5538591
story
Comments: 490 +- News: US Colleges Say Hiring US Students a Bad Deal on Thursday August 13, @08:27AM
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topiced.gif); width:87px; height:64px;
education
theodp writes "Many US colleges and universities have notices posted on their websites informing US companies that they're tax chumps if they hire students who are US citizens. 'In fact, a company may save money by hiring international students because the majority of them are exempt from Social Security (FICA) and Medicare tax requirements,' advises the taxpayer-supported University of Pittsburgh (pdf) as it makes the case against hiring its own US students. You'll find identical pitches made by the University of Delaware, the University of Cincinnati, Kansas State University, the University of Southern California, the University of Wisconsin, Iowa State University, and other public colleges and universities. The same message is also echoed by private schools, such as John Hopkins University, Brown University, Rollins College and Loyola University Chicago."
Related Stories
The heaviest object in the world is the body of the woman you have ceased
to love.
-- Marquis de Lac de Clapiers Vauvenargues
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.
Tax Exempt? (Score:5, Informative)
the majority of them are exempt from Social Security
The last time I worked with people on an H1B visas, Social Security was paid.
Re:Tax Exempt? (Score:5, Informative)
If you are a foreign student and graduate from the US normally you start on your F-1 (practical training for one year) and then switch to an H1B. J-1 visas are mostly for people in universities since it's for visiting scholars.
Do not take things out of context! What the document says is companies might save some money if they hire foreigners on F-1 or J-1 visas. It is just so foreigners _who_study_in_the_United_States_ can find a job since employers seem to be under the impression that hiring a foreigner is a hassle. This would not apply to foreigners that get any other kind of visas. Also, the F-1 or J-1 visas do not last forever. Once you graduate you can extend it at most one year. Once you are on an H-1 visa you have to pay social security, medicare and everything everyone pays.
Still, to actually get the H-1 visa _is_ a hassle unless the employer is a university.
Parent
Re:Tax Exempt? (Score:5, Informative)
"What the document says is companies might save some money if they hire foreigners on F-1 or J-1 visas. "
Actually the document I saw didn't even put it that way. It simply stated what was required for whom. There was no aspect of trying to use "savings" as a sales pitch.
Parent
Re:Tax Exempt? (Score:4, Insightful)
Who said the government ever makes sense?
Seriously. Look at Microsoft - they've been pushing outsourced (e.g. "revolving temp agency hiring") and overseas-sourced (how many times did Bill Gates lie his ass off claiming he "couldn't find" people trained to do things here while pushing for H1-B increases?) for years now. I have a friend who just spent three years "working for Microsoft", but he was actually hired by a temp agency (along with 80% of the people in his building) and forced to work "Shifts" with 90-day breaks in between "hirings" to avoid MS or the temp agency having to pay out certain benefits.
Of course we should be making it better on taxes to hire American workers than foreign workers, and that doesn't just go for visa holders; we should be taxing companies that use outsourced labor overseas, too. If they don't want to pay the tax, they can move their factories and resources back to the States.
Michael Dell is too cheap to pay for labor in the country that made him rich. I think the government owes him a reality check on behalf of US.
Parent
Re:Tax Exempt? (Score:5, Insightful)
Or you could ... I dunno .... maybe SIMPLIFY THE TAX CODE and get rid of these dumb laws which create these idiotic problems in the first place? How much longer do you expect to be able to keep adding bandaids on top of one another?
Parent
Re:Tax Exempt? (Score:4, Insightful)
Or you could ... I dunno .... maybe SIMPLIFY THE TAX CODE and get rid of these dumb laws which create these idiotic problems in the first place? How much longer do you expect to be able to keep adding bandaids on top of one another?
Won't happen. The only reason the populace hasn't overthrown the current government is because the tax code is complicated enough that people don't realize how screwed they are.
