Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Education

US Colleges Say Hiring US Students a Bad Deal 490

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the talking-to-you-cliff dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

US Colleges Say Hiring US Students a Bad Deal

Comments Filter:
  • Tax Exempt? (Score:5, Informative)

    by truthsearch (249536) on Thursday August 13, 2009 @09:31AM (#29050923) Homepage Journal

    the majority of them are exempt from Social Security

    The last time I worked with people on an H1B visas, Social Security was paid.

  • Solution? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Miros (734652) * on Thursday August 13, 2009 @09:32AM (#29050949)
    So is the right course to: change the tax code so that businesses have to pay the same taxes for international workers as for domestic workers (could reduce employment)? reduce the cost of employing domestic workers (could reduce tax revenue)? or further limit the number of work visas issued (could cause shortages of certain types of skilled labor)?
    • If those are the options, it's obvious which solution is best for an economy with 10% unemployment.

    • Have you seen how many people with Hons Degrees are applying to McD's at the moment???
      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Lumpy (12016)

        Go to Ann Arbor, MI. Get served your Whopper with Cheese by someone holding a Masters in Political Science.

        I am not joking, U of M town is full of high degree holders just scraping by.

    • Re:Solution? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Useful Wheat (1488675) on Thursday August 13, 2009 @09:48AM (#29051185)

      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.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by mouseblue (1602125)
        I felt like this article was trolling me.

        I searched the links to find evidence that colleges were treating American students worse and promoting outsourcing.

        I did not find this. And even my own college's page was very reasonable and straight-to-the-facts.

        "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."

        Sorry, Slashdot, but the link to my college doesn't send this message. Cut the crap with the yellow journalism already.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      The right solution is to overhaul the US tax system so it is no longer confiscatory.
      Early 20th century the US government tool ~3% of GDP. During that time the US was quickly headed towards becoming the dominant world manufacturing power.

      Fast forward to today. Government is threatening to take over 40+ to even 50+ % of GDP. This requires raising taxes. It's becoming easier and easier to find other countries that are more business friendly. The only way to stay in the US and stay profitable is to play the

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by nschubach (922175)

        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)

          by thrillseeker (518224) on Thursday August 13, 2009 @10:22AM (#29051759)
          Or you could move to a sales tax instead

          a sales tax does not make the congressman a middleman with sufficient power
        • 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.

          The income tax (while it has the really annoying forms and loss of privacy problems) is assessed on your net profit and once per year. Sales tax is on total sales revenue.

          You could do a value added tax (VAT) which is not as bad as straight sales, but it still clobbers commerce and especially high volume business.

          As far as fairness goes, the higher the income, th

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by Tangent128 (1112197)
          Just a sales tax is the flat tax. The proper-noun "Fair Tax" is also a sales tax, but adds a rebate equivalent to the tax that would statistically be paid by somebody at the poverty line.
        • by Talderas (1212466)

          The fair tax requires the repealing of the 16th Amendment, meaning no income tax. The flat tax sets EVERYONE at the same low tax rate. The fair tax relies entirely on companies collecting sales tax which reduces a lot of overhead caused by the withholding.

          The fair tax becomes a lifestyle tax rather than an earnings/redistributive tax. So if I earn $1,000,000 a year with a 10% sales tax, but only live like someone who earns and spends $60,000 a year, I am taxed $6,000 just about equally with the person earni

      • Re:Solution? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by burnin1965 (535071) on Thursday August 13, 2009 @11:27AM (#29052929) Homepage

        Early 20th century the US government tool ~3% of GDP. ... Government is threatening to take over 40+ to even 50+ % of GDP.

        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.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by elrous0 (869638) *
      Universities themselves engage in all these shenanigans all the time for their own student workers. I worked several years as a high level graduate assistant and TA at a major university (making about $35,000 a year). They paid me without taking out FISA, which I knew about. What I *didn't* know about was the fact that they didn't even pay unemployment insurance on anyone listed as a student worker. So when my area closed and I lost my job, I found out that I wasn't even eligible for unemployment. The unive
    • by ivan256 (17499)

      It seems to me that the right course is to encourage these people to become full citizens (instead of making it almost impossible like it is now).

