this post was submitted on 15 Nov 2025
382 points (98.0% liked)

politics

26409 readers
2208 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene said she will introduce a bill to end H-1B visas, which allow companies to bring skilled foreign workers, days after Donald Trump backed the program.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] wampus@lemmy.ca 11 points 3 days ago (5 children)

Yeah, I don't agree.

Here in Canada we pay a buncha tax to get things like universal healthcare and to fund various social programs, we also handle taxes differently than other jurisdictions.

Like even with the existing setup, one of the issues we have is that there's been a fairly standard style of immigration where chinese citizens will buy property in Canada and have the kid and "stay at home mom" living in Canada, while their Dad/breadwinner stays in China. One reason its done this way is that Canada was considered to have better education opportunities and social supports for the non-income earning side of the family -- and property taxes are fairly low in places like Vancouver, with income taxes being very high. However in China, it's the opposite -- high property taxes, low income taxes. So as a country/region, you end up with basically no tax income, but high social program costs, with 'needy welfare' people living in multimillion dollar properties.

And once the kid is through school, and entering the workforce.... they often go back home to china to take over the family business from a retiring parent. That parent then comes to Canada, and enjoys the old age social security network.

If you remove all impediments to inter-country immigration, I reckon that sort of abuse would become so rampant that social programs would become essentially unsustainable.

[–] kandoh@reddthat.com 5 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Canadians that move abroad don't pay the sales tax and lose their insurance. Why shouldn't people who moved to Canada and pay the sales tax get the healthcare insurance?

[–] wampus@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 days ago

Canadians who move abroad for a long time lose their insurance, but it's not tied explicitly to the fact that they don't pay a sales tax. They also tend not to report their income / pay income taxes to Canada if working outside of Canada (unlike in the states, where they expect taxes to be paid from every citizen no matter where they are in the world).

People who move to Canada, can currently get insurance coverage as part of immigrating to the country, which generally means staying in and working in Canada for an extended period as a PR to start. During that time they're paying income taxes and sales taxes etc.

The ops comment implies that it should be like a light switch that is tied to your employment. There's a reason there's a process to immigration flows.

[–] IphtashuFitz@lemmy.world 5 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Those sound like the sorts of issues that could easily be addressed by well thought out legislation. I have a nephew that recently got a digital nomad visa so that he could work for his US employer while traveling around Europe. Some of those countries require you to prove you have health insurance or buy insurance from their national health network. Those countries also regulations regarding taxes, etc. that the visa holder is responsible for.

So Canada should pass laws to close the loopholes you describe. They would need regulations similar to digital nomads that apply to foreign exchange students etc.

[–] wampus@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 days ago

Yeah, but a bunch of legislation and conditions isn't what the op guys comment was hinting at. He was basically saying, get a job? Congrats, you've immigrated and get all the citizenship perks of wherever you work.

[–] fodor@lemmy.zip 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

You are making two claims, perhaps indirectly, that I think are simply false. (1) You claim there's no contribution requirements for national pension. Not true, says the government website. (2) You claim the mom and kid don't pay taxes in the hypothetical. The national government already has various rules to prevent "income sprinkling" that address this exact issue.

So basically, you're accusing the Canadian tax agency of failing to do its job without presenting evidence of that.

[–] wampus@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 days ago

Issues with Chinese immigrants are well known and documented, literally with immigrant families openly exposing their own community's rampant fraud methods to our supreme courts, because "that's just how its done in Canada!".

Paying a little bit of sales tax on modest purchases, is not sufficient to sustain social support programs. Taxes are paid in various ways, and yes, there's a minimal contribution made by the non-earning people staying in Canada, but it's not enough to offset the costs of providing social support services to the extended family.

I don't think I mentioned the pension program specifically, that's on you. When I 'm mentioning old age social supports, there's more than just 'old age pensions' in Canada (heck, there's CPP and OAS, so two direct payments in terms of 'pensions' even) -- the universal healthcare system is another example. The cost of that system increases significantly for the older demographic, as people become more reliant on pills/medications. There's a reason a bunch of seniors from the states, in the past at least, would buy prescription meds in Canada, for example -- and that's tied to us having a government funded approach to providing those medications (the US medi-tourists are basically leeching off us). The basic premise of the system is that, generally, working age adults who have less reliance on the healthcare system, fund it via taxes, with the expectation that it'll be there when they need it (generally when they're older).

We do have a problem with frauds and abuse, but the system can tolerate some fraud and abuse. If the ops approach were adopted, we'd have rampant fraud and abuse. The system can't tolerate rampant fraud and abuse. I don't think this sort of statement requires me to go into absurd detail to justify/demonstrate, frankly, and I'm not going to bother further.

[–] shiroininja@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

Yeah thats some kind of asinine loophole Canada has that has nothing to do with what I proposed. Like how is that even possible.

[–] colourlessidea@sopuli.xyz 1 points 2 days ago

applying for a job, getting the job

Applying for and getting a job implies income, which in turn should result in taxation.