Costa Rica signs law to attract digital nomads(ticotimes.net)
ticotimes.net
Costa Rica signs law to attract digital nomads
https://ticotimes.net/2021/08/11/costa-rica-signs-law-to-attract-digital-nomads
256 comments
I have been here for the better part of a decade, it's pretty nice. Even in San Jose, the capital city which people seem to like to talk a lot of trash about without even trying a moment to experience it, has been really good to me.
I find most people here with disparaging remarks to say about the place seem like they could benefit from getting out of their smelly basement and check it out for themselves. There's many cities in the USA which are less safe than this place.
The only thing is for the time being they're doing their best to manage covid by curfews, I'm taking a break until I can go back and actually leave the house to get a beer past 9pm
I find most people here with disparaging remarks to say about the place seem like they could benefit from getting out of their smelly basement and check it out for themselves. There's many cities in the USA which are less safe than this place.
The only thing is for the time being they're doing their best to manage covid by curfews, I'm taking a break until I can go back and actually leave the house to get a beer past 9pm
We only stayed in San Jose for a few days. I'd really love more information on it. My experience is no doubt colored by the local area I stayed in, so a broader view is very welcome.
It's a fun city filled with amazing people and while it's got some rough edges like any large city, it's still like way more stable than almost anywhere else in latin america. There's a ton of hidden gems around the area if nature is more your thing and the surrounding area is really nice if you prefer to live closer to nature within urban reach. Even a 20min uber ride out of the city will get you up a mountain hike and usually doesn't cost me more than 6$.
I have the perspective of someone who's actually moved here a long while ago though and I don't really have a lot of respect for the huge tourism PR move to get people out of the city by talking enormously bad about it, but at the same time I really prefer hanging out with locals over tourists and expats to get that perspective.
I have the perspective of someone who's actually moved here a long while ago though and I don't really have a lot of respect for the huge tourism PR move to get people out of the city by talking enormously bad about it, but at the same time I really prefer hanging out with locals over tourists and expats to get that perspective.
I had never thought of the PR angle, but now you mention it, it makes sense.
Can you tell us some things you like about San José?
Cheap enough if you know where to shop and where to stay, internet/power is most solid out of anywhere in country, good to be at least near the city in case you need to meet business contacts near the airport at any moment. Great party scene pre-pandemic which is slowly starting to come back. Really nice people, very easy to make friends here. Literally if just one piece of advice, avoid the cocaine scene, it's mostly sad locals and even sadder expats and I've just seen way too many naive people without regard as to how fucked that can get with enough money down here to hang themselves with. This applies to pretty much anywhere on the planet, though.
I should also mention the weather is incredibly nice and temperate up in that city as long as you don't mind the rainy season normal of about 20 minutes to a an hour or two of rain a day. It's more rain and a lot more hot closer to the beaches.
I should also mention the weather is incredibly nice and temperate up in that city as long as you don't mind the rainy season normal of about 20 minutes to a an hour or two of rain a day. It's more rain and a lot more hot closer to the beaches.
> Intel used to have a chip fab there for a time
Insightful comment. However, this part seems inaccurate as Intel seems to only have/had a chip packaging facility in Costa Rica.
Insightful comment. However, this part seems inaccurate as Intel seems to only have/had a chip packaging facility in Costa Rica.
My partner and I were there last March, considering it as a place to move, and had to cut our trip short because of Covid. Some of the recent changes make it more viable, as importing cars etc, was very expensive.
Regarding the government, a lot of locals were upset with the government policies, mostly around immigration, with lots of people moving into "slums" as low-wage workers from neighbouring countries, displacing Tico workers. There were a lot of fans of Trump there because of his policies around immigration. I was surprised, as I had a good impression of the government there, like you do, and expected to see more pride in the way things were done regarding the environment.
Interestingly, one of the people I talked with these opinions was a full-time accountant who took the day off to drive us across the country for $100.
Regarding the government, a lot of locals were upset with the government policies, mostly around immigration, with lots of people moving into "slums" as low-wage workers from neighbouring countries, displacing Tico workers. There were a lot of fans of Trump there because of his policies around immigration. I was surprised, as I had a good impression of the government there, like you do, and expected to see more pride in the way things were done regarding the environment.
Interestingly, one of the people I talked with these opinions was a full-time accountant who took the day off to drive us across the country for $100.
> I also had a friend who lived there for several years and ran an consulting business to companies in the U.S.
Smart! Low taxes, same time zone, up and coming country…
Smart! Low taxes, same time zone, up and coming country…
What's the safety situation like?
I found that pretty much every place outside of the capital felt very safe. I think this was helped by the lack of traditional "danger" signs everywhere. This basically amounts to...all of the people we came across were busy employed in some kind of industrious activity + the ubiquitous feeling of good governance everywhere. It was quite heartening to be honest.
It was not a "developed country" feeling everywhere. But it felt safe and welcoming everywhere we went. For example, I don't recall seeing bars on windows outside of the capital. And every local who we interacted with was polite and honest. When out shopping and eating at local places, we never found we ended up with something like a "tourist menu" or something with higher prices.
An anecdote, one woman who I was with forgot her smartphone at a roadside restaurant. A quick call and a drive back and the phone was returned without any fuss.
youtube has lots of travel videos around Costa Rica if you are interested. https://youtu.be/baXO0hC2GVg
I've definitely felt less safe in many parts of the U.S.
It was not a "developed country" feeling everywhere. But it felt safe and welcoming everywhere we went. For example, I don't recall seeing bars on windows outside of the capital. And every local who we interacted with was polite and honest. When out shopping and eating at local places, we never found we ended up with something like a "tourist menu" or something with higher prices.
An anecdote, one woman who I was with forgot her smartphone at a roadside restaurant. A quick call and a drive back and the phone was returned without any fuss.
youtube has lots of travel videos around Costa Rica if you are interested. https://youtu.be/baXO0hC2GVg
I've definitely felt less safe in many parts of the U.S.
Yeah, I just got a friend's forgotten card back out of an ATM here in San José not that long ago! Costa Rica is definitely a place where you shouldn't be leaving your phone right out on the beach while you go to swim but it's also got some very good people in it who don't see the value in giving the place a bad name.
In 2013 kidnaping and robberies were quite common; a colleague escaped a kidnaping attempt after a car chase with AK47 fire, some colleagues were extracted covertly from the country when they were incidental witnesses to a gang shooting in the restaurant they were having dinner, I saw in the shopping mall all security guards carrying big, bad shotguns on they back - this is the only country where I saw that, even Israel has less obvious security in place.
No idea how is it today, it may be a lot better.
No idea how is it today, it may be a lot better.
this doesn't stack with my experience of the country at all. Sure Guatemala or El Sal but costa rica is super safe.
This sounds more like El Salvador, Honduras or Guatemala than Costa Rica.
The place was San Jose, Costa Rica; the mall is Multiplaza Escazu.
Worth mentioning San Jose is reputed as the one dodgy place of 0 interest you should avoid. I was told exactly this by an expat who has been there 20 years and have heard similar elsewhere.
I've heard this from expats and guidebooks written by foreigners, and even some Costa Ricans too
If a normal tourist only sees the blocks around the Ticabus bus station at 11pm and the blocks around the bus stop to their tourist destination then of course it's an ugly city.
However the Escazú, Sabana and San Pedro neighbourhoods are quite nice.
The downtown is functional (while not beautiful), compared to any other of the Central American capitals.
