61–70 of 121 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's nothing new, if you pay $1million (or $500k depending on the area of investment) then you can essentially get a green card as it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EB-5_visa
Many other countries, such as the Netherlands, have a similar law: http://www.dutchdailynews.com/netherlands-offers-residency-t...
Ok, that's the immigration side. What is the tax status of people admitted under this rule? IIRC, only F and J visas are exempt from becoming American taxpayers Being an American taxpayer is fine and dandy if you never plan to live outside the us again; but if you aren't, it's a very expensive and labour intensive deal; your home country bank will fire you as a customer because of FATCA, the reporting requirements to…
Wouldn't substantial presence test determine tax payer status? I've been paying US income tax the past few years without even being there on a visa, simply by meeting substantial presence test while on visa waiver and not claiming a closer relation to any other country. [I travel a lot and spend more time in the US than anywhere else [roughly 5 months out of the year], but don't technically live anywhere]
If you do have "american taxpayer" status, banks outside the US (essentially all of them these days) will refuse to let you do anything other than keep a checking and saving account, and brokers will refuse to do business with you, thanks to SEC regulations that say that only SEC regulated brokers and banks can handle securities on behalf of US taxpayers.
This will be gamed hard by rich people to get into the U.S. Essentially a red carpet side door if you have a slab of cash.
I doubt that rich people are trying to get into the US (and make their worldwide income subject to taxation).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I doubt it. There are already 2 programs that allow rich people to immigrate by investing their own money: the EB-5 and the E-2 visa [1]. However, these visas require that people invest their own money. This visa is different because it allows investment with other people's money. It's a big change. [1] https://www.uscis.gov/green-card/green-card-through-job/gree...
E2 is explicitly a non immigration visa. In fact you need to demonstrate your intent to NOT immigrate during your interview process.
All this means in reality is that once you've come to the US and established the basis for another visa, your "intent" changes and you apply for an applicable immigration visa. People do every year with both the F-1 and the E-2 visa.
However, some people prefer to reside in the US long term with non immigration status. The E-2 allows people to emigrate to the US and remain there, indefinitely renewing their E-2 visa, whilst (i) protecting their future non-US tax status, and (2) entering and exiting the US for long periods of time (as long as the business is operating successfully). This contrasts with a green card, which (i) subjects green card holders to "citizen-like" tax obligations after a specified period of time and (ii) typically requires continuous residence in the US.
The continuous presence restriction would lift upon receipt of citizenship but not everyone wants (or is able) to hold dual citizenships.
An E-2 is just fine for many rich people.
Ok, that's the immigration side. What is the tax status of people admitted under this rule? IIRC, only F and J visas are exempt from becoming American taxpayers Being an American taxpayer is fine and dandy if you never plan to live outside the us again; but if you aren't, it's a very expensive and labour intensive deal; your home country bank will fire you as a customer because of FATCA, the reporting requirements to…
Holders of F and J visas do pay taxes in the US, though they may also be liable for taxes in their home countries. (Depending on treaties with their home countries, they may or may not be better off than a regular US taxpayer.) You may be thinking of the rule requiring American citizens to pay taxes over their worldwide income, not only their US income. That rule applies to American citizens as well as permanent resi…
It is indeed what I'm thinking about, but I believe you are wrong about the "temporary visa" thing - As far as I know, only F and J visas (inherently temporary) are exempt; H-1B, L-1, E-1, O and K visas which are temporary in the sense that they expire on job termination / divorce, but they still subject you to taxation of your worldwide income.
> There is no requirement (as far as I'm aware) to report "every single foreign transaction."
There is a requirement to report the details of every transaction that has capital gains and losses associated with it, if that transaction did not happen in the US.
A few years back, I got a call from my foreign bank one day, saying that because I was a US taxpayer (for several years, at that point, well documented with the bank), they could no longer maintain any of my accounts other than checking and saving. At that point, my bank was also my broker keeping some long term bonds, stocks, mutual funds, etc. So, they had me choose whether I want to transfer them to a SEC-regulated bank/broker (impossible - non had the facilities), or liquidate them -- which is what I did.
Had this been done in the US, I would just have to report aggregate capital gains/losses. and that's it. However, as this was outside the US, I had to fill a 2-page form describing every liquidation transaction that the bank did. I ended up filing north of 300 pages that year. "Luckily", now I can't purchase any of these securities so that won't happen again, except ....
> You're right that retirement planning can be complicated for immigrants and temporary visitors.
No, I'm not talking about retirement planning, which is indeed complicated.
Almost every country has a pension saving system independent of the social-security (or equivalent) system. In the US, for example, it is IRAs and 401K. These things get preferential tax treatments, usually "no tax (up to some limit) as long as you only cash it when you retire". However, the US does not recognize any other country's preferred retirement saving. Those savings are in 99% of the cases, a PFIC from the perspective of the US tax system.
Which leaves you with three choices: Either cash it, retroactively forfeiting any tax benefit (possibly 20 years of it), and move it to a US equivalent; Or .. pay a tax each year on the theoretical profit of those pension accounts ... or, pay a lump compounded interest-and-penalty tax the day you actually cash it, which will likely be 50%-100% of that sum.
Now, if you've moved to the US for good, then, by all means, you have to take the hit to switch systems. However, if you can't guarantee that you can stay forever, all your options regarding taxation of your pension saving are awful.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The rich pay few taxes and the international rich pay even less The rich pay almost all tax.
The chart depicted in xkcd https://xkcd.com/980/ doesn't seem to agree with this. http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-inco... Shows the top 50% paying nearly all the taxes. That is a far cry from the rich.
So as a simple-language summary we might all agree that the rich pay a majority of the taxes, while the richer half of the country pays nearly all the taxes.
sigh...another H1B hole so startups can enjoy the same benefits of cheap indentured labor as the big consulting agencies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One thing that will let you in is if you are invested in from > investors with established records of successful investments The rich get richer. Established investors get cheap labor, while upstart competitive investors get buried behind an artificial government wall. I wonder if any established investment firms lobbied for that?
Same with hedge funds. Government 'protects' the average investor by only letting qualified rich people invest in hedge funds (and get richer). I love how the government asserts that it knows what's best for me and protects me from myself. Such a free nation we live in.
Reading through it. The gist is you can get 30 months of parole from USCIS if you are a startup entrepreneur that has raised investment. Seems like the threshold is $250k and it can support up to 3 founders. You must own at least 10% to be considered a founder. Looks like you can also get an additional 30 months by raising a further $500k, or having at least $500k ARR with 20% annual growth, or employing 5 US persons…
One thing that will let you in is if you are invested in from > investors with established records of successful investments The rich get richer. Established investors get cheap labor, while upstart competitive investors get buried behind an artificial government wall. I wonder if any established investment firms lobbied for that?