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

International Entrepreneur Rule

federalregister.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 121 posts

Re: International Entrepreneur Rule

#91

Post by cma »

oh_sigh wrote: post #75
cma wrote: post #26

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?

Without it, you would have people just buying their way into 6+ years in the country.

How about instead we use something similar to the existing framework for minimizing charity fraud?

Re: International Entrepreneur Rule

#92

Post by Daishiman »

spiralpolitik wrote: post #86
uiri wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

especially when compared the the new H1B threshold at 100K What on Earth are you talking about? That $100K threshold is designed to target body shops. There are a class of employers which are H-1B dependent; generally, those with at least 15% of their employees on the visa. Currently, H-1Bs with a salary of at least $60K are not counted toward that 15%. The bill will change this to $100K salary. It is possible to hir…

The 100k threshold will do nothing for body shops. They will structure it so that on paper every employee makes the required amount to keep the DOL/DHS happy while clawing it back from the employee through "fees", "charges", and other underhanded tactics. They've always done this and always will.

It increases the threshold of money involved, increases the amount of potential accounting tricks they have to do, and it raises the bar.

Political measures don't need to be absolutely effective to be useful. Raising the difficulty might be enough to deter a large number of fraudulent applications.

Re: International Entrepreneur Rule

#93

Post by JabavuAdams »

lend000 wrote: post #82
bsder wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Government 'protects' the average investor by only letting qualified rich people invest in hedge funds Having dealt with this situation recently, I'm a little more sympathetic to the government's position. Most investors are dumb. Really dumb. No, dumber than that. It's really easy for a con man to set up shop. It takes forever to get him shut down, and the scammed will fight you. Scammed investors will defend the…

Sounds like a problem with a different part of the system (too many legal protections to effectively shut down ponzi schemes/cons/etc.). In general, I've never heard a compelling argument that the government should pass laws that limit people's freedoms, solely for the purpose of potentially defending people from their own willful decisions that affect only themselves.

> from their own willful decisions that affect only themselves

Handing your savings to a con man affects more than just yourself. It destroys your family, which increases crime, etc.

No one person wants to be constrained, but en masse these kinds of things can destroy a society. Especially when they are well-known cognitive exploits that work on people despite their own stated preferences.

Re: International Entrepreneur Rule

#94

Post by shagie »

robotresearcher wrote: post #66
shagie wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The data you link to shows that the top 5% income people pay 58.55% of all taxes, while the the top 50% pay 97.22%, as you indicated. 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.

The richer half of the country _own_ 97.5% of the wealth. ( http://www.businessinsider.com/15-charts-about-wealth-and-in... ). It is hard to not pay nearly all of the taxes in that situation.

Note that the "richer half" starts at the median income. For the US, the median income is about $52k. That isn't particularly wealthy. When the bar for "nearly all the wealth" is set at that point, it is not surprising at all.

Re: International Entrepreneur Rule

#96

Post by nopinsight »

Finbarr wrote: post #2

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…

Does anyone know how the process is supposed to work once one gets the Parole? Would the Parole allow one to travel freely in and out of the States, like a Green Card holder, during the its valid period?

E-2 visa for some nationals requires the person to reapply for the visa if one travels outside the US and wants to get back in, which is a major pain point. (There is a period, for example 6 months or 1 year, when the re-entry is permitted without re-application. This varies with the country.)

Re: International Entrepreneur Rule

#97

Post by gotrecruit »

nopinsight wrote: post #96
Finbarr wrote: post #2

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…

Does anyone know how the process is supposed to work once one gets the Parole? Would the Parole allow one to travel freely in and out of the States, like a Green Card holder, during the its valid period? E-2 visa for some nationals requires the person to reapply for the visa if one travels outside the US and wants to get back in, which is a major pain point. (There is a period, for example 6 months or 1 year, when th…

about the E-2 thing you said, it's only true if you applied within the US. if you applied and got an E-2 outside of US, you can freely leave and enter on it anytime.

Re: International Entrepreneur Rule

#98

Post by piotrkaminski »

beagle3 wrote: post #65
FallujahJane wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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 residents ("green-card holders"), but generally not to anyone in the US on a temporary visa. 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…

> However, the US does not recognize any other country's preferred retirement saving.

This is not completely true: Canadian RRSPs are recognized by the IRS at the federal level due to a tax treaty, though may not be recognized by all states. (For example, I had to figure the interest on the investments for my California return, until I decided to sell the RRSPs to simplify my life.) Other countries may get special treatment for their tax-deferred retirement accounts via a tax treaty too, though it can be tricky to ascertain -- you may end up actually having to read the treaty!

Re: International Entrepreneur Rule

#99

Post by deepGem »

nopinsight wrote: post #96
Finbarr wrote: post #2

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…

Does anyone know how the process is supposed to work once one gets the Parole? Would the Parole allow one to travel freely in and out of the States, like a Green Card holder, during the its valid period? E-2 visa for some nationals requires the person to reapply for the visa if one travels outside the US and wants to get back in, which is a major pain point. (There is a period, for example 6 months or 1 year, when th…

I read through the rules and couldn't find any mention. Which means it's safe to assume that you can travel freely in and out of US within the parole period. All Visas to the US are mostly multiple entry Visas unless otherwise stated. Probably this parole is similar.

Re: International Entrepreneur Rule

#100

Post by nopinsight »

gotrecruit wrote: post #97
nopinsight wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does anyone know how the process is supposed to work once one gets the Parole? Would the Parole allow one to travel freely in and out of the States, like a Green Card holder, during the its valid period? E-2 visa for some nationals requires the person to reapply for the visa if one travels outside the US and wants to get back in, which is a major pain point. (There is a period, for example 6 months or 1 year, when th…

about the E-2 thing you said, it's only true if you applied within the US. if you applied and got an E-2 outside of US, you can freely leave and enter on it anytime.

I talked with an immigration lawyer last year. She told me that the period of free re-entry was only within 6 months of the visa issuance. I did check and found a list of varying periods for different countries on some website (I can't find it now.)

However, I just found this paragraph on www.uscis.gov:

"An E-2 nonimmigrant who travels abroad may generally be granted an automatic two-year period of readmission when returning to the United States. It is generally not necessary to file a new Form I-129 with USCIS in this situation."

So I guess one may want to re-check to be very sure if one wants to get an E-2. I'm going to apply for the Entrepreneur Parole since it fits my situation much better.

Post reply on HN