And the downtown main street has wide sidewalks for walking (unlike San Salvador), grid style streets (unlike Tegucigalpa), nice weather (unlike Panama), government offices, hotels, nearby (unlike all the others), and accessible by public transport.
If a normal tourist only sees the blocks around the Ticabus bus station at 11pm and the blocks around the bus stop to their tourist destination then of course it's an ugly city.
However the Escazú, Sabana and San Pedro neighbourhoods are quite nice.
The downtown is functional (while not beautiful), compared to any other of the Central American capitals.
And the downtown main street has wide sidewalks for walking (unlike San Salvador), grid style streets (unlike Tegucigalpa), nice weather (unlike Panama), government offices, hotels, nearby (unlike all the others), and accessible by public transport.
I was there like 10 years ago, traveled across a lot of the country via public buses. It was one of the safest countries I visited.
I think it's relatively safe compared to it's neighbouring countries. Though, of course, it's neighbouring countries are what could be called failed states with some of the worst safety records of all countries in the world.
Excellent, one of the safer countries in the world.
You're twice as likely to be murdered in parts of the San Francisco BA.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/984826/homicide-rate-cos...
https://www.sfchronicle.com/crime/article/Homicides-are-up-3...
https://www.statista.com/statistics/984826/homicide-rate-cos...
https://www.sfchronicle.com/crime/article/Homicides-are-up-3...
It's a little weird to compare local crime hotspots to a national average. Costa Rica seems to have about twice the murder rate of the U.S., but that's still low. By "low", I mean if the average accurately represents your risk, it wouldn't be worth worrying about day to day.
Safety is highly situational, and it depends a lot on the way crime happens. If it's criminals killing criminals (e.g. gangs), ordinary citizens and visitors might be fine. But if there is a lot of opportunistic crime, a foreigner might be a target.
Safety is highly situational, and it depends a lot on the way crime happens. If it's criminals killing criminals (e.g. gangs), ordinary citizens and visitors might be fine. But if there is a lot of opportunistic crime, a foreigner might be a target.
It's probably safer than your closest major US city. People think Central America and think violence, but Costa Rica truly is a diamond in the ruff.
> They will also be exempted from local income taxes, will be able to open local bank accounts and can drive in Costa Rica using their country’s license, among other benefits.
With this kind of visas I've always been curious: Unless you're US or Eritrea citizen, does this mean you don't have to pay any income tax at all, given you loose your home country's tax residentship in 183 days after leaving?
With this kind of visas I've always been curious: Unless you're US or Eritrea citizen, does this mean you don't have to pay any income tax at all, given you loose your home country's tax residentship in 183 days after leaving?
Tax residency is a very complicated matter but in general, you do not loose tax residency 183 days after leaving.
In Spain, it takes 5 years before losing tax residency after you've left the country. In France, having your wife and children in France makes you resident even if you don't live there. In the UK, you can be resident by only spending 15 days in the country if some other conditions are met.
On top of that you have to add the interaction between national law and double taxation agreements between countries.
In Spain, it takes 5 years before losing tax residency after you've left the country. In France, having your wife and children in France makes you resident even if you don't live there. In the UK, you can be resident by only spending 15 days in the country if some other conditions are met.
On top of that you have to add the interaction between national law and double taxation agreements between countries.
> In Spain, it takes 5 years before losing tax residency after you've left the country.
Do you have a reference? I have never heard about that (which can happen, spain has many rules) and I doubt anyone holds to those rules but it would be good to know. I had a business in spain and as a foreign tax resident I tried to do everything by the book; the locals laughed in my face for declaring taxes at all. The system is so complex and unfriendly (the fines are high and there is world wealth tax which has fines that are probably not even legal in the EU; there are legal cases going on about it) I doubt anyone can follow the exact rules, but I tried (and probably paid way too much because of it).
Do you have a reference? I have never heard about that (which can happen, spain has many rules) and I doubt anyone holds to those rules but it would be good to know. I had a business in spain and as a foreign tax resident I tried to do everything by the book; the locals laughed in my face for declaring taxes at all. The system is so complex and unfriendly (the fines are high and there is world wealth tax which has fines that are probably not even legal in the EU; there are legal cases going on about it) I doubt anyone can follow the exact rules, but I tried (and probably paid way too much because of it).
I keep seeing news titles about football playes like Cristiano Ronaldo and
celebrities like Shakira getting slapped with back taxes and suspended jail sentences in Spain. A complex tax system and unclear rules are just another opportunity for abuse by tax authorities.
https://m.timesofindia.com/sports/football/top-stories/messi...
https://m.timesofindia.com/sports/football/top-stories/messi...
It's worth noting that there is special provision for these kinds of cases: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beckham_law
Of course this doesn't protect you from outright tax evasion. Also there are some rules like the calculation of capital gains that differ from the US system, meaning that you are not necessarily protected from double taxation, since each system taxes a different transaction.
Of course this doesn't protect you from outright tax evasion. Also there are some rules like the calculation of capital gains that differ from the US system, meaning that you are not necessarily protected from double taxation, since each system taxes a different transaction.
The NHR in Portugal allows this for everyone (not wealthy per se).
Anyone moving to Portugal under NHR is by definition wealthy :)
How so? It is attractive for more reasons than paying less tax for wealth. I know quite a lot of wfh devs who moved in the past year.
ya those people are all wealthy :)
I guess our definition of wealthy is different. There are bucketloads of 'nomads' under the NHR that have no wealth and just get money from outside PT: I am talking a few 1000 per month. What is wealth for you? The Beckham law wealth is what I would call wealth and sure there are people using nhr to move their wealth from some fund to their person within the 10 years without paying tax. However, unlike the Beckham law, for the NHR you do not need capital to benefit.
I really doubt anyone is applying for NHR status with a few thousand a month, more than likely they would get denied for that. The rules have gotten a lot tighter over the last few years.
I would way that anyone moving to Portugal to apply for NHR status and who is a programmer is wealthy. IE, anyone making over 80k to 100k on the low end.
I would way that anyone moving to Portugal to apply for NHR status and who is a programmer is wealthy. IE, anyone making over 80k to 100k on the low end.
Ok, but you would be wrong. It is anyone who works in a profession PT wants to attract. And it got more strict but any IT job qualifies and it matters not what the salary is.
The abuse is both ways...see how much tax Amazon and Apple is paying. Hint: not much!
They are paying VAT (revenue tax), but avoid corporate tax (profit tax).
VAT is not a revenue tax. VAT is the tax paid by consumers not by the company. Company only acts as tax collector. The weird thing is this: they collect VAT on everyting they sell, but then, for everything they buy (raw materials, office supplies, etc.) they can substract amount of VAT paid for those from the amount of VAT collected. So purchases by companies are basically VAT-free. And of course some tax optimisation schemes come into play here, with some companies getting ahead on VAT (like, actually getting a VAT refund from the government, instead of paying it).
VAT is not the only tax to be paid in the EU. Not to mention they pay less VAT than the local businesses through various schemes(i.e registering the company that makes the sale in a country with lower VAT)
That doesn't work anymore and it only worked for small volumes, not bigger retailers. They previously needed a VAT number from the state the custumer was in, which was very cumbersome. Now they just add the destination state's VAT on the invoice and I think the VAT is settled between states.
> i.e registering the company that makes the sale in a country with lower VAT
Do they? The Amazon invoices I receive have German VAT.
Do they? The Amazon invoices I receive have German VAT.
At least in Spain a company will usually be able to avoid VAT on purchases they make. It is true that they charge and collect VAT on their sales to consumers. The majority off tax paid by these companies is on what they pay their employees.
