images Tax - Current Events 
delax
07-13 08:59 PM
Can't beleive people can sound so arrogant.That's exactly some of the hispanic politicians unwilling to provide any relief to any employment based immigration.Some people think they are "superior" than others, the so called "smartest", "brightest", "highly skilled".A country like the US needs people from a diverse background.It does not need all the Phds or masters.It needs chefs, agriculture workers, doctors, nurses, business persons, all backgrounds.Can you imagine that this country only consists of Phds?That's why when arguing why EB applicants should be given relieve first and then illegals, we should not sound we are "superior".Rather we should simply state our confidence about the integrity of the legal system.
As far as the so called "preference", how are you going to catergorize those under EB4, EB5, etc.?The so called "preference" is a myth.Otherwise, the law would only allow a "lower" perference to get a green card until all the "higher" ones get theirs.It is not the case, isn't?Rather it gives a % limit for each category.
If you find it arrogant then so be it - you are entitled to your opinion - that still does not change the truth - please read the post below.The law is written such that the skill, training and experience requirements of EB2 are clearly superior (to use your word) to EB3.The same is the case between EB1 and EB2 - you seem to be completely blind to the fact that any EB3/EB2 change can almost as easily be applied to EB2/EB1 as well.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=262198#post262198
Pasting the post in the link above:
At the risk of differing with you and inviting unflattering comments from others, but to benefit a healthy debate, I beg to differ that spill over should go to the most retrogressed at the expense of a difference in skill, training and experience level.As you probably may know, EB2 does require a different and arguably more enhanced skill, traninig and experience level than EB3.
If you beleive in the principle that in a land of meritocracy the higher skilled should have an easier path to immigrate then EB2 should always get a preference over EB3 regardless of country of birth so long as the ROW demand within the same category has been satisfied.
Understand, that this definition of EB3 and EB2 is all on paper.I am not saying that all EB2 are 'smarter' than EB3 and vice versa, but the letter/intent of the law is what it is.
Sounds harsh and heirarchical but is true.Obviously I have a vested interest in a favorable interpretation of the law and I welcome the spill over to EB2-I.This does have a flip side if you are EB3-I, but look at a few bulletins from last year/early this year where EB2-I was unavailable and EB3 still was current and/or had a cut off date for a ROW/retro country.
As far as the so called "preference", how are you going to catergorize those under EB4, EB5, etc.?The so called "preference" is a myth.Otherwise, the law would only allow a "lower" perference to get a green card until all the "higher" ones get theirs.It is not the case, isn't?Rather it gives a % limit for each category.
If you find it arrogant then so be it - you are entitled to your opinion - that still does not change the truth - please read the post below.The law is written such that the skill, training and experience requirements of EB2 are clearly superior (to use your word) to EB3.The same is the case between EB1 and EB2 - you seem to be completely blind to the fact that any EB3/EB2 change can almost as easily be applied to EB2/EB1 as well.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=262198#post262198
Pasting the post in the link above:
At the risk of differing with you and inviting unflattering comments from others, but to benefit a healthy debate, I beg to differ that spill over should go to the most retrogressed at the expense of a difference in skill, training and experience level.As you probably may know, EB2 does require a different and arguably more enhanced skill, traninig and experience level than EB3.
If you beleive in the principle that in a land of meritocracy the higher skilled should have an easier path to immigrate then EB2 should always get a preference over EB3 regardless of country of birth so long as the ROW demand within the same category has been satisfied.
Understand, that this definition of EB3 and EB2 is all on paper.I am not saying that all EB2 are 'smarter' than EB3 and vice versa, but the letter/intent of the law is what it is.
Sounds harsh and heirarchical but is true.Obviously I have a vested interest in a favorable interpretation of the law and I welcome the spill over to EB2-I.This does have a flip side if you are EB3-I, but look at a few bulletins from last year/early this year where EB2-I was unavailable and EB3 still was current and/or had a cut off date for a ROW/retro country.
wallpaper Current Events
nojoke
04-13 01:37 AM
or for those who intend to buy 2 - 3 houses for investment.This is a superb link (since picture is worth more than thousand words).honestly speaking - the delay in GC has saved me (and people like me who wanted to wait for GC before buying a house).
greed has no bounds:D.i bet they will never sell these even now, thinking the rebound is just months away.They will hold on to it and then eventually will be foreclosed :(.They drank too much of kool-aid from realtors.
greed has no bounds:D.i bet they will never sell these even now, thinking the rebound is just months away.They will hold on to it and then eventually will be foreclosed :(.They drank too much of kool-aid from realtors.
puddonhead
06-05 05:22 PM
Your leverage is $270,000 in this investment, and you pay 5% interest on it which is tax deductible.You don't suppose one can borrow 270Gs to invest in, per my example, S&P 500 to get 10% annually?Of course the you are able to borrow that much on a home is because it is considered relatively a safe debt for the lender.That can't be said for stocks.