      Many of them want to, and are trying very hard. They're already educated and require little to no investment from us, and our country gets a skilled/educated worker that is willing to pay full taxes, work hard, and contribute to our society.

      If you have a college education, we should want to make you a citizen. Quickly and easily.

    • 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

      • by sjbe (173966) on Thursday August 13, 2009 @10:38AM (#29052063)

        ...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.

      • by Frequency Domain (601421) on Thursday August 13, 2009 @11:02AM (#29052483)

        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.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by quatin (1589389)
      International Workers are already facing enough hardship to find work. They already face a salary cap. (I think it's 75k regardless) It is also human resource intensive to sponsor a F-1/J-1 into the US as opposed to a US citizen. Universities are trying to spin a positive into hiring these students not, because it is beneficial for companies, but because it is beneficial to UNIVERSITIES. The fact is Universities charge 5-10 times the tuition rate for international students for basically the same education.
    • Limiting work visas won't cause any problems with lack of workers. At least not until unemployment drops below 20%.
  • brain drain (Score:2, Insightful)

    i thought the US needed to encourage more and better American citizens to go to college and become scientists and engineers...

    looks like our educational institutions have said, "f that".

    i say, "f them"

    (i'm not opposed to immigration or people coming to get an education and leave, but i don't think my tax dollars should pay for these colleges to actively sabotage my kids' chances at getting a job.)

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      > 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: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by tholomyes (610627)

        The job of universities is to point out reality, not fantasy.

        I thought the job of universities was to bring in enough students to keep the overly priced tuition, housing, food court, and textbook dollars rolling in and give the students enough busy work so that the professors can get back to writing grants for their next pet project. I've had plenty of great teachers, but academia seems to exist in a world largely separated from the real world. The only aspect of reality it prepares you for is the ability to jump through endless bureaucratic hoops.

    • Re:brain drain (Score:4, Interesting)

      by bjourne (1034822) on Thursday August 13, 2009 @10:03AM (#29051447) Homepage Journal
      It goes both ways (across the Atlantic). Americans come here to get cheap government subsidized university education instead of shelling out thousands of dollars in your expensive schools. Then they can quite easily get jobs because they have international experience and generally speak English very well. I really can't see how anyone is getting shafted by this arrangement.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by WindBourne (631190)
        It is SUBSIDIZED for you. It is NOT subsidized for Americans. We pay extremely high prices to go to EU schools. In fact, we pay more than it costs. Of course that is normal for many places.
    • Re:brain drain (Score:5, Informative)

      by bcattwoo (737354) on Thursday August 13, 2009 @10:09AM (#29051541)
      You need to read the links. This story is a troll. They aren't promoting international students over domestic students. They are merely giving the facts of what is involved with hiring an international students.
    • by Beetle B. (516615)

      i thought the US needed to encourage more and better American citizens to go to college and become scientists and engineers...

      looks like our educational institutions have said, "f that".

      Most of these documents are from the International Offices of universities.

      They're not saying "Hire foreign students instead". They're merely informing companies regarding what is involved if they do want to hire a foreign student. It's part of the job of the international office to give such information.

    • Re:brain drain (Score:5, Informative)

      by 0100010001010011 (652467) on Thursday August 13, 2009 @10:27AM (#29051879)

      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)

  • by spikenerd (642677) on Thursday August 13, 2009 @09:32AM (#29050971)
    Who is the problem here? The universities who tell it like it is? Or the morons in congress who make it the way it is?
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by KraftDinner (1273626)
      What about the universities that continually lower the bar so that they can keep hitting 'record' graduation percentages?
    • Who is the problem here? The universities who tell it like it is? Or the morons in congress who make it the way it is?

      Perhaps it is the morons who vote congress into office. No, wait, it couldn't be our fault. The blame must lie with someone else.

  • Lou Dobbs Dot (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Deag (250823) on Thursday August 13, 2009 @09:33AM (#29050975)

    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.

