我想看看小逼逼,无码DVD在线免费观看,留学生美女被大黑屌猛戳,办公室浪荡女秘在线观看

EB-5漲價(jià)的議題，繼續(xù)在發(fā)酵，今天來看看投資移民律師對于漲價(jià)方案的分析。Mona Shah律師的這篇文章，給我們很多思考，相信這些聲音也都會(huì)通過各種途徑傳到國會(huì)的政策制定者這里，畢竟無論怎樣從經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)的角度分析，投資金額的上升不必然能帶來就業(yè)創(chuàng)造和經(jīng)濟(jì)增長的成比例上升，更何況EB-5是要求“at risk”的。本文由業(yè)內(nèi)朋友Dora義務(wù)翻譯，特此感謝。

EB5最低50萬美金投資額漲價(jià)是不可避免的嗎？

今年秋天的EB5區(qū)域中心計(jì)劃在國會(huì)進(jìn)行延期已近在眼前，大家都在關(guān)注此計(jì)劃是否會(huì)增加合格的投資金額的可能性。延期本身是毫無疑問的，美國國會(huì)多次將區(qū)域中心計(jì)劃延期，并預(yù)計(jì)將再次這樣做，同時(shí)可能使其作為整體EB5投資計(jì)劃的一部分而永久化。然而，國會(huì)很可能將增加目前的最低投資50萬美元或完全取消TEA區(qū)域，從而使所有EB5項(xiàng)目的投資金額變?yōu)?00萬美元。

取消在區(qū)域中心或TEA項(xiàng)目的50萬美元投資，存在一系列的未知數(shù)。所需的投資增加的后果是什么呢？更少的投資者？更多的資金注入美國？更少的就業(yè)？被開發(fā)商濫用?

本文綜述EB-5計(jì)劃的發(fā)展，并討論提高最低投資額的必然性及其影響。

EB-5計(jì)劃的發(fā)展及國會(huì)立法意圖

在EB5計(jì)劃設(shè)立的1990年，國會(huì)將所需的資本投資金額設(shè)置為100萬美元。計(jì)劃設(shè)立的目的是創(chuàng)造就業(yè)機(jī)會(huì)和刺激經(jīng)濟(jì)。

目標(biāo)就業(yè)區(qū)（TEA）的投資

對于位于目標(biāo)就業(yè)區(qū)（TEA）的企業(yè)，國會(huì)確實(shí)創(chuàng)造了除100萬美元投資之外的一種選擇，TEA，被定義為鄉(xiāng)村地區(qū)或區(qū)域失業(yè)率至少為全國平均失業(yè)率水平的150%的區(qū)域。TEA項(xiàng)目的投資金額是50萬美元。國會(huì)增加此特例，目的在于鼓勵(lì)投資者在最需要經(jīng)濟(jì)刺激的地區(qū)創(chuàng)造就業(yè)機(jī)會(huì)。

所以，就會(huì)期望TEA位于，農(nóng)村地區(qū)和高失業(yè)率區(qū)域。然而，由于人口普查區(qū)，經(jīng)常被操控用來符合TEA認(rèn)定，所以，今天許多大型EB-5區(qū)域中心的項(xiàng)目，位于富裕的城市地區(qū)如曼哈頓、洛杉磯、邁阿密等。

雖然，操縱人口普查區(qū)可能被認(rèn)為是不恰當(dāng)?shù)幕蛲媾x區(qū)概念，但是，EB-5項(xiàng)目的終極目標(biāo)和目的是創(chuàng)造就業(yè)機(jī)會(huì)，進(jìn)而刺激經(jīng)濟(jì)。如果一個(gè)項(xiàng)目坐落在一個(gè)人口高度密集的區(qū)域，而不是建立在人口密度低的農(nóng)村地區(qū)，那么更多的人將受到影響，它更有可能刺激經(jīng)濟(jì)。此外，同一個(gè)項(xiàng)目，如果位于在商業(yè)上可行的主要城市，將更有可能吸引更多的外國投資者，因?yàn)槠滟Y本回報(bào)的可能性更大。

區(qū)域中心投資

在2005年，區(qū)域中心計(jì)劃剛剛出現(xiàn)的時(shí)候，區(qū)域中心將目光投向我們成功的加拿大鄰居，加拿大項(xiàng)目只需要40萬美元的投資，曾從亞太吸引了相當(dāng)大的財(cái)富。因此，為了讓這些早期區(qū)域中心能夠吸引到亞太地區(qū)的投資者，EB-5區(qū)域中心假話的投資金額必須是有競爭力的，所以確定在50萬美元。