Parent
Re:Tax Exempt? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, if they would start a very honest effort, I'm sure they could find TONS of stuff they could do without. Let's start with some really outdated things they fund? I mean, the just recently got rid of the federal excise tax [arstechnica.com] that used to be on your phone bill that was used to pay for the Spanish-American war. That tax lasted from 1898 till 2006 I believe. Well, there are federal spending dollars going to things like that too. We could start there and drop all spending for programs that are outdated.
No we don't need to cut education dollars first..BUT, why not dismantle the bureaucracy layers above the teachers and schools? I mean, we pay a LOT per student, but, by the time that $$ actually reaches the student, there is very little left for him and the teacher and the school itself. If you could cut out the upteen layers of middle men, I'll be you'd find we could cut spending, and STILL have the student/teacher level realizing more dollars than they do today.
While I do support a safety net for the elderly and the truly infirmed, I don't see a need to subsidize any abled bodied person that can work. If you screwed around and didn't get an education, well the world needs fruit picked and ditches dug. If we put off all the able bodied workers on welfare and entitlement programs, we wouldn't have a need for so many ILLEGAL (there is a difference) alien workers. Taking care of that situation, would also ease the burden that feds and state have to pay for schools and social services that non-citizens use, as well as a large chunk of medical expenditures that we all pay treating illegals here in the US at the emergency rooms that they use for emergency and less than emergency tx.
Have you seen the highway system lately? It isn't looking good. Let's stop subsidizing everyone, the corn farmers, the corporations, all the special interests. We should NOT be giving money out to anyone from the tax coffers. It should only be used for basic government needs and functions. Hell, why do we give money to other countries? I mean, sure, in a time of need emergencies, I don't have a problem with it..like when the tsunami hit, sure you help out. But this constant stream of $$ out of the US is just bribe money for trying to get someone to vote or act our way. Screw that.
There is a fuck-ton load of waste in the bureaucracy of the United States govt.
Unfortunately, I think the only way to get the Fed. to stop spending like a drunken sailor on leave, is for the states to grow some balls, and STOP SENDING MONEY to the federal govt. I think we have to dry up the funds before they will cut the spending.
Parent
Re:Tax Exempt? (Score:5, Interesting)
Interesting how in the paragraph prior you decry the quality of the educational system in the US, and then proceed to blame those who failed to get a quality education. You should run for office! You've got the "talking out of both sides of your asshole" down perfectly.
Parent
Re:Welfare bums now SS disability bums. (Score:5, Insightful)
so why the hell are you bitching and not reporting them and their "doctors" for fraud like a responsible citizen.
fuck dude, take some responsibility.
Parent
Re:Tax Exempt? (Score:5, Insightful)
Hey, at least it is ONE govt. program that DOES stimulate the economy and put money back in the hands of the citizens. There is a lot of money to be made in working these military govt. contracts. At least they aren't wasted dollars as bad as some govt. projects are. Good high tech jobs for these dollars, better than subsidies to corn farmers and high fructose corn syrup interests.
Parent
Re:Tax Exempt? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Tax Exempt? (Score:4, Insightful)
I question the idea that funding of military is good for the economy. Military spending is often on manufacturing of non-renewable items. Items, like bullets and missiles, that need storage when not used and can only be used once(often to destroy objects of value).
As opposed to producing things that have utility value, like fishing nets, rakes, pots/pans, etc.
Yes, intelligence satellites became used for GPS and stuff, but what if money was used for civilian benefitting tasks to begin with? Would it have yielded better economic results
Parent
Re:Tax Exempt? (Score:5, Insightful)
With the way the recession is currently in the US, it makes no sense for the US govt. to not only allow, but, in some cases expedite bringing foreigners in (or letting them in willy nilly across the border illegally) to fill jobs that our own citizens are in desperate need of...
That makes little sense, but I approve. In fact, as somebody who lives in Europe, I encourage every smart, qualified worker who doesn't feel welcome in the US to come over here. We'll get out of these economic problems by having smart people do innovative things. It doesn't really matter where they were born, but it does matter where they work.
