Jump to content
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Hotplant

Random Thoughts v.3

Recommended Posts

On ‎1‎/‎5‎/‎2019 at 4:47 AM, kipper said:

We can agree to disagree. I still say it just takes extra determination and a lot of sweat---- really the way it has always been.   Too many people conditioned to expect "the system"--- or the government to figure things out for them, when what it really takes is a willingness to scratch and claw to the top. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, SteveAJones said:

 

If you are referring to EB-5 visas, which grant residency to immigrants who invest at least half a million dollars in the U.S. and create or save no less than 10 jobs, then perhaps you are confused.

The EB-5 visa is issued in exchange for a $500,000 investment that creates or saves 10 American jobs. It is NOT a government grant, quite the contrary.

On average, 85% of EB-5 visas are issued to Chinese nationals, the remainder primarily issued to citizens of Vietnam, India, Hong Kong, Egypt and Brazil. Approximately, 9,700 EB-5 visas are issued annually.

 

Yes, I am aware of the EB-5 visa program but that is not what I was referring to. Let me find the info and I will post. I know the 7 year tax free status is very common knowledge, just ask any owner of a Chinese restaurant if they pay federal income tax and the answer is always no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, SteveAJones said:

 

I agree with this pretty much however what he said will not make you wealthy, or even middle class, it will only keep you out of poverty, nothing else. You need connections and you need money to make money, it has been like that for several decades.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, SteveAJones said:

 

^^^^BINGO!

 

 

 

Edited by kipper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, SteveAJones said:

 

If you are referring to EB-5 visas, which grant residency to immigrants who invest at least half a million dollars in the U.S. and create or save no less than 10 jobs, then perhaps you are confused.

The EB-5 visa is issued in exchange for a $500,000 investment that creates or saves 10 American jobs. It is NOT a government grant, quite the contrary.

On average, 85% of EB-5 visas are issued to Chinese nationals, the remainder primarily issued to citizens of Vietnam, India, Hong Kong, Egypt and Brazil. Approximately, 9,700 EB-5 visas are issued annually.

 

Ok, some of the programs mentioned which provide grant monies and other financial opportunities to Asians but not allowed to other groups are: IMMACT90 (has several programs), USPAACC (several programs), NMSDC, and various banks, large firms, etc.

 

This is my last post on this topic due to the nature involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PeaceFrogYum said:

 

 

This is my last post on this topic due to the nature involved.

o-ROB-ROY-570.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, PeaceFrogYum said:

Ok, some of the programs mentioned which provide grant monies and other financial opportunities to Asians but not allowed to other groups are: IMMACT90 (has several programs), USPAACC (several programs), NMSDC, and various banks, large firms, etc.

This is my last post on this topic due to the nature involved.

You essentially said all an Asian has to do to succeed in America is show up and apply for their $500,000 grant. IMMAC90 pertains to immigration control thru visa categories/expansion -- there are no government grants associated with IMMAC90. Nor are there any government grants associated with USPAACC, NMSDC, banks, large firms, etc. because all of those are privately owned and operated organizations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, SteveAJones said:

 

I find it difficult to understand why "having babies only when married" versus having babies with just a partner makes any difference if all other considerations are identical. Taxation or law considerations???? Seems strange - and should be of NO consequence if all other things are equal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, rm2551 said:

I find it difficult to understand why "having babies only when married" versus having babies with just a partner makes any difference if all other considerations are identical. Taxation or law considerations???? Seems strange - and should be of NO consequence if all other things are equal.

Yes, having children only within the context of marriage is the most advantageous approach for taxation and law considerations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, SteveAJones said:

Yes, having children only within the context of marriage is the most advantageous approach for taxation and law considerations.

Which when you think about it is wrong as it fosters a type, or at least encourages a form of social engineering. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, rm2551 said:

I find it difficult to understand why "having babies only when married" versus having babies with just a partner makes any difference if all other considerations are identical. Taxation or law considerations???? Seems strange - and should be of NO consequence if all other things are equal.

Because "baby daddies" are about as reliable as a AMC Pacer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, kipper said:

Because "baby daddies" are about as reliable as a AMC Pacer.

That's a generalisation. I'm saying if all other things are equal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, PeaceFrogYum said:

Which when you think about it is wrong as it fosters a type, or at least encourages a form of social engineering. 

Social engineering isn't necessarily a bad thing. Post WW2 suburbia was by design. But social engineering certainly can be a dangerous endeavour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, rm2551 said:

That's a generalisation. I'm saying if all other things are equal.

"IF" all other things are equal.  Problem is when a father isn't constrained by society to stick around come hell or high water far too many don't.  And then conversely telling young women that "putting the cart before the horse" and going ahead and starting a family before there is some iron clad assurances; it is often a recipe for disaster.