How/where else will you earn $15,000 (equity) per year by spending $13,500 (interest).
Now we are getting into another different fun topic - how does a real estate "investment" compare with other forms of investment.
1.Leverage = speculation = risk.By taking the leverage and buying the house - you lock in a 3-5% return and a lot of risk (for a 200k house - that would be 10k/year max).The 3-5% comes from long term price appreciation trends.
If I did not buy that 200k house - I would invest the initial 40k and the rest of 160k gradually every month.For simplistic calculations:
return from 40k - 5% (I can show you reward checking accounts with that rate even now).Inflation protected TIPS could be a good place if you are afraid of hyperinflation
Earnings = 2k.
You save 3k each year by renting.
Running Total = 5k.
Every year - you put in some money to your investment vehicle = mortgage amortization.So over 30 years - you would have been earning investment income on $80k @5% on an average = 4k.
Running Total = 9k.
So you are making 1k more by buying - AND taking a lot of leverage = risk.
Inflation can upset this calculation - but not much.1980 - 2008 was an unusual period of low inflation and high growth = high housing price increase.Any bets on how sustainable that would be?Typically housing price appreciation would be at or below inflation - which would favor other investment vehicles over real estate.
I personally would need much more compelling reasons than the above to buy.
This calculation does not take into account the flexibility in relocation if you do not buying a house.It alos does not consider the risk a*sociated with having the largest chunk of your portfolio invested in a single non-diversified house instead of having a properly diversified portfolio.
Probably not very relevant - but you can get a lot of leverage if you have the stomach for it by opening a brokerage account with 40k (your initial downpayment).A good semi-professional one would be IB (interactivebrokers.com).Margin accounts give a 3X/4x leverage any day.Buy a few interest rate, currency or commodity swaps with that - and your leverage can reach stratospheric levels.I know I dont have the stomach for that.
How/where else will you earn $15,000 (equity) per year by spending $13,500 (interest).
Now we are getting into another different fun topic - how does a real estate "investment" compare with other forms of investment.
1.Leverage = speculation = risk.By taking the leverage and buying the house - you lock in a 3-5% return and a lot of risk (for a 200k house - that would be 10k/year max).The 3-5% comes from long term price appreciation trends.
If I did not buy that 200k house - I would invest the initial 40k and the rest of 160k gradually every month.For simplistic calculations:
return from 40k - 5% (I can show you reward checking accounts with that rate even now).Inflation protected TIPS could be a good place if you are afraid of hyperinflation
Earnings = 2k.
You save 3k each year by renting.
Running Total = 5k.
Every year - you put in some money to your investment vehicle = mortgage amortization.So over 30 years - you would have been earning investment income on $80k @5% on an average = 4k.
Running Total = 9k.
So you are making 1k more by buying - AND taking a lot of leverage = risk.
Inflation can upset this calculation - but not much.1980 - 2008 was an unusual period of low inflation and high growth = high housing price increase.Any bets on how sustainable that would be?Typically housing price appreciation would be at or below inflation - which would favor other investment vehicles over real estate.
I personally would need much more compelling reasons than the above to buy.
This calculation does not take into account the flexibility in relocation if you do not buying a house.It alos does not consider the risk a*sociated with having the largest chunk of your portfolio invested in a single non-diversified house instead of having a properly diversified portfolio.
Probably not very relevant - but you can get a lot of leverage if you have the stomach for it by opening a brokerage account with 40k (your initial downpayment).A good semi-professional one would be IB (interactivebrokers.com).Margin accounts give a 3X/4x leverage any day.Buy a few interest rate, currency or commodity swaps with that - and your leverage can reach stratospheric levels.I know I dont have the stomach for that.
2011 Current Events
a) Full time employees of large and small Companies like Engineers/Pharmacist/Internal positions/...ex GE/Microsoft/Google/Wellpoint.These guys do not work for "Clients".Usually do not have bench.(there may be some exceptions but minimal unethical behavior is expected).
b) Full time employees who work for large (Big5 and more) and small CONSULTING firms and consult to other organization...They work for specific project at a "client".Get paid at all times when on project and and on bench.(minimal unlawful activity)
c) Full time employees of small mom and pop firms (small business/ grocery store/restaurants etc) Get paid a salary but a lot of perk (which are not on w2 in order to save taxes...and that is unethical behavior).
d) Employee (may be not full time) focused on work at "Client".They are not full time because they do not get paid when they are not on project.Usually smaller "consulting" firms (i would prefer to call them "contracting" firms) do this.There may be many many layers of contracting firms.Each is involved in some sort of unlawful activity.
I think USCIS should/will go after folks involved in unlawful activities like untaxed money paid...wrong skills listed etc etc etc......Lastly, Just because one was able to do this before does not mean it was legal...
Stop the infighting......do not generalize...if you want to generalize...generalize only on 1 dimension...LAWFUL vs.UNLAWFUL
My 2 cents...
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.