在紐約的第一個(gè)區(qū)域中心是NYCRC，成立于2007年；然而，NYCRC最初的項(xiàng)目，位于布魯克林安全、無爭議的TEA區(qū)域。第一個(gè)散發(fā)著無盡魅力，吸引了廣泛注意的曼哈頓中心項(xiàng)目是時(shí)代廣場酒店項(xiàng)目，由弗里德曼兄弟開發(fā)。這個(gè)項(xiàng)目募集了150個(gè)EB-5投資者，絕大多數(shù)來自中國。投資者都感到驚訝，這樣一個(gè)位于紐約時(shí)代廣場的迷人的項(xiàng)目，能位于一個(gè)TEA區(qū)域。

這個(gè)項(xiàng)目是一個(gè)前兆。在過去的一年中，曼哈頓聲稱擁有最多的50萬美元的投資者。

50萬美元投資的現(xiàn)狀

如今，大約90%的EB- 5項(xiàng)目的投資是處于50萬美元的水平。當(dāng)前的EB-5投資計(jì)劃已經(jīng)發(fā)展成為一個(gè)成熟的產(chǎn)業(yè)，圍繞著50萬美元投資，給美國帶來數(shù)十億美元。

投資金額設(shè)定在50萬美元是在25年前，然而，根據(jù)消費(fèi)者價(jià)格指數(shù)（CPI），這一數(shù)額如今的購買力已經(jīng)下降到只有275235美元。與EB-5區(qū)域中心項(xiàng)目有關(guān)的一個(gè)不可避免的問題是，無論國會(huì)是否增加計(jì)劃的投資金額，排除50萬美元的投資，應(yīng)該是不可避免的。

投資增加對市場的影響

開發(fā)商已經(jīng)表示，他們歡迎提高最低投資金額或完全消除它。這樣將降低融資工作的繁重度，也會(huì)避免合資格投資人問題（accredited investor，EB5Sir注：這是指SEC就合格基金購買人的規(guī)定術(shù)語）。盡管如此，EB-5計(jì)劃的核心目標(biāo)是創(chuàng)造就業(yè)機(jī)會(huì)，引人注目的問題是如何創(chuàng)造就業(yè)機(jī)會(huì)，以及經(jīng)濟(jì)會(huì)受到怎樣的影響。

投資金額的增加意味著更少的工作

目前，總共100萬美元投資于一個(gè)位于TEA區(qū)域的EB-5項(xiàng)目，代表著2個(gè)投資者的投資份額，進(jìn)而需要?jiǎng)?chuàng)造出20個(gè)工作。如果最低50萬美元投資金額被取消，同樣的100萬美元投資將只需代表1個(gè)投資者，而不是2投資者的投資，這樣，只需要?jiǎng)?chuàng)造出10個(gè)工作。

因此，如果一個(gè)項(xiàng)目需要5000萬美元的資金，這將需要100名投資者創(chuàng)造1000個(gè)就業(yè)崗位。如果取消50萬美元的最低門檻，那么募集相同的金額，只需要50名投資者，這導(dǎo)致只需要?jiǎng)?chuàng)造500個(gè)就業(yè)崗位。募集相同的金額，需要?jiǎng)?chuàng)造的就業(yè)機(jī)會(huì)相對更少，這樣將降低開發(fā)商的成本。增加投資金額將有利于項(xiàng)目方。一些人認(rèn)為這將導(dǎo)致這個(gè)項(xiàng)目的陰暗面：增加的資本，可能只是埋沒到軟成本中，再也找不到了!