This is very hard in reality though especially on goods from abroad; your NIE has to be on the invoice officially (which companies like BA do not do for you and I flew with them a lot for business) and while this is not strictly enforced, I got slapped many times on valid business purchases. The gestor told me to just deduct 75% of the deductible vat to not get onto the radar. Ugh.
This is too real. The ultimate tax is on your time, especially as a foreigner.
What makes you think the tax authorities were the ones being abusive, and not the very expensive tax specialists hired on behalf of a class of people moaning that it's not fair that people earning €100m a year don't pay smaller proportions of their income in taxes than people earning €100k?
All these downvotes, and not one person prepared to explain why portions of a Spain-based footballer's earnings from Spanish companies accruing to Belize based companies is the tax authorities being abusive...
Or why the tax authority would prefer a situation where the tax code is sufficiently complex the Messis and their financial advisers think such an evasion scheme is worth trying to one where they just receive a percentage of his very large earnings without any fuss or court case, like your average employee of a Spanish company. The reality is the reverse: people with a lot of income to disguise and creative tax planners love finding ambiguities and imaginative interpretations of deductions and exemptions designed for other purposes, and tax authorities would rather not be chasing them through the courts years later.
Or why the tax authority would prefer a situation where the tax code is sufficiently complex the Messis and their financial advisers think such an evasion scheme is worth trying to one where they just receive a percentage of his very large earnings without any fuss or court case, like your average employee of a Spanish company. The reality is the reverse: people with a lot of income to disguise and creative tax planners love finding ambiguities and imaginative interpretations of deductions and exemptions designed for other purposes, and tax authorities would rather not be chasing them through the courts years later.
"Taxpayers liable to PIT:
Individuals of Spanish nationality who accredit their new fiscal residence in a country or territory labelled as a tax haven will not lose their status as taxpayers for Individual Income Tax. This rule is of application during the tax period in which the change of residence occurs and for the next four tax periods."
https://www.oecd.org/tax/automatic-exchange/crs-implementati...
Individuals of Spanish nationality who accredit their new fiscal residence in a country or territory labelled as a tax haven will not lose their status as taxpayers for Individual Income Tax. This rule is of application during the tax period in which the change of residence occurs and for the next four tax periods."
https://www.oecd.org/tax/automatic-exchange/crs-implementati...
Does this rule actually make sense? So instead of moving from Spain to e.g. Cayman Islands, you move from Spain to the UK, become UK taxpayer (in something like 180 days), cease being Spanish taxpayer, then move from the UK to Cayman Islands. Saves 4 years!
This is just another example of braindead legislation created by people who are unable to consider the full spectrum of the consequences of the law (beyond just the "intended" effects) and/or their primary motivation is publicity ("look at all these great laws I passed!")
This is just another example of braindead legislation created by people who are unable to consider the full spectrum of the consequences of the law (beyond just the "intended" effects) and/or their primary motivation is publicity ("look at all these great laws I passed!")
In your example, the moment you move from UK to Cayman Islands, the Spanish government/tax system will know (unless you make sure you hide it... but this is another topic). At some point you won’t be a UK taxpayer, in that moment the Spanish government/tax system will categorize you as Spanish taxpayer. I mean, if you are a Spanish citizen and you try to pull this trick, it may work as long as you never try to transfer the money you saved in the Cayman Islands to any Spanish bank account (any normal bank account, actually).
That doesn't sound right, but maybe there is something about the Spanish law I don't know. You can transition to other countries tax residency in Germany if you de-register(most countries don't have the concept of de-registering) and enter the other ones without making use of double taxation laws. You do have to notify your local tax authority of leaving though otherwise they'll happily continue treating you like a resident. Usually the overlap is something like a year. Most countries actually have insight into each others tax records nowadays.
Ah ok, that is very particular: tax havens and Spanish nationality. But thanks, I did not know that. And luckily neither applies to me!
It's even more particular, but in practice, it does affect a lot of funds, if not a lot of people - which is why they legislated. One can move to a no/low tax jurisdiction and not be a Spanish tax resident as long as they're covered by a double taxation agreement.
I too thought of moving my business to Spain until I started speaking to friends and acquaintances that had businesses in Spain. Lots of horror stories.
Can you give us a brief idea of what they said?
Not the parent but from my own experience having had companies in many countries: Spain was by far the hardest and most confusing. I only had companies (4) in Andalusia, so I cannot comment on other regions; where other countries are quite logical and I am usually able to reason with the tax auditors, in Spain it was hostile and most accountants, lawyers and gestors basically told us, time and time again, to just relax and do many illegal things as you will lose boatloads of money I'd you do not. However, I like sleeping at night as do my partners so with did everything by the book and it was extremely painful to do so. There are rules on rules on rules, deducting business costs are hard if not impossible etc. And you need help for everything: in Spain there is an industry called Gestors who are not accountants but people who help navigate the bureacracy. The Spanish use them as well and there are many all over the place. So you pretty quickly find out things work if you are a tiny company (autonomo) and just don't declare any tax (put it in your matress), hire people by paying them cash etc. Or you need to be a large corp with lawyers, accountants etc to navigate things efficiently. In between you mostly just get misery. I sold and closed the companies and the people that bought them since then burnt out and quit or just adopted what my Spanish friends call 'the Spanish way', which is, quite simply basically running almost fully illegally: having a 'broken' PoS all the time (so people have to pay cash), using black funds to pay people and goods and just showing losses all the time (paying only the autonomo social security and nothing more). I would find it impossible to sleep as I simply cannot accept the thought of the Guardia stomping down the door in a few years. My friends tell me I worry too much about nothing... maybe; I would never do it again.
Good to know is that Spanish taxes can go back 4 tax years which equates to about 5 years. This is shorter than most countries I did business in.
Good to know is that Spanish taxes can go back 4 tax years which equates to about 5 years. This is shorter than most countries I did business in.
I’d also be very interested in learning more.
> Tax residency is a very complicated matter but in general, you do not loose tax residency 183 days after leaving.
In Croatia you do - this is why sailors who spend >6 months on the sea don't pay income tax.
In Croatia you do - this is why sailors who spend >6 months on the sea don't pay income tax.
South African sailors who spend more than 183 days outside the country also don't pay income tax, but they usually are still tax resident: The first million Rand of employment income earned outside South Africa is exempt. But independent contract and investment income is still taxed.
And I'm pretty sure our law was based on laws in other countries, like the UK.
And I'm pretty sure our law was based on laws in other countries, like the UK.
Not sure why you’re downvoted. In Serbia it works like that as well.
TBH in most places it is like that, even spain IIRC. I don't know what OP meant
That's not true. If you have an apartment in Croatia, or if your family lives in Croatia, you are a tax resident in Croatia even if you don't spend a single day there.
https://www.oecd.org/tax/automatic-exchange/crs-implementati...
https://www.oecd.org/tax/automatic-exchange/crs-implementati...
Hmm, I was just this minute looking at apartments in Croatia after a nice trip there. Think I’ll put that plan on hold!
That's almost certainly not the case since I know multiple people who got in trouble when COVID started because they weren't able to board for a long time and they would stay on land for >6 months and have to pay income tax on the year so far + no income from not being able to work.
In the UK you are non-resident for tax purposes provided you spend 183 or more days of the tax year abroad, and your UK residence is not your sole residence.
Even as a non-resident you are still liable to pay UK tax on UK income, however.
