<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Rentiers are welcome in the U S</title>
	<atom:link href="http://menaceofprivilege.com/2010/01/rentiers-are-welcome-in-the-u-s/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://menaceofprivilege.com/2010/01/rentiers-are-welcome-in-the-u-s/</link>
	<description>While privilege exists, justice can&#039;t be achieved.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 13:06:05 -0600</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Administrator</title>
		<link>http://menaceofprivilege.com/2010/01/rentiers-are-welcome-in-the-u-s/comment-page-1/#comment-391</link>
		<dc:creator>Administrator</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 02 Jan 2010 14:50:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://menaceofprivilege.com/?p=727#comment-391</guid>
		<description>Well, it might be that the border should be entirely open, and everyone invited to live in the US. I neglected to state that I assume that wouldn&#039;t work very well, that immigration should be limited to some lower amount. So then we have the question of how to decide who should be admitted, and who should be barred.

You will recall that we define capital as material things that aid production.  But that&#039;s not what these immigrants bring. They bring money.  There is already lots of money, the Fed can always make more, and under a greenback system the government could directly print what it needed. So how do we benefit from the money immigrants bring? 

It is required that the investment be used to &quot;create&quot; jobs.  It is good for everyone to have the opportunity to work, but we know that&#039;s not limited by money or capital, but by access to suitable land. The case mentioned in the post, a derelict shopping center in Milwaukee, will remain idle only as long as the taxes on the land are too low to force it into use. So it would be easy for State and local authorities to increase employment, if that was their main objective. 

In fact, the E5B requirements are only loosely related to jobs The investment can be thru a limited partnership (the immigrant needn&#039;t take an active role), and can be for purchase of land. If it is made in an area of high unemployment, it can be as little as $500,000 and jobs assumed to be created indirectly (at contractors or suppliers) can be counted toward the total requirement of ten jobs. (see http://www.eb5immigration.com/faqs.php)

So there is not requirement that the EB5 immigrant produce anything, or contribute to the production of anything. On the other hand, the laborer who comes without assets will produce, although he might not have skills to produce very much.  (If the EB5 immigrant has important skills, there are other programs under which she could be admitted.)

So it seems to me that, if we are going to allow people to become legal residents by investing money, we should take the money directly.  10,000 immigrants/year at $1 million each = $10 billion.  Maybe you want to look at it this way:  How much, over many years, must an American earn in order to save $1 million? I am sure it varies, but probably $3 or $4 million on the average. So how much taxes would she have had to pay while earning this much? (Count not just the taxes, but the cost of suboptimal tax-directed investments, and the cost of tax advice.) I bet it would be at least $1 million. So we are merely levelling the playing field.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well, it might be that the border should be entirely open, and everyone invited to live in the US. I neglected to state that I assume that wouldn&#8217;t work very well, that immigration should be limited to some lower amount. So then we have the question of how to decide who should be admitted, and who should be barred.</p>
<p>You will recall that we define capital as material things that aid production.  But that&#8217;s not what these immigrants bring. They bring money.  There is already lots of money, the Fed can always make more, and under a greenback system the government could directly print what it needed. So how do we benefit from the money immigrants bring? </p>
<p>It is required that the investment be used to &#8220;create&#8221; jobs.  It is good for everyone to have the opportunity to work, but we know that&#8217;s not limited by money or capital, but by access to suitable land. The case mentioned in the post, a derelict shopping center in Milwaukee, will remain idle only as long as the taxes on the land are too low to force it into use. So it would be easy for State and local authorities to increase employment, if that was their main objective. </p>
<p>In fact, the E5B requirements are only loosely related to jobs The investment can be thru a limited partnership (the immigrant needn&#8217;t take an active role), and can be for purchase of land. If it is made in an area of high unemployment, it can be as little as $500,000 and jobs assumed to be created indirectly (at contractors or suppliers) can be counted toward the total requirement of ten jobs. (see <a href="http://www.eb5immigration.com/faqs.php" rel="nofollow">http://www.eb5immigration.com/faqs.php</a>)</p>
<p>So there is not requirement that the EB5 immigrant produce anything, or contribute to the production of anything. On the other hand, the laborer who comes without assets will produce, although he might not have skills to produce very much.  (If the EB5 immigrant has important skills, there are other programs under which she could be admitted.)</p>
<p>So it seems to me that, if we are going to allow people to become legal residents by investing money, we should take the money directly.  10,000 immigrants/year at $1 million each = $10 billion.  Maybe you want to look at it this way:  How much, over many years, must an American earn in order to save $1 million? I am sure it varies, but probably $3 or $4 million on the average. So how much taxes would she have had to pay while earning this much? (Count not just the taxes, but the cost of suboptimal tax-directed investments, and the cost of tax advice.) I bet it would be at least $1 million. So we are merely levelling the playing field.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rob Ross</title>
		<link>http://menaceofprivilege.com/2010/01/rentiers-are-welcome-in-the-u-s/comment-page-1/#comment-389</link>
		<dc:creator>Rob Ross</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 02 Jan 2010 04:45:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://menaceofprivilege.com/?p=727#comment-389</guid>
		<description>You lost me - why is it undesirable to invite people who invest in American businesses to become citizens?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You lost me &#8211; why is it undesirable to invite people who invest in American businesses to become citizens?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