投資金額的增加意味著減少或取消目標(biāo)區(qū)域

大部分的EB-5從業(yè)人員、代理商、經(jīng)紀(jì)人和律師一直持相對統(tǒng)一的意見，在他們看來，通過提高最低投資金額，許多投資者將會(huì)選擇遠(yuǎn)離EB-5。“風(fēng)險(xiǎn)”因素?zé)o疑將使美國項(xiàng)目對于更高的投資金額缺乏吸引力，而50萬美元的投資金額，將鼓勵(lì)更多的投資者進(jìn)行投資。

這些50萬美元投資者中的大多數(shù)人，通過購買房地產(chǎn)、雇用專業(yè)人員、為其全球收入納稅、為教育買單、投資到股票市場，以及擴(kuò)大在美國的海外業(yè)務(wù)向美國注入新資本。舉例來說，在2010年，新移民的企業(yè)主的凈營業(yè)收入總額為1,212億美元，占國家凈營業(yè)收入的15%。此外，一旦初始投資的錢得到返回，有更大的可能性，將再次投資在美國。

投資金額的增加會(huì)嚴(yán)重影響美國的外國學(xué)生人數(shù)

大多數(shù)的EB-5投資者是外國學(xué)生和成功人士。報(bào)告顯示，美國學(xué)院和大學(xué)F-1簽證的外國學(xué)生數(shù)量大幅增長，從2001年的110,000人增加到2012年的524,000人。從2008年到2012年，這些學(xué)生貢獻(xiàn)了大約218億美元的學(xué)費(fèi)和128億美元的其他支出。

送本國公民到美國學(xué)習(xí)的最多的3個(gè)國家分別是中國、韓國和印度。

此外，由于獲得美國永久居留權(quán)的其他途徑相當(dāng)有限，EB-5項(xiàng)目已成為越來越受歡迎的選擇。父母的資金支持和資金饋贈(zèng)，能使在美國留學(xué)的孩子進(jìn)行EB-5投資。

來自外國學(xué)生的經(jīng)濟(jì)效益與這些學(xué)生的家長是否能夠通過50萬美元的投資參與EB-5程序有著千絲萬縷的聯(lián)系。馬雪莉女士（Xueli Ma），一直在與中國投資者緊密合作，她表示：“如果投資金額從50萬美元增加到100瓦按美元，我將失去一半的投資者。他們中很多都是勤勞的小企業(yè)主，為孩子的教育和未來而進(jìn)行投資。

現(xiàn)有的移民投資計(jì)劃替代品

2010年，當(dāng)加拿大聯(lián)邦投資移民項(xiàng)目（IIP）將投資最低金額增加了一倍，從原來的40萬美元增加到80萬美元時(shí)，許多移民涌向現(xiàn)成的替代方案——EB-5計(jì)劃。但是目前，如果EB-5計(jì)劃投資金額增加，可以說，沒有現(xiàn)成的替代方案。

香港和加拿大的投資移民項(xiàng)目都關(guān)門。另一個(gè)替代方案，澳大利亞、新加坡、新西蘭和英國各有更高的投資金額要求。這一事實(shí)本身，可能會(huì)鼓勵(lì)立法者消除或增加50萬美元投資金額。

然而，需要注意的更重要的事情是，加拿大計(jì)劃“與其他國家競爭高凈值移民；然而，加拿大IIP所需的投資與其他國際項(xiàng)目相比是非常低的。”此外，“除了花費(fèi)更少，加拿大IIP提供了優(yōu)于其他國家包括美國…的顯著的激勵(lì)措施”。并且與EB-5項(xiàng)目要求投資處于“風(fēng)險(xiǎn)”不同，加拿大項(xiàng)目保證投資本金的回報(bào)。

結(jié)論

提高或完全取消EB-5計(jì)劃，最低50萬美元的投資金額，保留100萬美元的EB-5投資計(jì)劃，似乎不可避免的。雖然，這個(gè)數(shù)字確實(shí)使美國投資移民所需的資本投資更與其他國家的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)看齊，但是，它沒有考慮到EB-5項(xiàng)目風(fēng)險(xiǎn)元素帶來的劣勢，這可能會(huì)使EB-5項(xiàng)目與其國際競爭對手相比，缺乏吸引力。

EB-5投資移民只占總體投資移民的1%，但這是最有可能刺激經(jīng)濟(jì)的類別。國會(huì)不應(yīng)限制我們通過EB-5計(jì)劃可以吸引到的潛在投資者的數(shù)量，這本質(zhì)上為美國企業(yè)提供廉價(jià)的資金來源。每年，超過200億美元的資金注入，數(shù)以千計(jì)的工作崗位被創(chuàng)造出來，只要國會(huì)不扼殺它的成長，EB-5項(xiàng)目將繼續(xù)茁壯發(fā)展。

更少EB-5投資者對經(jīng)濟(jì)增長造成不利的多米諾效應(yīng)表明：EB-5類別的外國投資者數(shù)量的減少并不符合美國的最佳利益。

原文作者：Mona Shah律師，原文來源：www.blog.mshahlaw.com。

Is an increase of the EB5 $500,000.00 minimum inevitable?
May 6, 2015 · by Mona Shah, Esq. · in General Blog

By Mona Shah, Esq.

