Opinions on a Tariff system for immigration?

Opinions on a Tariff system for immigration?

Essentially, I mean an immigration system where you buy the right to become a guest worker or citizen.

America has a "humanitarian" system (i.e. dindus and wetbacks come and get gibsmedats), while people with real skills are put in the back of the line. Not to mention, big biz usually packs guest worker quotas, and pushes out competing employers.

The immigration tariff is the idea that for $50,000 per person, you can live and work here (but no welfare or shit like that). Came from economist Gary Becker.

then u be like nz and hav chink millionaires everywhere

I'd rather prioritize by a more complete background check and expected economic productivity than a one-time fee.

I don't think we want to try to survive by selling ourselves off to the highest bidder in every conceivable way. Think: we sell the Chinese our imaginary debt, and they cycle it back into the system to buy up our actual things of value. Not good.

There's only so many chink millionaires. As much as I hate them, I could handle a few thousand hanging around to stimulate the economy.

>(((Gary Becker)))

>people without jobs buying things.

>a few thousand
chinese upper middle class is about 200 million people

The problem I see is when these migrants start being sponsored by rich as fuck muslims

Do you have any idea how many fucking chunks there are?

You don't want this

Upper middle class doesn't make you a millionaire.

Maybe in Yen.

Maybe we could find a way to jew them out of their assets in our country and deport them.

I wouldn't call it selling ourselves off. It costs public money to work and live here. We're making people pay for what they get.

This isn't a substitute for expanding background checks and cutting off people from Goatfuckistan. It's an alternative for economic migration policy.

We do not need immigrants.

I repeat, we do not need immigrants.

Close the borders, since what you're proposing is only marginally less controversial than that.

I don't really like the idea of it on its face, for the same general reason I dislike the notion of having to pay to get any job. I think it could be fair enough to have something akin to an internship like indentured servitude or whatever - a system where your earnings are taxed at a slightly higher bracket than a comparable worker for example.

Expecting skilled individuals to fork over a bunch of cash straight up to get in though seems unrealistic. That's something that's done by private immigration services which have been shown to be rife with abuse and scamming.

I don't know that I really object to a toll to come here, but that's still a one time fee rather than whatever public money it will cost over the course of their stay here. I'm just not convinced that that's the right way to prioritize who we take in.

I live near a big globalist university, which tends to prioritize demographic shift by abilities and economic benefit, which is nicer than what's being prioritized by a "refugee" drop zone and a good place to get the rich Chinese locust swarm (both of which it also is). But the university also prioritizes by globalist indoctrination, which is not good.

Even worse I don't think we want the sheer dimension of the demographic shift. It's obviously a net economic drain on the area, as well as basically steamrolling the native culture and stable race relations.

Until your population can't afford houses.

You can just break the fee up over 5-8 years.

A P2P immigration system is probably going to be more eurocentric then our current one. We've long specifically capped the number of Europeans coming here.

Taxing land inflation would probably fix that.

That just makes it even more expensive to own a house, and effectively makes private property owned and rented out by the government.

>That just makes it even more expensive to own a house

Taxing land inflation drops the price of marginal land, so it opens up the market for homes in the long run. Plus, you could make buildings tax free.

>effectively makes private property owned and rented out by the government

Lolbergtarian nonsense."Taxing makes it government owned!!!!"

I don't know, taxing inflation is like taxing tax increases. Maybe you're right about that, but it seems to me that's dust delving further into derivatives land. Do inflation-protected treasury bonds really make sense, or is that really just a silly way of hiding the inflation behind even more debt? And then if it doesn't work out, they'd just rig the inflation numbers and tax rates anyhow to keep it going. An idea to consider, but I'm not sold on it.

The property tax this isn't just a lolbertarian nonsense thing. If they seize your property and evict you if you don't pay the property tax, then that's rent. We used to have aloidal title. And property taxes are supposed to mainly cycle back through the local school system, which at least makes some kind of sense, but now all the school are dependent on federal funding anyway, and not even the income tax goes to pay for that funding, so the whole thing is just a bunch of arbitrary demands.

I find it very difficult to lean toward increasing how complicated the system is than vise-versa.

"Land inflation" is often generated from public goods constructed nearby. Wealthy landowners lobby govt to spend public money on nearby public works, so they can raise rents. This, as you probably know, is called rent-seeking

And good point about equating property tax to rent. At the very least, all property tax evasion needs to be decriminalized.