I very much believe people should have a right to leave countries (because of political oppression, high taxes, etc), but I don’t think that means other nations are obliged to welcome them.
From a U.S.-centric perspective, I want a policy that is based on my 21st Theorem of Government. Simply stated, America should welcome people who are statistically likely to boost per-capita GDP and reduce per-capita crime (I also have another motive, which is to help freedom conservatism prevail over national conservatism).
Given my views, I applaud Donald Trump’s plan for so-called Golden Visas.
Here are some excerpts from a Washington Postreport by Cat Zakrzewski, Lauren Kaori Gurley, and David Nakamura.
President Donald Trump on Friday..signed an executive order that would allow wealthy foreigners to pay $1 million for a “gold card” for U.S. residency and companies to pay $2 million for a “corporate gold card” that would permit them to sponsor one or more employees. …Applicants for Trump’s gold card would need to pay a processing fee and undergo Department of Homeland Security vetting, according to a government website beckoning users to “Unlock life in America.” If approved, gold-card applicants would have to “make a gift of $1 million, which has been determined to provide sufficient evidence that the individual will substantially benefit the United States,” the website says. Separately, a “platinum card” offering marked “coming soon” on the website would cost $5 million and allow individual applicants to reside in the United States for up to 270 days per year without being taxed on non-U.S. income. That program will have a waiting list and must be approved by Congress, Lutnick told reporters. …Lutnick said he expects that the gold-card program will raise more than $100 billion in revenue and the platinum-card program will create $1 trillion. Analysts have said such figures are dubious. …The president first announced plans for a $5 million gold card earlier this year, and Lutnick previously said that more than 250,000 people had expressed interest.
The good news is that people willing to pay $1 million (or more) are almost certainly will boost America’s per-capita GDP. And they’re not going to be mooching off taxpayers (a big problem in some nations).
The bad news is that Trump has designed the program so the government gets more money (unlike the EB-5 program, where foreigner could get to the U.S. by investing in the private sector)
For those who want more background on the issue of “golden visas,” let’s look at some international evidence. Here are some passages from a 2024 story in the New York Times by Jonathan Wolfe.
President Trump has proposed a new..“gold card” visa… The program could mirror the “golden visas” that have existed for years elsewhere. European visas have been especially desirable… A number of countries, including Spain, Portugal, Greece, Malta and Ireland, have offered wealthy individuals residency if they invest a certain amount of money, typically 250,000 to 500,000 euros. Sometimes that investment comes in the form of buying property, but it can also be through venture capital funds or made as a donation to a government-approved philanthropic project or charity. …The visas were a big boost. Spain has issued nearly 15,000 visas since 2013 to people who have invested more than €500,000, or about $525,000, in real estate. Portugal raked in €5.8 billion until it tightened the rules last year. Greece raised €4.3 billion from the visas from 2021 to 2023 alone. Overall, countries across the European Union had earned more than €21.4 billion through the programs as of 2022, and more than 130,000 people had gained European citizenship or residence… Even though countries that instituted golden visas have attracted investment and increased development, the programs have also bred resentment among local residents.
As the story notes, these programs are not necessarily popular with everyone.
In some European nations, housing prices have increased because rich foreigners bid up prices.
There’s also a fairness debate since rich foreigners sometimes get to pay lower tax rates than local people. Indeed, this is one of the excuses British politicians have used to restrict the United Kingdom’s “non-dom” policy.
Though I think their real motive was grabbing more money. But that’s backfired. Rich foreigners are leaving London and moving elsewhere. And the government is losing revenue.
Especially to Italy, which has their version of a non-dom system. Here are some excerpts from Liz Rowlinson’s article in the U.K.-based Telegraph.
Italy is..attracting disenchanted multi-millionaires from overseas to embrace la dolce vita, thanks to its flat tax regime. By paying a lump sum of €200,000 (£168,000) annually on their foreign-sourced income, they could in theory save hundreds of thousands – even millions – in tax. …Even though this flat rate has doubled since the scheme began in 2017, it has become more popular than ever, according to agents and advisers. …In London, the abolition of the non-dom regime and changes to inheritance tax breaks on assets held in overseas trusts have sent ultra-wealthy people fleeing. Italians describe their flat tax scheme as “svuota Londra” or “empty London” – such is the allure of its tax breaks. …Milan is now full of French and English-speaking people.
I’ll close with some wonky tax analysis.
The biggest issue for international tax migrants is not so much the personal income tax rate. These are people much more concerned about three other tax policies.
And they especially want to avoid worldwide double taxation, which is why territorial taxation is the key to the old British system, the current Italian system, and Trump’s newly labeled Platinum Card.
What’s needed, of course, is to eliminate such taxes on everyone, not just wealthy international migrants. Fortunately, we know exactly how to do that.