The burning question on the table when the EB5 regional center program comes up before Congress for renewal this fall, concerns the likelihood of an increase in the qualifying investment that may be made to the program. Renewal itself is not in doubt, as Congress has extended the regional center program many times and is expected to do so again, possibly giving it permanent status as part of the overall EB5 investor program. However, it is likely that Congress will either increase the present minimum investment of $500,000 or eliminate the TEA designation altogether, leaving the EB5 investment amount as $1 million for all projects.

The potential elimination of the $500,000 investment in a regional center or TEA project presents a number of unknowns. What would be the ramifications of an increase in the required investment? Will it result in fewer investors? More cash infused into the US? Fewer jobs? Potential abuse by developers?

This article reviews the development of the EB5 program, and discusses the inevitability of an increase in the minimum investment and its impact.

THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE EB5 PROGRAM AND CONGRESSIONAL INTENT

When the EB5 program was created in 1990, Congress set the required capital investment amount at $1,000,000.[1] The stated purpose of the program was to create jobs and stimulate the economy.

Targeted Employment Area (TEA) Investments

Congress did create an exception to the $1,000,000 investment for businesses located in a Targeted Employment Area (TEA), defined as either a rural area or an area experiencing unemployment of at least 150 percent of the national average rate. Investment in TEA projects was set at $500,000. Congress added this exception precisely to encourage investors to create jobs in areas that have the greatest need for economic stimulation.

Indeed, it would be reasonable to expect a target employment area to be in rural locations and areas experiencing higher rates of unemployment. Nevertheless, today, many of the large scale EB-5 regional center projects are found in affluent urban areas such as Manhattan, Los Angeles, and Miami, as census tracts are often manipulated to allow for a TEA designation.

Although manipulation of census tracts may be considered to be inappropriate scheming or gerrymandering, the ultimate goal and purpose of the EB-5 program is to create jobs and, in turn, stimulate the economy. If a project is located in a highly populated location where more people are affected, it is more likely to stimulate the economy than if it is established in a rural area with a low population density. Furthermore, the same project would be more likely to attract a higher number of foreign investors, as there is likely to be a greater probability of a return of capital in a commercially viable location such as a major city.

Regional Center Investments

In 2005, when the regional center program emerged, regional centers looked to the success of our Canadian neighbors, who had been attracting considerable wealth from the Asian Pacific with an investment amount of only $400,000. Accordingly, investments in EB5 regional center projects had to be competitively priced at $500,000 in order for these early regional centers to attract any Asian Pacific investors.

The first regional center in New York was NYCRC, established in 2007; however, NYCRC’s initial projects were in safe, uncontroversial TEA’s in Brooklyn.[2] The first Manhattan-centric project that oozed glamour and attracted attention was the Times Square Hotel, developed by the Friedman Brothers. The majority of the 150 EB-5 investors in this project were from China, and were amazed that such a glamorous project could be located within a TEA that was in Times Square, NYC.

This project was a precursor of what was to come. In the past year, Manhattan has claimed the lion’s share of $500,000 investors.

The Status of the $500,000 Investment

Today, around 90% of all EB-5 project investments are at the $500,000 level. The current EB-5 investment program has evolved into a full-fledged industry, revolving around the $500,000 investment, which brings billions into the US.

According to the Consumer Price Index, however, in the 25 years since the investment amount of $500,000 was set, the purchasing power of that amount has dropped to only $275,235. An unavoidable issue pertaining to the EB5 regional center projects is whether an investment increase by Congress, accomplished by eliminating the $500,000 investment, may be inevitable.

THE IMPACT OF AN INVESTMENT INCREASE ON THE MARKET

Developers have stated that they would welcome raising the minimum investment amount or erasing it entirely. It would make the job of fundraising less onerous, and also would erase any accredited investor issues. Nonetheless, at the very core of the EB5 program is the objective of creating jobs, compelling the question of how job creation and the economy would be affected.

An Increase Would Mean Fewer Jobs

Presently, a total of $1mm invested in an EB5 project located in a TEA represents 2 individual investments, which in turn requires the creation of 20 jobs. If the minimum $500,000 investment amount is eliminated, the same 1 million will represent an investment from 1 rather than 2 investors, and as such, only require the creation of 10 jobs.