I don't see that a state funded school should be allowed by the taxpayers of that state to promote the hiring of foreign people over US citizens either...that's not what my tax dollars should be going for...
So you're saying that universities should promote political opinions instead of the truth?
Parent
Re:Tax Exempt? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Do not take things out of context! What the document says is companies might save some money if they hire foreigners on F-1 or J-1 visas. It is just so foreigners _who_study_in_the_United_States_ can find a job since employers seem to be under the impression that hiring a foreigner is a hassle."
With the way the recession is currently in the US, it makes no sense for the US govt. to not only allow, but, in some cases expedite bringing foreigners in (or letting them in willy nilly across the border illegally) to fill jobs that our own citizens are in desperate need of...
These particular foreigners have come to study at universities here. The universities bring foreign students over for a number of reasons:
* It makes it easier for our students to study in foreign countries when they want to.
* Different academic emphases in different cultures lead to students who bring a fresh perspective and a different set of background knowledge to research and inquiry.
* Foreign students are usually required to pay not just non-resident tuition, but an even higher additional fee to public universities.
* Positive experiences studying in the US send foreign students home with a new take on American culture and values. It's a fairly cheap and easy method of exporting democracy to certain parts of the world.
Our own university system would suffer if we ended international student recruitment. Unfortunately, because studying at US institutions is so expensive, many foreign students need to be able to find jobs to work while they're in school. Therefore, those programs are threatened by bigoted or ignorant employers who have something against hiring foreign students. (They're also threatened by DHS procedures that get students placed on the wrong list and have their visas held up for weeks, while their research languishes and in some cases completely expires, losing them a year or more of work.)
Parent
Re:Tax Exempt? (Score:4, Informative)
No. Most international students have F-1 visas, not J-1. Most of exchange students are on J-1.
Parent
makes no difference for tax purposes (Score:5, Informative)
both F-1 and J-1 are exempt.
http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/international/article/0,,id=131635,00.html [irs.gov]
F-visas, J-visas, M-visas, Q-visas. Nonresident alien students, scholars, professors, teachers, trainees, researchers, and other aliens temporarily present in the United States in F-1,J-1,M-1, or Q-1/Q-2 nonimmigrant status are exempt from Social Security / Medicare Taxes on wages paid to them for services performed within the United States as long as such services are allowed by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) for these nonimmigrant statuses, and such services are performed to carry out the purposes for which they were admitted into the United States.
* Exempt Employment includes:
o On-campus student employment up to 20 hours a week (40 hrs during summer vacations)
o Off-campus student employment allowed by USCIS
o Practical Training student employment on or off campus
o On-campus employment as professor, teacher or researcher
* Limitations on exemption:
o The exemption does not apply to spouses and children in F-2, J-2, M-2, or Q-3 nonimmigrant status.
o The exemption does not apply to employment not allowed by USCIS or to employment not closely connected to the purpose for which they were admitted into the United States.
o The exemption does not apply to nonimmigrants in F-1,J-1,M-1,or Q-1/Q-2 status who change nonimmigrant status to a status which is not exempt or to a special protected status.
o The exemption does not apply to nonimmigrants in F-1,J-1,M-1, or Q-1/Q-2 status who become resident aliens for tax purposes.
Parent
Solution? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Solution? (Score:5, Informative)
Did nobody actually read the linked documents? All of them are promoting hiring students from the university. They simply list what laws apply when a busness hires international students. All of them exist to clear up misconceptions people might have about hiring foreign students, so that they are not unfairly ignored in the hiring process.
For example, one question is "Does the student need a work permit to be hired" and the answer is no. The student cannot get a work permit until they have a written job offer, so any employer waiting for proof of a work permit before giving an interview is asking for the impossible.
