Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Founder visa bill proposed

readwriteweb.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–28 of 28 posts

Re: Founder visa bill proposed

#21

Post by elai »

jacquesm wrote: post #9

The funny thing is that not that many people that would be able to afford this would actually do it. The USA is a nice country but there are many parameters that go in to the decision of choosing a place to live and it scores low on plenty of those. The US is the destination country of choice for people without money. Those with money are just as likely to go elsewhere.

I am tempted sometimes to start a company in the US just due to it's market and social access to places like silicon valley. But I do not want to become a US citizen since they tax their citizens globally, no matter where they are in the world, no matter where they make their income. If I'm living somewhere that the US does not have a tax treaty with, and making all of my income there, I don't want to give anything I make over 80'000 to the US govt. Hell people give up their US citizenship to just avoid this. But your still on the hook (somehow? It doesn't make sense if you revoked citizenship) for 10 years after that. And there is a wealth tax for giving up the citizenship right after.

Re: Founder visa bill proposed

#22

Post by neurotech1 »

cwan wrote: post #15
jacquesm wrote: post #9

The funny thing is that not that many people that would be able to afford this would actually do it. The USA is a nice country but there are many parameters that go in to the decision of choosing a place to live and it scores low on plenty of those. The US is the destination country of choice for people without money. Those with money are just as likely to go elsewhere.

One thing the stats don't show, and I'm quite curious about, are those who are wealthy but seek greater (or even continue to seek) opportunities. The bulk of taxes don't tax wealth - they tax income (and gains on wealth like capital gains, interest and dividends get treated differently depending on where you go). Perversely, the rich have the luxury then to be subsidized for certain parameters because they don't need…

Maybe an option to encourage startups is to offer a tax break for the first 12-24 months, if they create x (5 or 10) jobs. Irrespective of if the founders are US Citizen or Permanent residents.

Re: Founder visa bill proposed

#23

Post by cwan »

neurotech1 wrote: post #22
cwan wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One thing the stats don't show, and I'm quite curious about, are those who are wealthy but seek greater (or even continue to seek) opportunities. The bulk of taxes don't tax wealth - they tax income (and gains on wealth like capital gains, interest and dividends get treated differently depending on where you go). Perversely, the rich have the luxury then to be subsidized for certain parameters because they don't need…

Maybe an option to encourage startups is to offer a tax break for the first 12-24 months, if they create x (5 or 10) jobs. Irrespective of if the founders are US Citizen or Permanent residents.

The problem with this is the potential for massive gaming. The argument of non-startups would be why should they be penalized for having hired people before this period or are considering laying them off and would not otherwise be viable without the tax advantage?

Ideally they would make the tax incentives permanent - ie reduce payroll taxes if the goal is to increase employment, but I think the startup visa is a much more interesting alternative as it seeks to attract talent that traditionally is difficult to define but is so important to how vibrant an economy is. In theory, just the fact these people bring viable ideas that people want to fund should be sufficient irrespective of jobs they create.

Re: Founder visa bill proposed

#24

Post by neurotech1 »

cwan wrote: post #23
neurotech1 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe an option to encourage startups is to offer a tax break for the first 12-24 months, if they create x (5 or 10) jobs. Irrespective of if the founders are US Citizen or Permanent residents.

The problem with this is the potential for massive gaming. The argument of non-startups would be why should they be penalized for having hired people before this period or are considering laying them off and would not otherwise be viable without the tax advantage? Ideally they would make the tax incentives permanent - ie reduce payroll taxes if the goal is to increase employment, but I think the startup visa is a muc…

There is going to always be some company to game the system somehow. Look at Microsoft & their H1-B visa dependency.

That said, I think tax-breaks for increasing number of employees is a good idea.

Also, an investor can qualify for an EB-5 visa & green card by investing a $500k to $1m in "saving" 10 jobs.

Re: Founder visa bill proposed

#25

Post by borism »

ajaimk wrote: post #18
mechanical_fish wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an interesting link. I always wondered how much money I would need to buy my way into permanent residency in any country in the world. (I am assuming that the USA is among the most difficult -- those with expertise, please correct me if I'm wrong.) It's one of those useful benchmarks for how rich "rich" is. The price is high, but not astoundingly high, if I'm reading this right. You need $500k in capital that…

Then it might interest you that Panama requires only proof that you made $500/month to get a retirement visa

Interesting, but as I understand it this $500 is supposed to be your real pension, not some other form of income, thus requiring most of visitors of HN to wait some half a century until retirement in Panama :)

Re: Founder visa bill proposed

#26

Post by cwan »

neurotech1 wrote: post #24
cwan wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with this is the potential for massive gaming. The argument of non-startups would be why should they be penalized for having hired people before this period or are considering laying them off and would not otherwise be viable without the tax advantage? Ideally they would make the tax incentives permanent - ie reduce payroll taxes if the goal is to increase employment, but I think the startup visa is a muc…

There is going to always be some company to game the system somehow. Look at Microsoft & their H1-B visa dependency. That said, I think tax-breaks for increasing number of employees is a good idea. Also, an investor can qualify for an EB-5 visa & green card by investing a $500k to $1m in "saving" 10 jobs.

Forgive my ignorance, but can you explain how Microsoft games the system with H1-B's?

re: tax breaks for increasing the number of employees, here's a fairly balanced posting on the subject: http://business.theatlantic.com/2009/10/would_a_payroll_tax_... - of course on a more fundamental level, payroll taxes always has struck me as odd considering essentially it's a tax on companies for hiring folks.

For me, a permanent reduction would be a far greater incentive to hire people because at least for me, I hope that I am hiring someone for more than a year or two which is when presumably the tax breaks would expire.

Re: Founder visa bill proposed

#27

Post by marcamillion »

The only comment I would add to this is pg's quote at the end of the article "I think this would have such a visible effect on the economy that it would make the legislator who introduced the bill famous," says Graham. "The only way to know for sure would be to try it, and that would cost practically nothing."

Unfortunately...that's not true. It might cost no money, but it could cost the congressmen and senators their job at the next mid-term elections. Immigration reform is a hot-button topic, so as much as it would be a great thing to do, it might be politically untenable right now.

Note: I am a foreigner, that would definitely want to take advantage of this program if the bill is passed and it is implemented. Just commenting on the quote :)

Re: Founder visa bill proposed

#28

Post by ajaimk »

borism wrote: post #25
ajaimk wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then it might interest you that Panama requires only proof that you made $500/month to get a retirement visa

Interesting, but as I understand it this $500 is supposed to be your real pension, not some other form of income, thus requiring most of visitors of HN to wait some half a century until retirement in Panama :)

The alternative is to buy a house for $200,000
Post reply on HN