  • Amazing (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Bartles (1198017)
    Who'd of thought that employers, even state agencies, change their behavior in response to tax policy. If you want employers to hire more workers, make it easier and less expensive to hire and pay.
  • Huh? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Guse (1283076) on Thursday August 13, 2009 @09:33AM (#29050987)

    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)

      by UnknowingFool (672806) on Thursday August 13, 2009 @09:42AM (#29051081)
      Agreed. The link is more of a FAQ to tell employers that international students can legally gain employment under certain conditions. They also advise employers of the tax situation and that employment must stop once the education stops. Nowhere does it advocate hiring international over U.S. students or what benefits are to using international students. While international students are exempt Social Security and Medicare it specifically says: "Unless exempted by a tax treaty, F-1 and J-1 students earning income under practical training are subject to applicable, federal, state, and local income taxes."
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      Clearly, you are not an apple grower that's paying a PR firm and then finds out they are using your money to get the message out about oranges.

      The private Universities can do what they want, but the public taxpayer funded organizations shouldn't be saying "Hire people who pay less tax", they should be saying "Congress, change the laws to make it a level playing field"
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by BlueKitties (1541613)
      Vitamin C? More like... Vitamin Objective C++ Sharp!
  • I am a UK citizen, but I assumed that this would be the same in the USA:

    having a Student visa only means that you are not allowed to work.
    having a visa that allows you to work means that you have to pay the same National Insurance (Social Security) and Tax as citizens. The companies also have to pay the same NI contributions

    I know that there are some exceptions on the tax front, double taxation allowances etc - but nothing that would affect the employer.
    • You are allowed to work on a student visa, but there are certain restrictions such as the number of hours and overtime.

  • Misleading Title (Score:4, Informative)

    by OwMyBrain (1476929) on Thursday August 13, 2009 @09:38AM (#29051043)

    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)

    by bmo (77928) on Thursday August 13, 2009 @09:39AM (#29051047)

    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.

    Unless exempted by a tax treaty, F-1 and J-1 students earning income under practical training are subject to
    applicable federal, state, and local income taxes. Information on tax treaties may be found in Internal Revenue
    Services Publication 519, U.S. Tax Guide for Aliens, and 901, U.S. Tax Treaties. Generally, F-1 and J-1
    students are exempted from Social Security and Medicare tax requirements. However, if F-1 and J-1 students
    are considered resident aliens for income tax purposes, Social Security and Medicare taxes should be
    withheld. Chapter 1 of Internal Revenue Services Publication 519, U.S. Tax Guide for Aliens explains how to
    determine the residency status of international students. More information on Social Security and Medicare
    taxes can be found in Chapter 8 of Internal Revenue Services Publication 519, U.S. Tax Guide for Aliens and in
    Section 940 of Social Security Administration Publication No. 65-008, Social Security Handbook.

    Does that sound like employers can avoid taxes by hiring foreign students? I don't think so, Bob.

    --
    BMO

  • Kneejerk reaction. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ikarous (1230832) on Thursday August 13, 2009 @09:40AM (#29051065)
    Read the PDF that is linked in the article. At no point does it advocate hiring international students over United States citizens. The document does mention that a company can conceivably save money since the majority of these students are exempt from Medicare and FICA tax requirements. Furthermore, the document is published by the university's international services department. It is their purpose to try to get the best deal for international students.

    This article is trolling. Move on.
  • This is not possible (Score:3, Informative)

    by MarkyAndy (1617517) on Thursday August 13, 2009 @09:44AM (#29051109)
    I came into the US education system starting from undergrad to grad school as a foreign student (F and H visas), and I have NEVER heard of anything this stupid. Every employer that hired me during this process paid for all required taxes, even the university themselves when I worked on campus with my F visa.
    • by mcgrew (92797)

      I worked on campus with my F visa

      You flunked Visa? How'd you do on Mastercard?

    • by Beetle B. (516615)

      Every employer that hired me during this process paid for all required taxes, even the university themselves when I worked on campus with my F visa.

      It's not stupid. You can opt out of social security payments (and thus the company doesn't pay them) until you apply for a green card.

      However, some institutions (like certain universities) simply have a policy that all employees will pay those taxes. Perhaps you always worked at one of those. Furthermore, most companies will pay by default, and you have to be the one informing them that you don't want to pay and do the paperwork. As a result, most foreigners working here pay because they don't know they can

    • You paid social security taxes? My girlfriend was exempted during her practical training, and her stipend did not have SS contributions withheld either. You may be entitled to a refund!

