IDK, sounds like it's a bunch of stupid misc. fees. So instead of just raising the minimum wage for H1Bs and indexing it to inflation, they raise taxes (and these taxes on H1Bs don't seem like a consequential funding source. They might even bring in less tax revenue than raising the H1B minimum wage to where it should be if it had originally been indexed to inflation.)
In Washington state it is. But I'm talking about the minimum salary to get an H1B visa which is $60,000. Given that H1Bs are intended to substitute for skilled professionals where the prevailing wage is easily twice that these days, raising it and indexing it to inflation seems like common sense.
If you hire H-1B you should be required to pay a fee greater than it costs to educate an equivalent American. Otherwise you're always in the situation where you have to hire foreigners because no Americans are trained. (or in reality you hire foreigners because they're cheaper for the same role which this no longer makes it the case)
NJ, home of the H1B scam. I worked with these guys at some large corporations on contract and as an employeed (F500 companies). I felt bad for them. Modern serfs. They lived in housing owned by you know the names of these indian firms that do 'anything'. Companies love the low cost, unlimited hours, and no need to hire, they're contractors. they sign deals with big indian vendors to provide everythingunderthesun.
Poor dudes are like ' this is my chance to make it in America' and the high caste indian management treats them like dirt.
The 'old boomers yelling at young people' is a myth in professional America compared to the absolute screaming insults you'd hear hurled at these guys.
And if they messed up? boom, gone, next guy flown in.
Also (in above source), no ACA subsidies for H-1B visa holders (and others), which likely means employers they will have to pay more for health care if they want to cover their immigrant workers
The $100/year fee while an asylum case is pending means that the government is charging someone for the government's own inability to process cases quickly.
The House's[1] SEC. 112104. EXCISE TAX ON REMITTANCE TRANSFERS. 3.5% tax became 1% in the Senate's[2] SEC. 70604. EXCISE TAX ON CERTAIN REMITTANCE TRANSFERS and a lot of the language changed.
The Senate made a lot of changes (Byrd rule also nuked a lot of stuff) so old articles are of limited use to the final bill.
I don't even know if [2] is the actual final text as there is neither an enrolled or public law version on congress.gov yet.
It's super annoying how often we can't read the final text of a bill before Congress votes on it.
> 3.5% remittance fees on sending money out of the US:
The version of the bill that passed a 1% excise is applicable "only to any remittance transfer for which the sender provides cash, a money order, a cashier’s check, or any other similar physical instrument".
This is not true. There's a TCS of 20%, which is an advance tax payment that you can claim back in your income tax returns at the end of the year, and it not an additional tax. This is just a (bad) mechanism to stop black money from leaving the country.
Thanks I didn't realize that it was refundable, I guess "India makes people loan 20% of their foreign remittances to the government interest-free" would be more accurate.
> "India makes people loan 20% of their foreign remittances to the government interest-free" would be more accurate.
It wouldn't. The TCS can be offset against other tax liabilities. The government pays out 6% interest on excess tax payments. For reference, 364 day T-bills are currently yielding ~5.5%.
The idea is to force reporting and add friction. Not raise revenue.
Yes, but why the domestic r&d must be amortized only within 5 years? One way it is harder for finance to deduct all the expense within 1 year or they have to amortize only within 5 years. In case of foreign r&d expenses though they cannot detect in the year they incur but they have 15 years amortize. So I don't get the benefit of. In fact if they haven't touched this it could have been much better. In tcja they made it worse. And they fix it partially by making it deductible within the year they incur for domestic r&d. But the amortization still kills it.
Tax deductible is a weird way of phrasing it. It's not like these software companies were counting their money at the end of the quarter, and then deciding to do R&D instead of paying taxes. They had already paid R&D expenses to build the product, which gained them revenue. Previously they weren't allowed to actualize the cost of R&D all at once, so the business could be losing money, and still have to pay taxes on top of the loss (which is nuts).
This fixes the problem, so now if you spend $100 on software developers, and you make $100 from the software, then you have $0 income, instead of $80 income.
It was also weird because people pay money on income (dividend, partner payment, SCorp share, etc.) anyway, so in a long term view this incentivized companies to keep fewer software engineers on staff.
It’s more about whether or not the company has taxable profits for that year (importantly these are not the same as real profits). I would read this article to understand more about how being forced to amortize tax deductions for expenses affects a business’s taxes.
