Literally who cares? Most bills that are introduced go nowhere, and this one was introduced by a congresswoman who recently resigned (Marjorie Taylor Greene).

But what Congress really needs to do is introduce an onerous tax on offshore labor, that's a much worse problem.

▲

instagib 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

This is how controversial things get introduced. People who are not going for re-election, retiring, or were recently instated will be forgotten versus the party as a whole.

Look at the shutdown vote and other consequential votes where they need to reach across party lines.

It does get conversations going though and could be re-introduced again soon.

She or others can get some good deals from their party to push bills, votes, or speeches in exchange for donations or speaking venues.

▲

draebek 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

https://www.eisneramper.com/insights/tax/halting-internation...

	▲	sifar 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		" “Foreign persons” is broadly defined in the bill as any person who is not a United States person. However, the bill does not include “any corporation or partnership organized under the laws of a possession of the United States” in that definition of foreign person. " Most offshoring companies don't pay directly to individuals - either they are employees of their own subsidiaries or those of offshoring entities. So, this is not going to change anything.

▲

SilverElfin 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> But what Congress really needs to do is introduce an onerous tax on offshore labor, that's a much worse problem.

This is called a tariff and is the same as raising taxes on every American.

▲

palmotea 2 days ago | parent [-]

> This is called a tariff and is the same as raising taxes on every American.

Come on, what are you going to do next? Mic drop "I, Pencil"? Libertarian rhetoric is tired and old, and doesn't adequately address present-day concerns. It's not the 90s anymore, get with the times.

FYI, free market economics has taught me to love the idea of tariffs, other similar taxes, and trade barriers. I'm glad those ideas are back on the table, and I hope they can be more competently executed after the current administration ends.

▲

SilverElfin 2 days ago | parent [-]

Labeling something as “libertarian” isn’t an argument. But a tariff is a tax. Which means you are proposing to take money from others to subsidize people who aren’t able to compete on their merit. Why should they be subsidized? If they can’t make it in STEM they are free to get a different job. But vilifying Indians and Chinese and other immigrants, who have made our companies and economy strong, all over a small 60k visas a year, is irrational.

	▲	palmotea a day ago \| parent [-]
		> Labeling something as “libertarian” isn’t an argument. The label wasn't an argument. You're repeating the same tired old shit, like it's new and no one's ever heard of it. We've all heard it, it's old. It sounded good in the 90s, but it ain't the 90s anymore. It sounded plausible when the competitor was the Soviet economy, but that's not true anymore, either. Been there, done that. > But a tariff is a tax. Taxes aren't bad. You're talking about taxes like I'm expected to recoil from them in horror. > Which means you are proposing to take money from others to subsidize people who aren’t able to compete on their merit. Why should they be subsidized? What do you mean merit? Do you mean giving the best deal to the wealthy who'd just as well sell their countrymen up the river for an extra buck in their pocket? Being totes ok with a lower standard of living to make that deal happen? If you think "the market" is the only judge that matters, or a fair judge, you've got problems. > But vilifying Indians and Chinese and other immigrants, who have made our companies and economy strong, all over a small 60k visas a year, is irrational. If you think that's mainly what's going on, you're either blind or playing the misdirection game.