I think Cmdrtaco should read TFA.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
CUT Taxes don't increase them (Score:3, Insightful)
Here is a radical option, drop FICA and Medicare taxes, seeing that College age students will never benefit from the programs because they will be long broke by the time the students reach retirement. Combined that with dropping the aggregate (State + Federal) Corporate tax rate to less than 10% and you will see Companies rushing into the US, bye bye 10% unemployment.
Unfortunately, we are headed in the exact opposite direction with a Government take over of health care. Taxes are going to go through the ro
Tax cuts are not a cure all (Score:5, Informative)
...drop FICA and Medicare taxes, seeing that College age students will never benefit from the programs because they will be long broke by the time the students reach retirement.
Nice sound bite but it is only true if the funding for those programs remains like it is today. I think the odds of that happening is a pretty good approximation of zero. Social Security and Medicare are the largest and most popular government programs out there. It is unlikely Congress will act quickly absent a fiscal emergency but sooner or later they'll have to address the funding of those programs.
Combined that with dropping the aggregate (State + Federal) Corporate tax rate to less than 10% and you will see Companies rushing into the US, bye bye 10% unemployment.
With the additional effect of causing millions of senior citizens who lose their primary income and health care. Which would have a devastating effect on their economic well being. There is no free lunch. Those programs serve a very real and very important purpose in spite of their problems.
We are already why to the right on the Laffer Curve and going further to the right is just going to push up unemployment more.
Sounds to me like you don't actually understand the Laffer Curve. The Laffer Curve hypotheses that there is an optimum tax rate - it might be necessary to raise OR cut taxes to reach that optimum. It does NOT tell you where you are on the Laffer curve, nor does it tell you what that optimum actually is. The Laffer curve does not prescribe or predict - it merely is a theory that an optimum exists. This makes it of limited value. The only way to find out for certain is to change the tax rate and see what happens but it is entirely possible we have a tax rate that is too low. That's the dirty little secret of those who constantly push for lowering taxes claiming that it will increase revenue based on the Laffer curve. You cannot possibly know where you are on that curve so you cannot use the Laffer curve as evidence that cutting taxes (or raising them) will be good policy.
Parent
Re:CUT Taxes don't increase them (Score:4, Informative)
We are already why to the right on the Laffer Curve [wikipedia.org] and going further to the right is just going to push up unemployment more.
No, we are not way over to the right on the Laffer curve - that belief is Laffable. The US had some of its highest marginal tax rates - up around 90% - between WWII and the Kennedy administration, to pay down the war debt. The economy grew, and the debt got paid down. We're currently nowhere near the level of debt-to-GDP ratio we faced at the end of the second world war, and have nowhere near the level of marginal tax rates we had then, so to put it bluntly the prognostications of economic doom and gloom from fine fellows such as yourself strike me as nothing but fear tactics.
Here's a fun exercise - go grab the numbers from your favorite legitimate source for debt, GDP, and which party had control of the white house, congress, and the senate. Put them all together in a spreadsheet or stats package. Generate the debt-to-GDP ratio, and plot that side by side with who was making the laws and policies. If you really want to do it right, you should lag the ratio by a year because the economy has some inertia, and it takes a little time for new policies to get a toehold. You'll probably be surprised at what you see.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Or you could move to a sales tax instead, giving the consumer everything they make and letting them make the decision on which company is actually giving them a better product to spend their money on. Domestic and Foreign students all have to buy goods and services and nobody would be left out. Government would have to encourage business to keep the money coming in. Capitalism can start working again. Businesses won't have to hire teams of accountants to figure out which tax brackets every employee fall
Re:Solution? (Score:5, Insightful)
a sales tax does not make the congressman a middleman with sufficient power
Parent
Re:Solution? Its not a sales tax. (Score:4, Interesting)
Sales tax sucks because it slows down the velocity of money. You pay sales tax whenever the dollar circulates which could be many times in a year.
And an income tax is taken off every time the dollar circulates to the company you bought your item when it pays it's employees... what's the difference?