Even as a non-resident you are still liable to pay UK tax on UK income, however.
For the vast majority of people, what I wrote is entirely true. Yes, it’s complicated and some people will have exceptional circumstances. But most of the more complex tests on the page you list are for people who want to prove they are UK tax resident, not that they’re not!
Not really, if you spend 120-183 days in the UK, to not be a tax resident, you'd need to not have family there, not have a house/hotel for more than 90 days, nor work there for more than 40 days, nor have spent more than 90 days there the year prior and you'd need to have spent more time in another country. It's a lot of conditions!
The same with Canada. Technically we have a similar residence requirement as far as number of days present is concerned. However try convincing the CRA that you're not a tax resident is far more difficult.
The CRA want some sort of document detailing that you are a tax resident elsewhere which is difficult to obtain if you are mobile between several countries.
It's cool that Costa Rica is doing this though. It legitimises what people have already been doing illegally.
The CRA want some sort of document detailing that you are a tax resident elsewhere which is difficult to obtain if you are mobile between several countries.
It's cool that Costa Rica is doing this though. It legitimises what people have already been doing illegally.
Yeah, but most of those tests are actually pretty easy to pass for someone who is not tax resident.
The “family tie” test is not as onerous as it sounds. It just means you can’t have a spouse or child under 18 who is themselves a full-time UK resident.
The “family tie” test is not as onerous as it sounds. It just means you can’t have a spouse or child under 18 who is themselves a full-time UK resident.
It's easy for someone who's not tax resident to pass a non-tax residency test? Isn't that a tautology? ;)
Your understanding of what is a family test isn't correct either. If you have a boyfriend/girlfriend and you spend enough time together, you will be considered as "living as spouses or civil partners" and that would prevent you from passing the family test. The burden of proof would be on you to prove you that you're not that close to your partner to pass the test. And by the way, if your bf/gf owns or rent a place in the UK in which you spent a single night, HMRC would consider you have an accommodation in the UK.
There are solicitors who make a living solely on individual tax residency because it is way more complex than spending >183 days in the UK.
Your understanding of what is a family test isn't correct either. If you have a boyfriend/girlfriend and you spend enough time together, you will be considered as "living as spouses or civil partners" and that would prevent you from passing the family test. The burden of proof would be on you to prove you that you're not that close to your partner to pass the test. And by the way, if your bf/gf owns or rent a place in the UK in which you spent a single night, HMRC would consider you have an accommodation in the UK.
There are solicitors who make a living solely on individual tax residency because it is way more complex than spending >183 days in the UK.
> "It's easy for someone who's not tax resident to pass a non-tax residency test? Isn't that a tautology? ;)"
The point is that if you have enough wealth to make achieving non-tax residency desirable, then most of the time you will also have the resources to arrange your affairs in such a way that you can achieve that status while still being able to spend significant time in the UK. Yes, individual circumstances vary, but for most people in that category these tests are not a huge hurdle.
> "If you have a boyfriend/girlfriend and you spend enough time together, you will be considered as "living as spouses or civil partners" and that would prevent you from passing the family test."
In most circumstances that is unlikely. If you have a partner that you spend enough time with to be considered "living as spouses or civil partners", then they would very likely also be non-resident. Because they'd be living with you!
The point is that if you have enough wealth to make achieving non-tax residency desirable, then most of the time you will also have the resources to arrange your affairs in such a way that you can achieve that status while still being able to spend significant time in the UK. Yes, individual circumstances vary, but for most people in that category these tests are not a huge hurdle.
> "If you have a boyfriend/girlfriend and you spend enough time together, you will be considered as "living as spouses or civil partners" and that would prevent you from passing the family test."
In most circumstances that is unlikely. If you have a partner that you spend enough time with to be considered "living as spouses or civil partners", then they would very likely also be non-resident. Because they'd be living with you!
Another counterpoint, in Australia, you lose tax residency the day you leave (assuming you then spend a majority of the year outside the country).
Got any links with more info on this? Preferably from the ATO?
As an Aussie this sounds really damn tempting but I'm seeing information that implies you can still be considered an Australian tax resident if you have certain assets or interests in AU:
https://www.ato.gov.au/Individuals/coming-to-australia-or-go...
http://www6.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/aat/...
I would be interested in working overseas for a couple of years, but would not be interested in cutting all ties with Australia to do so.
As an Aussie this sounds really damn tempting but I'm seeing information that implies you can still be considered an Australian tax resident if you have certain assets or interests in AU:
https://www.ato.gov.au/Individuals/coming-to-australia-or-go...
http://www6.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/aat/...
I would be interested in working overseas for a couple of years, but would not be interested in cutting all ties with Australia to do so.
yea, not sure what the OP is referring to or what their personal circumstances are but that is definitely not as simple as that from personal experience (i left Australia for 10 months) along with first hand accounts of people I know.
Besides the obvious wife/kids being in Australia = personal ties, ATO also considers the following to be reasonable points to be constituted as a tax resident:
- Australian Bank accounts, even with $0.01 in it.
- Superannuation
- Properties owned, regardless if it is as an investments or owner-occupied (not rented out)
- Any Australian Account e.g. commsec, vanguard australia, telstra/optus mobile, etc
- Postal address/P.O. box
And so forth. ATO is purposefully applying broad strokes to "ties" to Australia so that they can claim their share of taxes accordingly.
I have a mate whom is a miner, working offshore for BHP, and was audited by the ATO since he lives in Indonesia (wife/family) thus claimed he is a non-tax resident. He is originally from WA so got dinged for a house he owns in WA (which he intended to come back to) + his (Telstra) mobile plan that he never used but paid the smallest plan to keep so that he didn't lose his aussie number + his NAB bank account that had $1000 in it so that he has some cash to spend when he visits family. ATO told him that if he wanted to be considered a non-tax resident, he had to liquidate _and_ close everything he has in Australia to be considered a non-tax resident. Since he didn't do so, they considered he has every intention to return to Australia thus place undue burden on medicare & pension system, if applicable, thus had to pay the difference in tax he paid in Indonesia vs. working in Australia.
Besides the obvious wife/kids being in Australia = personal ties, ATO also considers the following to be reasonable points to be constituted as a tax resident:
- Australian Bank accounts, even with $0.01 in it.
- Superannuation
- Properties owned, regardless if it is as an investments or owner-occupied (not rented out)
- Any Australian Account e.g. commsec, vanguard australia, telstra/optus mobile, etc
- Postal address/P.O. box
And so forth. ATO is purposefully applying broad strokes to "ties" to Australia so that they can claim their share of taxes accordingly.
I have a mate whom is a miner, working offshore for BHP, and was audited by the ATO since he lives in Indonesia (wife/family) thus claimed he is a non-tax resident. He is originally from WA so got dinged for a house he owns in WA (which he intended to come back to) + his (Telstra) mobile plan that he never used but paid the smallest plan to keep so that he didn't lose his aussie number + his NAB bank account that had $1000 in it so that he has some cash to spend when he visits family. ATO told him that if he wanted to be considered a non-tax resident, he had to liquidate _and_ close everything he has in Australia to be considered a non-tax resident. Since he didn't do so, they considered he has every intention to return to Australia thus place undue burden on medicare & pension system, if applicable, thus had to pay the difference in tax he paid in Indonesia vs. working in Australia.
Not even close! You can lose tax residency the say you leave ... or you can be overseas for years on end, and still be an Australian tax resident (did that myself for example!). The ATO is notorious for being one of the hardest tax systems to escape.