Thus, if a project needed funding of $50 million, it would require 100 investors resulting in the creation of 1000 jobs. If the $500,000 minimum threshold is eliminated, only 50 investors would be required to generate the same amount, resulting in the creation of only 500 jobs. The same amount of capital is generated, but fewer jobs must be created, resulting in a reduced cost for the developer. The additional capital raised would inure to the developer’s advantage. Some argue that there is a dark side of this equation, in that the additional capital may simply disappear into soft costs, never to be seen again!

An Increase Would Mean Little or No Targeted Area Development

It also has been argued that without a TEA, investors and developers would have little or no motivation to create and develop projects in under-developed and rural areas. This would frustrate and could eliminate entirely any benefit that those communities receive from EB-5 investment, which stimulate both employment and business growth.

An Increase Would Mean Fewer Investors

The majority of EB-5 practitioners, agents, brokers and attorneys have been relatively unified in their view that by raising the minimum investment, many investors are going to be priced out of the market. The “at risk” element undoubtedly will make the US projects less attractive for a higher investment amount, whereas the $500,000 investment encourages a higher volume of investors.

The majority of these $500,000 investors infuse fresh capital by purchasing real estate, engaging professionals, paying taxes on their global income, paying for education, and making alternative investments into the stock market, as well as expanding their overseas business in the U.S. For example, in 2010, new immigrant business owners had a total net business income of $121.2 billion, representing 15 percent of all net business income in the country.[3] Furthermore, once the initial investment money is returned, there is a greater likelihood that it will be reinvested in the US.

An Increase Would Adversely Affect the US Foreign Student Population

The majority of EB5 investors are foreign students and high achievers. Reports indicate that the number of foreign students on F-1 visas in U.S. colleges and universities grew dramatically from 110,000 in 2001 to 524,000 in 2012. These students contributed approximately $21.8 billion in tuition and $12.8 billion in other spending[4] from 2008 to 2012.

The top 3 countries to send their nationals to study in the US are China, South Korea and India.

Moreover, as other avenues to obtain permanent residence in the US are rather limited, the EB-5 Program has become an increasingly popular option. Parents support and gift the funds enabling their children studying in the US to make the EB-5 investment.

The economic benefits derived from foreign students is inextricably linked to the ability of those students’ parents to participate as a $500,000 investor in the EB5 program. Ms. Xueli Ma, who has been working closely with Chinese investors stated that “I would lose half of my investors if the investment increases from $500,000 to $1,000,000. Lots of them are hard-working small business owners who save for their children’s education and future.”

EXISTENCE OF INVESTMENT PROGRAM ALTERNATIVES

When the Canadian Federal Immigrant Investor Program (IIP) doubled the investment threshold from $400,000 to $800,000 in 2010, many immigrants flocked to the ready alternative, the EB5 program. Arguably, today a ready alternative does not exist.

Canada[5] and Hong Kong[6] have both closed their doors. The other alternatives, Australia, Singapore, New Zealand and UK each have higher investment capital requirements. This fact in itself, may encourage legislators to eliminate or increase the $500,000.00 figure.

It is important to note, however, that the Canadian program “competes with a number of other countries for high net worth immigrants; however, the investment required under the Canadian IIP is significantly lower in comparison to international programs.”[7] Moreover, “in addition to costing less, the Canadian IIP offers significant incentives over other countries including the United States…”. Id. And, unlike EB5, the Canadian program guaranteed the return of the invested funds.

CONCLUSION

It appears inevitable that the minimum investment figure will either be raised or eliminated altogether, leaving the EB5 investment capital amount as $1mm. While this figure does bring the required capital investment amount more in line with that of other countries, it does not take into account the disadvantage created by the at risk element of the EB-5 program, which is likely to make it unattractive in comparison to its international competitors.

EB5 investment accounts for 1% of overall immigrant investment and yet this is the category that is most likely to stimulate the economy. Congress should not limit the number of potential investors we can attract to the EB5 program, which essentially provides a cheap source of financing for US businesses. With over $20 billion at stake and thousands of jobs being created every year, the EB-5 program will continue to thrive as long as Congress does not stifle its growth.

The adverse domino effect on economic growth resulting from fewer EB5 investors reveals that a reduction of the number of foreign investors in the EB5 category is not in America’s best interest.