Parent
Re:Solution? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm curious as to your source for your facts.
Fact Sheets: Taxes History of the U.S. Tax System [treas.gov]
1918 - Tax rates set at 25% of GDP
1920s - Tax rate reduced to 13% of GDP
1932 through 1936 - Tax rates increased, by 1940 tax rate at 6.8% of GDP
1941 - 7.6% of GDP
1944 - 20.9% of GDP
1945 - 20.4% of GDP
1950 - 14.4%
1952 - 19%
1960s through 1970s - 19.4% up to 20.8%
1986 - 17.5%
1990 - 18%
2000 - 20.8%
R Davis' receipts and outlays plots [att.net]
1950 through 2008 - Tax rate varied from 14.5% to 20.8% of GDP
List of countries by tax revenue as percentage of GDP [wikipedia.org]
United States - Tax rate at 28.2% of GDP
Total Tax Burden Is Rising to Highest Level in History [heritage.org]
1965 through 2008 - Tax rate varied from 15.5% to 20.9% of GDP
Even the Heritage Foundation that continually makes mind numbingly brain dead conclusions that in some cases contradict the charts on their own web site don't show future receipts in the 40% to 50% range. Their end of the world predictions only go as high as 25.5%.
It is also telling that the very worst of times seem to be preceded by tax cuts that resulted in some of the lowest tax rates versus GDP. Note the booming 1920s "The economy boomed during the 1920s and increasing revenues from the income tax followed. This allowed Congress to cut taxes five times," [treas.gov], the tax cuts reduced receipts and were followed with the great depression. Note the booming 1990s followed by the tax cuts during the Bush administration, the reduced receipts and, ta da, massive recession on the brink of depression.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for reducing tax burdens but lets not jump to conclusions and assume simply cutting taxes will instil wealth and prosperity into the heartland. In fact to the contrary, the facts show that something else is occurring along with the tax cuts that results in a detrimental affect to the working class and their ability to make a living.
Parent
Re:Solution? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Don't blame the universities (Score:5, Insightful)
Lou Dobbs Dot (Score:5, Insightful)
I seem to have wandered into LouDobbsDot by accident.
These students I am sure are paying well to be attending those universities and part of that fee is towards support services for their interests.
It doesn't seem unreasonable to me for those services to highlight whatever advantages these students have, because they probably have a lot of disadvantages in language and local knowledge.
Huh? (Score:5, Interesting)
Oooookaaaay. It's not like the colleges are saying US students are bad. Instead, they're saying that these international students aren't as hard to hire as one might think and that there are benefits to it.
Just because I tell you that you should eat oranges because they're high in Vitamin C doesn't mean that I don't think eating apples is a good idea.
I'm impressed, though, because I've not seen a summary this reactionary and poorly constructed in a long time.
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Misleading Title (Score:4, Informative)
If you look at these links these are list pertaining to why companies SHOULD hire international students not reasons as to why companies should avoid domestic students.
They are simply trying to "sell" certain types of students (international) to companies by stating the benefits of hiring those types of students, thereby catering to those student's interests.
Nothing to see here.
Mod Summary Troll. (Score:5, Insightful)
Since Brown is literally up the road from me, I decided to click on Brown's PDF first, and then the others. I thought maybe there was a breaking story I could submit to the Providence Journal so they could get the whole state of Rhode Island up in arms.
The summary doesn't match the language of the PDFs in the least.
I don't have enough middle fingers for this summary. It's massive troll.
Does that sound like employers can avoid taxes by hiring foreign students? I don't think so, Bob.
--
BMO
Re:Mod Summary Troll. (Score:4, Interesting)
That is *taken out of context* and the wording is *may* not *will*.
There is a subtle, but important difference. The student needs to meet *all* of the requirements. And to take it as a "selling point," means ignoring the overall tone of the whole PDF, which isn't a sales brochure, but rather a FAQ.