You just don’t need to tie any of these tax statuses and income to your person.
Form a corporation or trust or both and have those do all the earning, and make a distribution whenever you really need to. This is not simple when you are barely getting ahead in life, but if you are it is very simple.
Form a corporation or trust or both and have those do all the earning, and make a distribution whenever you really need to. This is not simple when you are barely getting ahead in life, but if you are it is very simple.
Um...what? Not sure where you got that UK stat from, but it's completely not true. https://www.gov.uk/tax-foreign-income/residence
Yeah, they designed tax law such that only big companies can evade it.
I can say that for Canada, yes, you're correct. It starts as of the day you left (or the day you become resident somewhere else, whichever is later) As long as you meet the requirements of non-residency. Which is basically no primary ties (spouse or dependants still living there, a house or car there). There are also secondary ties like bank accounts but these may or may not matter. You have to intend to leave permanently basically.
From a tax perspective you still are taxed on Canadian source income, so if your job is in Canada nothing changes.
With digital nomad visas specifically, as they are temporary and usually confer visitor status and not resident status, you may have difficulty establishing that you've left permanently and are resident elsewhere. That seems like a grey area yet to be tested, and the CRA probably has a good case there.
I'm not an expert, so consult a real expert in the field if you want tax advice.
From a tax perspective you still are taxed on Canadian source income, so if your job is in Canada nothing changes.
With digital nomad visas specifically, as they are temporary and usually confer visitor status and not resident status, you may have difficulty establishing that you've left permanently and are resident elsewhere. That seems like a grey area yet to be tested, and the CRA probably has a good case there.
I'm not an expert, so consult a real expert in the field if you want tax advice.
The laws get _weird_ if you have "resident" status in more than one country.
Just to make the rules easier to enforce, it's sometimes easier to show you have resident status somewhere else. I had much bigger issues with the fact that land ownership / house ownership / bank account laws care a lot about non-resident-ownership.
Just to make the rules easier to enforce, it's sometimes easier to show you have resident status somewhere else. I had much bigger issues with the fact that land ownership / house ownership / bank account laws care a lot about non-resident-ownership.
Here's a nice 'from the horse's mouth' sum up on how the CRA views the residency status:
https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/tax/technic...
https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/tax/technic...
Thank you for sharing that, it's more detailed than other information I've come across.
Tax on trade marks must be low, so you make a company in Canada, purchase trade mark rights from a guy in Costa Rica, your Canadian company makes no profit ... isn't that the sort of thing the big companies like Amazon do to pay no local taxes.
This requires that you earn your income through a company under your control and that you can pay to setup a complicated tax avoidance scheme like that, and pay to defend it, and even then you may get it wrong and end up paying taxes and penalties.
I don't recommend trying things like this.
In this specific case I guess you'd make your money from the IP royalties in Costa Rica, so it may avoid the Canadian source income. I doubt it would stand up to scrutiny though, the courts would very likely see right through it.
I don't recommend trying things like this.
In this specific case I guess you'd make your money from the IP royalties in Costa Rica, so it may avoid the Canadian source income. I doubt it would stand up to scrutiny though, the courts would very likely see right through it.
You've greatly summed up the tax law, well done.
You wouldn't pay US tax on the first ~$100k of non US income. With remote work that distinction is important, for instance youtube payments from advertisers for US viewers are US income even if you make the videos outside of the US and are not a US resident or citizen starting this year.
For the local taxes, there are a lot of other taxes besides income tax the local government benefits from
For the local taxes, there are a lot of other taxes besides income tax the local government benefits from
More precisely, the first ~$100k of wage income. Many common types of income do not qualify for this exclusion.
I think worth to mention there is distinction between being resident and tax resident. I think matter is getting more complicated if someone working via limited company setup in different country instead of self-employed.
That usually depends on which country you are from. Germany, for instance, follows a residence based taxation. So if you spend a substantial amount of time outside Germany, cut all ties (no spouse, apartments, cars in Germany) and don’t have German income (e.g. from rent) you’ll cease to be considered a tax resident of Germany.
In that case you won’t have to pay income tax anymore. However, where it gets complicated is that usually under these digital nomad visas you don’t get a new tax residence nor a tax file number from your new residence country. So you are kind of falling between the cracks and have a hard time opening bank accounts etc.
I’ve been through this whole ordeal and it certainly is an interesting experience with pros and cons.
In that case you won’t have to pay income tax anymore. However, where it gets complicated is that usually under these digital nomad visas you don’t get a new tax residence nor a tax file number from your new residence country. So you are kind of falling between the cracks and have a hard time opening bank accounts etc.
I’ve been through this whole ordeal and it certainly is an interesting experience with pros and cons.
> With this kind of visas I've always been curious: Unless you're US or Eritrea citizen, does this mean you don't have to pay any income tax at all, given you loose your home country's tax residentship in 183 days after leaving?
If you really become fiscal resident of a country with 0% income tax and the country you left is fine with that then, yes, you pay 0% income tax. I've got a friend who really went to live with his family in Monaco (he was a native french speaker, but not from France, which helps): he's there since five years now I'd say and, indeed, he pays 0% income tax.
If you really become fiscal resident of a country with 0% income tax and the country you left is fine with that then, yes, you pay 0% income tax. I've got a friend who really went to live with his family in Monaco (he was a native french speaker, but not from France, which helps): he's there since five years now I'd say and, indeed, he pays 0% income tax.
Yes. e.g. in places like Qatar that's 0% income tax, it means no taxes at all
It depends on the double taxation treaties signed between your country of citizenship and the country where you live. Some will allow you to pay no taxes in your citizenship country, other will ask you to pay the difference, and maybe there are other situations too. You’ll have to check the treaty and/or talk to a specialist.
double taxation treaties are about cases where both countries can legitimately tax you. If you are exempt from taxation, it does not apply
I don’t believe that is correct. Your country of citizenship will by default view any income you have as taxable, no matter from where or where you get it. The double taxation treaty exempts you entirely or partially, regardless of the obligations you have or not in the country of tax residency.
In other words it’s not about what you are taxed in other places, it’s about income.
Maybe someone with better knowledge can chime in.
In other words it’s not about what you are taxed in other places, it’s about income.
Maybe someone with better knowledge can chime in.
This is true in the case of American citizens, as well as in many other countries in special cases (mostly to prevent people moving to "tax havens"). Otherwise it is not true, and the other countries in Europe and the Americas that I'm familiar with work on the basis of spending 183 nights within the territory, or having your primary business interest within that country. Of course the laws are long, varied and full of exceptions.
(Too late to edit the comment I am replying to)
See here [0] a list of countries and their taxation methods. Go to Taxation Systems / Individuals, the table.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_taxation
See here [0] a list of countries and their taxation methods. Go to Taxation Systems / Individuals, the table.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_taxation
If you don't reside in your country of citizenship (definition of residence varies by country) then you don't have to pay taxes in that country. US is the exception.
That depends on the country and double taxation treaty. E.g. my country (a EU country that is not US) considers me a tax resident since I have 'permanent residence' in the country (weird concept that does not cease when you leave the country, you need to actively go to the bureau and ask it to be terminated, which a lot of people just ignore because they live in other EU country first as students and then they start working etc). You can have this permanent residence even if you haven't lived in the country for 15 years.
Article 4, bullet point 1
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
Article 4, bullet point 1
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
Residence and “tax residence” are different things. There are countries where you can be considered tax resident even if you don't step your foot there the whole year (often it's something like you having your family living there, or your business registered there). Some countries can treat you as tax resident by default if you are a citizen, unless proven otherwise, which you'd have to do in court if tax authorities decide to insist and you decide to disagree.