As it stands about 50% of marriages end up divorce anyway, so it is always a uphill climb right out of the gate. But that being said, why shoot yourself in the foot first before anything else?

The destruction of the family has caused more social strife post sexual revolution than just about anything else other than the welfare state.  Who was it that said, "the soft bigotry of low expectations"?

FYI- this is an interesting topic and I don't think it is necessarily a contentious one which we can't discuss. I think we both agree we want to see happy stable home lives and well protected children. I will concede that "IF" all things really are equal, then you are correct, what is the difference?  My reservation however is I don't believe they are all that often equal. And for men who have a built-in escape hatch to a relationship; they too often take it rather than stick around and do the harder thing and that is being a man and owning up to their responsibilities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, rm2551 said:

That's a generalisation. I'm saying if all other things are equal.

"If all other things are equal" is possibly the biggest generalization one can make. Besides, regardless if all other things are equal or not, having children only within the context of marriage is the most advantageous approach for taxation and law considerations. It is also the most advantageous approach for maintaining a stable society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SteveAJones said:

"If all other things are equal" is possibly the biggest generalization one can make. Besides, regardless if all other things are equal or not, having children only within the context of marriage is the most advantageous approach for taxation and law considerations. It is also the most advantageous approach for maintaining a stable society.

It's not meant as a generalisation - but to point out, if all other thing are equal, then inside or outside of marriage it should be of no consequence. In and of itself a family unit can function the exact same with or without the Marriage certificate. Yes, I realise reading that back how its a generalisation. 🤔

And I agree with the advantageous approach. No question.

I don't agree with Ben's overly simplistic breakdown and "3 rules" - it may be a considerable factor, I'll grant that. But luck/circumstance/opportunity - and the randomness of those, play a much larger role in my humble view.

Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, rm2551 said:

It's not meant as a generalisation - but to point out, if all other thing are equal, then inside or outside of marriage it should be of no consequence. In and of itself a family unit can function the exact same with or without the Marriage certificate. Yes, I realise reading that back how its a generalisation. 🤔

And I agree with the advantageous approach. No question.

I don't agree with Ben's overly simplistic breakdown and "3 rules" - it may be a considerable factor, I'll grant that. But luck/circumstance/opportunity - and the randomness of those, play a much larger role in my humble view.

Cheers.

A family unit cannot function the exact same with or without a marriage certificate in that it will have higher taxation, less legal protection and diminished social status.

Ben was purposefully speaking simplistically, because he was distilling a complex issue down to an essential truth, one which I happen to agree with. That said, I would say the real challenge in America is not so much attaining wealth as it is RETAINING wealth. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SteveAJones said:

A family unit cannot function the exact same with or without a marriage certificate in that it will have higher taxation, less legal protection and diminished social status.

Ben was purposefully speaking simplistically, because he was distilling a complex issue down to an essential truth, one which I happen to agree with. That said, I would say the real challenge in America is not so much attaining wealth as it is RETAINING wealth. 

Please explain the first sentence. Is it a taxable punishment with or without a marriage to have a family? Is a family subject to less legal protection without a marriage certificate? As for diminished social status, please explain. Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On January 10, 2019 at 1:45 PM, SteveAJones said:

 

Such obvious common sense measures that no doubt someone somewhere will complain is racist, sexist, xenophobic, etc. in this up is down, down is up wacko world we live in these days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, E A Poe said:

Please explain the first sentence. Is it a taxable punishment with or without a marriage to have a family? Is a family subject to less legal protection without a marriage certificate? As for diminished social status, please explain. Thank you.

Married filing jointly on an annual federal income tax return are taxed at a lower rate than if they were filing individually.

There is less legal protection without a marriage certificate. For example, depending upon their state of legal residence if one of the two parents were to die their estate may have to be settled through costly probate court as opposed to direct inheritance. There are also a whole host of inequities with regard to medical insurance coverage.

Marriage, to a large extent is a social construct. Without a marital bond the ascribed social status is often diminished..."living together"..."shacking up"..."playing house".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Random thought: Small govt.? Just fine. Interesting to see how it works in my lifetime.

Not perfect, but effective. Interesting.😎

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you laugh like an idiot & not enjoy something? Apparently I'm answering my own question or enjoying another round of some legendary album, even without the nods to the random shit that may pop up: Truth be told, there is no "Dark Side" of the moon...

 

:fan:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Strider said:

IMG_95481-1.thumb.jpg.c4162de511c69d11b594a3ffca1e4024.jpg

What 'X' are you? I am #7.

Eight, I write left handed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, JTM said:

Eight, I write left handed.

Same

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...