This summary is going down the Fox News path of "news." It is needlessly inflammatory. If it was an actual "sales brochure" denigrating the hiring of Legal Residents and Citizens over foreign students, then the summary would be accurate. But it's not. Instead, it's something out of the Daily Mail or Fox.
Rupert Murdoch's reach seems to extend even to Slashdot.
--
BMO
Parent
Kneejerk reaction. (Score:5, Insightful)
This article is trolling. Move on.
This is not possible (Score:3, Informative)
Can we mod this story off the main page? (Score:5, Interesting)
Populist outrage on Slashdot? Sigh. (Score:4, Insightful)
Did Lou Dobbs submit that? Please preserve /. from this nonsense; I thought this website was supposed to post "Stuff that matters". All this post offers is an outlet for outrage, self-righteousness, and ugly xenophobia -- natural human traits, but not healthy or helpful ones that we benefit from encouraging. How many people have those websites affected? Isn't there something more consequential going on, that we can put on the front page of /.?
Troll Story (Score:5, Informative)
This story should be tagged as a troll story.
First, the documents to which the article links were not written with the intention of convincing U.S. employers to hire students who are non-residents of the United States in place of students who are citizens. Non-resident students are likely no different than any other student in college and need supplemental income to pay for their education. The documents purpose is to enlighten employers about the facts about hiring non-resident students who are in the country on a student visa. Perhaps the author would like to take it one step further and see if they can incite hatred in legal aliens who are here working under a green card as these pamphlets surely must be convincing U.S. employers to hire foreign students studying under a visa in place of legal immigrant workers. Or perhaps not.
Second, if the author bothered to read IRS Publication 519 [irs.gov], as the pamphlets suggest, they would have realized that any foreign student studying under a visa in the united states will fall under Social Security and FICA taxes if they are determined to have a substantial presence in the United States.
If a foreign student spends any more time in the U.S. than is necessary to attend school then it is likely they will fall under the substantial presence test and an employer will be required to pay Social Security and FICA taxes for the student they hired. A foreign student who is only available to work a fraction of each year is not a threat to the resident work force or the social services systems paid for by that work force.
As a member of the unemployed I understand the difficulties many people are going through but we can maintain a semblance of intelligence and become informed before making poorly researched rants.
Simply not true (Score:4, Insightful)
In fact, the document which is entitled "What Employers Should Know About Hiring International Students" really only speaks to
How did this make it to the front page? It's clearly flamebait.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They get more money from out of state students than they get from local students. They get even more money from out of country students than in-country students.
They want more students alright... just more of the big-money students is all.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
IIRC the only reason they get "more" money from out of state students is because the state funding doesn't pickup part of the tab on them. Whether the money comes from the state or the student's pocket though makes no real difference.
Also, many private colleges were on that list, and virtually no private college charges different rates for in and out of state students.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The pdf comes from the office of international services. It lists the statement about hiring international students as being cheaper, only as an answer to "Isn't it more expensive to hire foreigners?"
Come to think of it, this is more like a specific part of the university trying to encourage companies to hire foreign students. Given that it is the office of international services that is doing so, I would think this is not surprising at all, maybe even expected. After all the whole point of such groups is t
Re:All the proof I needed (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:All the proof I needed (Score:5, Funny)
HEY LOOK! A PENNY!
Parent
Re:All the proof I needed (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
> looks like our educational institutions have said, "f that".
The job of universities is to point out reality, not fantasy. So if it truly is more expensive to hire American students, they should be saying so, just like they should be providing evidence for global warming even though there are people who would rather deny it.
Re:brain drain (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:brain drain (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:brain drain (Score:5, Informative)
No the US needs to accept the fact that not everyone can be a scientist and engineer and start directing candidates to trade schools.
The word needs ditch diggers, the difference is America convinces the ditch diggers they need 4 years and a bachelors degree (And a ton of debt)
Parent