It depends; if you are an employee of a big company and you are working from home, but you covertly move to CR for a few months, you still have to pay taxes in your official country of residence. If you want to move the residence, your company may fire you (it just happened to a good friend that moved to a neighboring country in EU, not even outside EU or a different continent).
But if you are self-employed or a different flexible arrangement, in some countries you can do the trick. For example if you live in Romania and move to CR for 2 years, you don't pay the 45% minimum income tax, which basically makes Costa Rica an "evil tax heaven" and you a very, very bad citizen of your country that is not contributing.
But if you are self-employed or a different flexible arrangement, in some countries you can do the trick. For example if you live in Romania and move to CR for 2 years, you don't pay the 45% minimum income tax, which basically makes Costa Rica an "evil tax heaven" and you a very, very bad citizen of your country that is not contributing.
> 45% minimum income tax
Holy shit
Holy shit
U.S. citizens living abroad still have to pay Federal taxes to the U.S. government. That applies regardless of where the money is earned.
You’d have to renounce citizenship to get out of that little gem.
You’d have to renounce citizenship to get out of that little gem.
Those countries require taxation of citizens regardless of residency. Citizens elsewhere are taxed based upon residency (the last time I checked). Also - if you are a US citizen you get $120k tax free if out of the country for 11 months. $240k for married.
* Costa Rica is pretty cheap. 30%-50% of US living cost. (minus Manhattan or west coast) You also get monkey’s in your backyard!
* Costa Rica is pretty cheap. 30%-50% of US living cost. (minus Manhattan or west coast) You also get monkey’s in your backyard!
It depends on the country and the nature of your income. If you're self-employed, generally yes. If you're a salaried employee, that part of your income is usually taxed in the country of employment* regardless of where you live. The situation also depends on whether your home country has a tax treaty with the country where you live.
*insert 1001 loopholes and exceptions here.
*insert 1001 loopholes and exceptions here.
Many countries have cracked down on this in the last Decade.
In Canada, you didn't have to pay income tax if you were outside the country for more than half the year.
Now as a citizen or resident you have a bank account in Canada, any assets (house, car) or even set foot in the country within any given year you have to pay income taxes there.
In Canada, you didn't have to pay income tax if you were outside the country for more than half the year.
Now as a citizen or resident you have a bank account in Canada, any assets (house, car) or even set foot in the country within any given year you have to pay income taxes there.
At least in Poland this is not so obvious since to be a tax resident any of 2 things have to apply:
1) you stayed longer than 6 months there
2) Poland is the "center of your life"
Generally the second one is quite abstract and is mostly tested in court and generally the less connection you have in Poland the more likely you are not considered as Poland being the center of your life such as: - not having company there - not having family (wife, kids) there - not having most investments there - not visiting regularly - not having any income from there
however still you can e.g. have a bank account or own flat that you rent there and still not considered to be a tax resident, probably you would have to prove that there is other country that is center of your life (e.g. paying taxes there, staying more than 6 months, having wife/kids living there, etc.)
What's gets very unclear what happens if someone doesn't have any "center of their life" anywhere - e.g. someone keep travelling for many years and every 2-3 months switching countries, living on the boat. After all e.g. 'donuts' don't have any center that belongs to them.
Generally the second one is quite abstract and is mostly tested in court and generally the less connection you have in Poland the more likely you are not considered as Poland being the center of your life such as: - not having company there - not having family (wife, kids) there - not having most investments there - not visiting regularly - not having any income from there
however still you can e.g. have a bank account or own flat that you rent there and still not considered to be a tax resident, probably you would have to prove that there is other country that is center of your life (e.g. paying taxes there, staying more than 6 months, having wife/kids living there, etc.)
What's gets very unclear what happens if someone doesn't have any "center of their life" anywhere - e.g. someone keep travelling for many years and every 2-3 months switching countries, living on the boat. After all e.g. 'donuts' don't have any center that belongs to them.
> What's gets very unclear what happens if someone doesn't have any "center of their life" anywhere.
Ukrainian tax code has similar provisions about “center of life interest” and “staying more than 183 days”, and a backup clause stating that if your tax residency status cannot be clearly determined with the above approach then you are considered a resident if you are a citizen.
I guess this covers the case where you claim that you don't have to pay taxes in Ukraine just because no other country has considered you a tax resident and you never paid any taxes there, so you can't use that to argue that you're a non-resident as far as Ukraine in concerned.
Ukrainian tax code has similar provisions about “center of life interest” and “staying more than 183 days”, and a backup clause stating that if your tax residency status cannot be clearly determined with the above approach then you are considered a resident if you are a citizen.
I guess this covers the case where you claim that you don't have to pay taxes in Ukraine just because no other country has considered you a tax resident and you never paid any taxes there, so you can't use that to argue that you're a non-resident as far as Ukraine in concerned.
It might be unclear what happens to you, but the ultra wealthy know exactly what happens when you don’t have a clear center, hint: (extremely low to zero taxes! If you have the right lawyers…)
They default to the last residency location.
It is a little bit more complex. If you don't change your residency you are still considered a resident and must pay taxes. If you live in a ship and sailed the world last year you still must pay taxes because you are considered a resident.
If you have assets or a wife in Canada they may declare you a resident even after a year.
If you have assets or a wife in Canada they may declare you a resident even after a year.
I'm a Canadian resident, who has spent over 5 years driving around the world, never staying in a single country more than a month or three. All those were just tourist visas, so it would have been illegal for me to live and work there.
During all of that, I had to pay income tax in Canada, even though I went >2 years then almost 3 years without setting foot in the country.
During all of that, I had to pay income tax in Canada, even though I went >2 years then almost 3 years without setting foot in the country.
That is because they assume you will return to Canada at some future point and likely utilize the pension and health systems.
On the opposite side, the IRS was, a couple of years ago getting interested on Canadians that were spending more than 183 days in the US running away from the winter
We have been collecting digital nomad visas at https://travel.stackexchange.com/a/158462/4188 there are a lot post-covid.
The permission to be there is one thing, but the lack of taxation is what makes it really attractive. Do any of the others also offer that?
Thailand is coming close to a digital nomad visa.
Thank you so much for sharing this.
Something I have wondered about for a long time is how many "digital nomads" there really are in the world? Are we talking hundreds? Thousands? Tens of thousands?
It seems to me that maybe the lifestyle is hyped online way beyond its actual likely prevalence.
For taxonomic purposes I define a digital nomad as somebody who travels for an extended period of time and actively makes a living online while doing so. I would exclude independently wealthy people and tourists. There have always been rich travelers.
It seems to me that maybe the lifestyle is hyped online way beyond its actual likely prevalence.
For taxonomic purposes I define a digital nomad as somebody who travels for an extended period of time and actively makes a living online while doing so. I would exclude independently wealthy people and tourists. There have always been rich travelers.
It only costs me like 150-200$ to fly from USA/Canada to Central America sometimes, and once you get there it's really cheap, so you'd be surprised! You do see people making proper bank out there living in stupid overpriced condos for sure, but I would fathom they're the minority. On the lower end of the income spectrum for digital nomads, you do see a lot of people who do stuff like corky little wordpress sites, copy writing, translation work or whatever on fiver.com making like what you'd make for that, who can't even write code and just outsource it to other people on fiver in India or whatever, living comfortably in cheap hostels and stuff on under 1000$/month. This is comparable to the middle class income in Costa Rica which is around 750$/mo. I don't even think people making this much money abroad are going to be paying taxes back home on what you would basically be making doing spongebob squarepant's job, which is interesting because as far as I know Costa Rica still doesn't even have an income tax despite measures to try and introduce them, which was met with widespread protest.