      Some employers might not be aware of this and withhold the taxes anyways, but this is improper.

      from 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 st

  • Spin job! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by akakaak (512725)

    Wow, great spin job!

    Its a fact that FICA and Medicare often don't have to be paid for international students. This is federal law, so it's not surprising that more than one university describes the same factual situation that applies across the country. This is not under the control of the universities.

    Note that, due to the various issues with visas, paperwork, etc., international students often struggle to find employment, and so its not unreasonable for universities to advocate on their behalf. Universiti

  • by DigitalReverend (901909) on Thursday August 13, 2009 @09:58AM (#29051363)
    Seriously, I looked ad the PDF, and the languages used in the summary, is no where to be found in the provided links. I vote to mod this story off the front page. In fact, I think the "editors" should be able to be moderated.
  • by guanxi (216397) on Thursday August 13, 2009 @09:59AM (#29051373)

    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 /.?

  • USC (Score:2, Informative)

    by mlarios (212290)

    BTW, USC is "one of the world's leading private research universities." It's not a public university like the others listed.

  • by lytles (24756) on Thursday August 13, 2009 @10:07AM (#29051509) Homepage

    not sure that usc belongs in that first list ...

    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 messsage is also echoed by private schools ...

  • Troll Story (Score:5, Informative)

    by burnin1965 (535071) on Thursday August 13, 2009 @10:09AM (#29051537) Homepage

    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.

    You will be considered a U.S. resident for tax purposes if you meet the substantial presence test for calendar year 2008. To meet this test, you must be physically present in the United States on at least:

          1.

                31 days during 2008, and
          2.

                183 days during the 3-year period that includes 2008, 2007, and 2006, counting:
                      1.

                            All the days you were present in 2008, and
                      2.

                            of the days you were present in 2007, and
                      3.

                            of the days you were present in 2006.

    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.

  • by master_p (608214) on Thursday August 13, 2009 @10:35AM (#29052017)

    One problem with taxes is that there is no accountability for the money. Where do they go? Many people have a big problem with that. And they are right, because it seems governments become more and more bureaucratic, and more bureaucracy requires more money. It seems a big amount of money is lost in corruption as well.

    The solution is to pay directly for the public works. Do you want roads? pay for each road. schools? the same. Police? give money to the police. National TV? give money to the TV station. National Health Care System? give money to hospitals directly, separately for each hospital. Do you want to support unemployed people? give the money directly to them. Do you want an army? pay for the army.

    In any case, a huge organization like a government is not required. The only thing a huge government achieves with great efficiency is to suck resources up. It's not that, in the past, governments of the world had not achieved great things, but they did so when they were smaller and easier to operate.

    While this comment is not directly related to the topic at hand, it is high taxation that leads to saying that hiring US students is a bad deal. Find a cure for the high taxation and then hiring US students may not be such a bad deal after all.

  • by FirstOne (193462) on Thursday August 13, 2009 @11:53AM (#29053347) Homepage

    The Bush's administration's recent Emergency rule change extended the post grad employment period [computerworld.com]for F-1 visa holders from 12 to 29 months.. This so called emergency rule change has been the subject of a lawsuit by US citizens who are the victims of wholesale discrimination. [computerworld.com]

    This rule change potentially added another 400,000 workers to the US tech employment pool, which US citizens must compete against. Universities pointing out tax advantages of foreign grad hiring increases the suffering US citizens and GC holders must endure at the hands of the globalists.

  • Simply not true (Score:4, Insightful)

    by eples (239989) on Thursday August 13, 2009 @12:14PM (#29053629)
    The document from the University of Delaware linked in the summary makes no "pitch" at all whatsoever.
    In fact, the document which is entitled "What Employers Should Know About Hiring International Students" really only speaks to ... you guessed it, information that employers may like to know about hiring international students.

    How did this make it to the front page? It's clearly flamebait.

C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas l'Informatique. -- Bosquet [on seeing the IBM 4341]

Working...