Naah. Giving sweet-heart deals to people with a lot of money isn't out-of-the-box thinking - it's older than the hills. Out-of-box thinking would include enforcing consumer protection laws, strong oversight of large businesses, and progressive taxes. That sort of thinking hasn't been so common over the last few decades.
I think you've been caught up by the current mass hysteria, and forgotten to look for the reality:
enforcing consumer protection laws
See FTC's web site for news [1] like yesterday's "FTC Stops Nationwide Federal Jobs Scam".
strong oversight of large businesses
How about the DOJ suing to stop AT&T from acquiring T-Mobile? How about the absurd suit against Boeing for wanting to build a factory in a state where they don't have to worry about unions?
progressive taxes
The tax rates vary from 10% up to 35%, as you go up the income scale [2]. So, there are your progressive taxes.
The tax rates vary from 10% up to 35%, as you go up the income scale [2]. So, there are your progressive taxes.
Income taxes vary from 10-35%. Payroll taxes vary from ~14% down to infinitesimal as you go up the income scale, they are not progressive, and for the people at the bottom end of that 'progressive' scale, they tend to cost more than income taxes.
It's frustrating that I even have to make this point. Everybody knows about this, and yet when these discussions happen, it's like payroll taxes don't exist, or don't count, or somehow or another are not part of the debate. For that matter, neither are capital gains.
Oh, so some having _some_ consumer protection means there's strong consumer protection?
Please explain why the financial industry is so strongly against the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau; given that it will enforce laws that already exist. Why do credit card companies operate from the states with the weakest usury laws? Yes, the Supreme Court says it's legal, but why is there no federal cap on usury?
The only private recourse consumers have against bad business practices is a civil lawsuit, with the threat of high punitive damages. "Tort reform" wants to cap those damages, but promoters never suggest any alternative compensatory consumer protection. Why should I not interpret this as a reducing consumer protection?
Speaking of unions: Unions are a way for employees to protect themselves against bad business practices in the work place. (Whistle-blowing protection laws are another.) Many politicians want to break the unions, but offer no alternatives for employees facing those bad practices. Why should I not see this as politicians being aligned with business against employees?
How is it that the recent GAO Audit on "Major Conflicts of Interest at the Federal Reserve" found so many apparent conflicts of interest, and why weren't there policies in place to prevent that from happening?
Banking oversight over the last few decades (perhaps since the S&L crisis of the 1980s, but definitely in the last 10 years) has clearly not been enough to catch the numerous incidents of wide-scale fraud. These were already illegal, but where was the oversight, where are the investigations, and who is going to jail because of it?
It's a VISA - not Permanent Residence. When people invest in a residence for a VISA, they generally do so to settle down. So I am not sure how safe the potential home buyers are going to feel investing $500K in a house with the risk that their VISA renewal or entry to the US can be denied 3 years down the road.
Current climate is just not very conducive to hope that something like this will fly.
They don't even have to change anything - a VISA isn't a guarranteed right of entry.
You just need minimum wage guy at the airport desk to not like your face and you don't get in - no matter how many VISAs you have in your passport.
You can of course try and correct the problem from the other country after you have been denied entry - if you can get an airline to carry you.
I've never heard of anyone being denied entry, in practice, because the minimum-wage guy (actually immigration officers earn a median salary of $46,0000) at the airport doesn't like their face.
It's true that they legally can deny entry to someone with a valid visa, but in practice it has to escalate a few levels up the chain of command before they can do that. A low-level flunky trying to deny someone entry for specious reasons would get into trouble.
There are several programs that let you 'buy' a Visa and adding another one for the low low price of '$500,000 to buy a home in the U.S.' is not going to do much for immigration or home prices.
The $500,000 floor seems to be a benefit for people who have $500,000 houses to sell. Doesn't do much for Joe Sixpack while he's deciding whether to stick or walk away.
"'Applicants can spend the entire amount on one house or spend as little as $250,000 on a residence and invest the rest in other residential real estate, which can be rented out,' the paper added."