Of note is that the people on this lower income tier of people who travel on a low budget while working are going to be on tourist visas. Costa Rica's tolerated this for many years now but I think they're pretty much officially encouraging more people in the higher income bracket to come through too.
Of note is that the people on this lower income tier of people who travel on a low budget while working are going to be on tourist visas. Costa Rica's tolerated this for many years now but I think they're pretty much officially encouraging more people in the higher income bracket to come through too.
I've lived the lifestyle for 10 years. By my estimation, there are tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands. But it's not a strictly defined concept. Some people consider themselves nomads because they have virtually no home base anywhere in the world and home is where they stored their stuff this week. Others consider themselves nomads because they travel 2-3 months a year. And there's a whole range in between.
> There have always been rich travelers.
It's surprising how untrue this is. Ibn Battuta and Marco Polo were really outstanding exceptions, but even they were within the past millennium; from the dawn of human history 2 million years ago until the advent of metal money around 3000 years ago, there was no way to be a rich traveler, because wealth, to the extent that it could be accumulated at all, was not portable. It took the form of land and livestock. If you were a traveler at all, you lived by the hospitality of the people in the lands you visited, who could also kill you without fear of repercussions if they felt like it, and very likely would if they thought you were stealing their deer or their millet. You had no way to pay them; your granary deposit receipts from Ur were of no value in Egypt, and vice versa.
So there have only been rich travelers for the latest 0.15% of human history. But if you are shortsighted enough I guess that might seem almost the same as "always".
I'd put the number of digital nomads at probably tens of thousands. We founded coworking in part in order to make digital nomadism possible.
It's surprising how untrue this is. Ibn Battuta and Marco Polo were really outstanding exceptions, but even they were within the past millennium; from the dawn of human history 2 million years ago until the advent of metal money around 3000 years ago, there was no way to be a rich traveler, because wealth, to the extent that it could be accumulated at all, was not portable. It took the form of land and livestock. If you were a traveler at all, you lived by the hospitality of the people in the lands you visited, who could also kill you without fear of repercussions if they felt like it, and very likely would if they thought you were stealing their deer or their millet. You had no way to pay them; your granary deposit receipts from Ur were of no value in Egypt, and vice versa.
So there have only been rich travelers for the latest 0.15% of human history. But if you are shortsighted enough I guess that might seem almost the same as "always".
I'd put the number of digital nomads at probably tens of thousands. We founded coworking in part in order to make digital nomadism possible.
Good point. One nit though:
>So there have only been rich travelers for the latest 0.15% of human history
I would prefer the phrase "human existence" here because in the social sciences, prehistory ends and history begins when the society or region in question acquires people who know how to write, so for example the history of Scandinavia begins around 800 AD.
>So there have only been rich travelers for the latest 0.15% of human history
I would prefer the phrase "human existence" here because in the social sciences, prehistory ends and history begins when the society or region in question acquires people who know how to write, so for example the history of Scandinavia begins around 800 AD.
True!
Certainly in the tens of thousands or more depending on how strictly you define it. There'd be thousands in any one country alone. Remember that a lot of the hype is extolling the freedom/lifestyle rather than the riches. You don't have to earn a lot if your expenses are low, so the entry barrier is minimal.
Ones hanging out in Dubais of the world are certainly not poor.
Dubai's nomad visa has a $5k monthly income cutoff, right around the amount of cash income with which one can consider living there. $5k will still be on the lower end of living comfortably there.
Dubai's nomad visa has a $5k monthly income cutoff, right around the amount of cash income with which one can consider living there. $5k will still be on the lower end of living comfortably there.
[deleted]
To those of you look to take advantage of this, I would strongly recommend getting a high-rise / 4 wheeler. THey are probably twice as expensive as the low-ride sedans but you won't hate yourself while driving it. The infrastructure / roads were terrible especially around tourist destinations.
Data point: Visited Costa rica around 2012
As a side note, is there good schooling in Costa rica? Asking for a toddler. Cheers
Data point: Visited Costa rica around 2012
As a side note, is there good schooling in Costa rica? Asking for a toddler. Cheers
Check the schools affiliated with AASCA: http://www.aascaonline.net/index.php/directory-of-schools/co...
This law as described would exclude most of the digital nomads I've met, because it requires "Proof of a stable monthly salary, fixed income or a average monthly income, during the last year." Most digital nomads I've met do contract work rather than working for a fixed salary. Most of the people I know who work for a fixed salary, even on programming and sysadmin jobs where they can WfH frequently, aren't free to just move to wherever they want to move to; they have to be able to go to the office at least a few times a month. Or did before the pandemic, anyway; maybe that will change.
> or a average monthly income, during the last year
There doesn't seem to be an age limit on this which is interesting. Someone posted a worker visa website the other day and some of them had age limits like applicant has to be < 35 yo.
What I find more interesting is the idea that there would ever be an age limit for a visa (other than children). What could possible be the incentive to exclude people in their 40's and 50's, who likely have more money to spend then someone in their 20's?
For regular work visas, the idea is to attract labor force that will be able to work a full career. In many places retirement terms are fairly generous and I’m guessing a lower level foreign employee who only worked the minimum years could be a net negative to the system.
They can do proof of stake, where some kind of wealth is directly or indirectly demonstrated.
For example, the Cayman Islands had a pandemic program that required staying at certain bubble properties, which were like $10,000 per interval. Not sure what the interval was, but it was expensive and would accomplish the gatekeeping.
For example, the Cayman Islands had a pandemic program that required staying at certain bubble properties, which were like $10,000 per interval. Not sure what the interval was, but it was expensive and would accomplish the gatekeeping.
Money to spend, they care less than having young, cheap-enough, able to make children, might go back home easily in case of trouble immigrants.
I immigrated in my current country at 26 and it was really easy and warm, and they did everything to quadruple my salary from the european country I came from.
Now that I'm close to permanent residency and 33, I'm thinking of jumping again, but with a kid, an giganormous salary and a lot of money to be picky, I expect to be more a burden for the next country than an obvious cheap asset.
I immigrated in my current country at 26 and it was really easy and warm, and they did everything to quadruple my salary from the european country I came from.
Now that I'm close to permanent residency and 33, I'm thinking of jumping again, but with a kid, an giganormous salary and a lot of money to be picky, I expect to be more a burden for the next country than an obvious cheap asset.
care to share it, I would love to look at that site?
> “Tourists who stay for longer periods of time redistribute their money in the value chains generated by tourism,” Segura said.
Well that's not true. All this will do is further commoditize the housing market and price locals out of the very neighborhoods they grew up in. Digital nomadism aims to turn the whole of the global south into a company town for the benefit of the owners of Intellectual Property in the global north (plus the politicians who helped create these horrific Intellectual Property systems and laws), as well as the privileged knowledge laborers who work for them.
In other words; without access to the firewalled and 'IP protected' networks of scientific knowledge (the sum total of all human progress) the global south is perpetually blocked from growing, and has become a plaything of the global north elite, to be used and abused and plundered at will.
