I. I'm not sure how much you'd gain by folding them into a single category - there's very little relationship between,e eg, whether Nadal should be here for the US Open and how many programmers should be coming here. L perhaps has some overlap.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > Sorry - I missed the 'non treaty' mention in your post. Doesn't that pretty much mean H1Bs (and maybe all the investor visas)? > edit: actually, there is of course also O, L, P and I. And the immigrant E series Employment-related ones. There's a few others that might fit into the general description I laid out depending on exactly where you draw the line on transitory (non-immigrant H-2A, for instance, could be argued either way.) (I specify immigrant/non-immigrant, because there's a handful of categories designations used for both immigrant and non-immigrant classes where the use between the two classes has no real relationship; E is one of these.) > I'm not sure how much you'd gain by folding them into a single category - there's very little relationship between,e eg, whether Nadal should be here for the US Open and how many programmers should be coming here. "How many" isn't really an issue, since the whole idea of folding it into one class is that its a class that is open to any non-banned entrant and isn't numerically limited, instead its open-for-pay. Anyhow, I'd think Nadal for the US Open be a non-immigrant B-1, which is transitory by any reasonable definition, and certainly isn't in the scope of what I was proposing.

dragonwriter 13y ago

> I'm already paying you for social security and medicare that I will probably never be eligible to benefit from, and you want me to pay extra 'fuck you' taxes as well? This was in response to a suggestion about what the government would do if it was interested in serving its citizens. If you would be paying the fees, serving you is very much not the point. Though I'll point out that, by moving from employee sponsorship and charges (and pay limits, etc.) on employers for things like H-1B to charges to the prospective entrant, it means that the entrant has substantially more freedom (and potentially greater net income after charges, too, since instead of the employer paying a fee and dealing with wage limits, the employee pays a flat fee and a share of income, but isn't burdened by salary limits.) > Aside from that, this wouldn't be simple at all because changing the visas available would in many cases involve renegotiating the deals that they made with other countries that got those visas created in the first place. By definition, changing the non-treaty visas, as I specified, would not require that, and many economic visas (including the H-1B) are not treaty-based. Obviously treaty-based econonmic visas like the H-1B1 (Singapore or Chile), TN/TD (NAFTA), E-1/E-2 (Treaty Trader/Treaty Investor) etc. are a separate issue, but at least in theory the government is serving citizens interests with those because of the reciprocal benefit US citizens have with regard to economic entry to the countries involved.

jacalata 13y ago
Sorry - I missed the 'non treaty' mention in your post. Doesn't that pretty much mean H1Bs (and maybe all the investor visas)? While I agree that it would increase employee freedom to have them bear the cost and not be tied to the company, I doubt that it would end up with increasing income - in theory, all the Silicon Vally companies are already paying as much as they can to attract talent. edit: actually, there is of course also O, L, P and I. I'm not sure how much you'd gain by folding them into a single category - there's very little relationship between,e eg, whether Nadal should be here for the US Open and how many programmers should be coming here. L perhaps has some overlap.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > Sorry - I missed the 'non treaty' mention in your post. Doesn't that pretty much mean H1Bs (and maybe all the investor visas)? > edit: actually, there is of course also O, L, P and I. And the immigrant E series Employment-related ones. There's a few others that might fit into the general description I laid out depending on exactly where you draw the line on transitory (non-immigrant H-2A, for instance, could be argued either way.) (I specify immigrant/non-immigrant, because there's a handful of categories designations used for both immigrant and non-immigrant classes where the use between the two classes has no real relationship; E is one of these.) > I'm not sure how much you'd gain by folding them into a single category - there's very little relationship between,e eg, whether Nadal should be here for the US Open and how many programmers should be coming here. "How many" isn't really an issue, since the whole idea of folding it into one class is that its a class that is open to any non-banned entrant and isn't numerically limited, instead its open-for-pay. Anyhow, I'd think Nadal for the US Open be a non-immigrant B-1, which is transitory by any reasonable definition, and certainly isn't in the scope of what I was proposing.