Well that's not true. All this will do is further commoditize the housing market and price locals out of the very neighborhoods they grew up in. Digital nomadism aims to turn the whole of the global south into a company town for the benefit of the owners of Intellectual Property in the global north (plus the politicians who helped create these horrific Intellectual Property systems and laws), as well as the privileged knowledge laborers who work for them.
In other words; without access to the firewalled and 'IP protected' networks of scientific knowledge (the sum total of all human progress) the global south is perpetually blocked from growing, and has become a plaything of the global north elite, to be used and abused and plundered at will.
These well-to-do nomads tend to live in well to do immigrant ghettoes. They don’t compete with the housing stock locals use.
In the north people always tout the benefits of having immigrants come in —especially the high income highly educated.
But here you’re doing the opposite and saying high income immigrants are bad for the locals. Is that the case only in one direction?
If you want someone to blame for the poor economy, blame local politicians corruption and graft endemic locally.
Compare Argentina to New Zealand. One has many more resources and many more people, both in the south but one has corruption and the other doesn’t. One does well and the other perpetually defaulting and getting nowhere.
Before you blame it on the past dictatorships keep in mind past dictatorships in s Korea, Taiwan, Japan even, have not kept those countries from becoming economic dynamoes. You do have to do the hard work of getting your house in order, instill education and entrepreneurship and a dream to succeed (corruption might favor incumbents for example).
In the north people always tout the benefits of having immigrants come in —especially the high income highly educated.
But here you’re doing the opposite and saying high income immigrants are bad for the locals. Is that the case only in one direction?
If you want someone to blame for the poor economy, blame local politicians corruption and graft endemic locally.
Compare Argentina to New Zealand. One has many more resources and many more people, both in the south but one has corruption and the other doesn’t. One does well and the other perpetually defaulting and getting nowhere.
Before you blame it on the past dictatorships keep in mind past dictatorships in s Korea, Taiwan, Japan even, have not kept those countries from becoming economic dynamoes. You do have to do the hard work of getting your house in order, instill education and entrepreneurship and a dream to succeed (corruption might favor incumbents for example).
In bad housing markets like Toronto and Vancouver people don't tout the benefits of wealthy foreigners (immigrants or just investors) buy houses and making the area unaffordable to the locals.
Canada had a more or less total stop to immigration until recently, and despite that Toronto managed to have another crazy housing rally earlier this year before vaccines were widely available. Before that, the 15% Non‑Resident Speculation Tax caused a brief scare until the market realized that it can rally just fine with bona-fide residents.
I'm not buying the "wealthy foreigner as the main culprit" story. Surely they add to the existing demand and it's always nice to have an external scapegoat, but there's clearly something bigger going on than just foreigners. I'm thinking continued difficulties to build housing without going through multi-year permit processes, most of the city still being NIMBY'd into low-rise SFH zoning, and the sizeable number of millenials both getting wealthy enough to buy into housing as well as getting FOMO from continued price appreciations.
But it's always nice to have a plausible explanation for why the innocent locals aren't at fault.
I'm not buying the "wealthy foreigner as the main culprit" story. Surely they add to the existing demand and it's always nice to have an external scapegoat, but there's clearly something bigger going on than just foreigners. I'm thinking continued difficulties to build housing without going through multi-year permit processes, most of the city still being NIMBY'd into low-rise SFH zoning, and the sizeable number of millenials both getting wealthy enough to buy into housing as well as getting FOMO from continued price appreciations.
But it's always nice to have a plausible explanation for why the innocent locals aren't at fault.
I agree, there is a ton of local demand and not enough building of medium density stuff people actually want. I was just saying that people don't want wealthy migrants buying homes, regardless if they are the true driver of the prices skyrocketing. Maybe wasn't the best example.
But that's already happening. In addition the global north currently brain drains the rest of the world who reared and educated their most precious workers. If anything this will allow them to go back, with all the positives that brings
Think of the big picture, more income in these locations means more local spending on infrastructure and schooling, it is a long process, but it is possible.
Studies have found that income inequality decreases with improved worker mobility.
Studies have found that income inequality decreases with improved worker mobility.
I agree with your critique of the "intellectual property" system, and certainly it is true that it serves as a new form of colonialism, extracting rents without providing the supposed benefits for which it was established. And I don't know what the overall social effects of "digital nomadism" will be. But overall I think your comment lacks coherence.
I think sci-hub is blocked in a bunch of European countries but very little of the so-called global south.
I'm not sure you know what a company town is. In a company town, a single company owns the whole town, trapping the inhabitants in a cycle of buying overpriced goods at the company store and renting overpriced housing from the company, so they can never save money. Mr. Peabody and his privileged knowledge laborers didn't move to a company town or even a quasi-company-town like Pawnee; he moved to Hinsdale, a wooded suburb of Chicago, where he'd grown up.
My experience with the so-called "global south" is that usually the local elites have a great deal more influence than overseas companies, and they use it to consolidate their own power, preventing economic development. But generalizations are misleading; the peripheral countries in the world economic system are extremely diverse. The problems in Nigeria are not the same as the problems in Argentina, which (fortunately) are not the same as the problems in Venezuela, and Micronesia has totally different problems (and is largely controlled by overseas politicians).
I think sci-hub is blocked in a bunch of European countries but very little of the so-called global south.
I'm not sure you know what a company town is. In a company town, a single company owns the whole town, trapping the inhabitants in a cycle of buying overpriced goods at the company store and renting overpriced housing from the company, so they can never save money. Mr. Peabody and his privileged knowledge laborers didn't move to a company town or even a quasi-company-town like Pawnee; he moved to Hinsdale, a wooded suburb of Chicago, where he'd grown up.
My experience with the so-called "global south" is that usually the local elites have a great deal more influence than overseas companies, and they use it to consolidate their own power, preventing economic development. But generalizations are misleading; the peripheral countries in the world economic system are extremely diverse. The problems in Nigeria are not the same as the problems in Argentina, which (fortunately) are not the same as the problems in Venezuela, and Micronesia has totally different problems (and is largely controlled by overseas politicians).
International investment, including tourism, is in general the fastest way a country can improve it's standard of living. Of course, it's not guaranteed since corruption can easily eat away at the gains but baring that it works rather well. The alternative is a very slow and long grind to improve the economy while every other country is improving even faster since they have more money to throw at it.
Here's the dark secret: these countries are already the playthings of other countries and effectively irrelevant and powerless. The question is how they stop being that and not they avoid becoming it.
Here's the dark secret: these countries are already the playthings of other countries and effectively irrelevant and powerless. The question is how they stop being that and not they avoid becoming it.
That's quite a narrative you're asserting. Curious what facts you have to support it.
We have a similar law in Croatia for a while; not sure how many digital nomads are currently working from Croatia.
https://croatianomad.com/
https://croatianomad.com/
I just returned from Dubrovnik and Hvar. Would be a great place to spend a year or two working remotely!
The link you posted does not explain the law. It is effectively an ad.
I’m going to send this to my brother, he has been thinking of doing telemedicine and touring the US in an RV, maybe this is even better. Is the internet in Costa Rica as good as the article says?
Make sure that he can do said telemedicine from outside of the country (per his contract or law). I know more than a few doctors that have tried to do it just to discover that for some reason it wouldn't work for them. For instance, they could read an x-ray and comment on it but per some rule it wasn't actually allowed to count as "official" and still had to be checked by a second radiologist. I can't recall what the blocking factor was, I just know it's kept him from buying a sailboat and taking off or buying a large house in Thailand.
Hello -- Been in and out of this country as well as other regional countries a lot in the past decade and I can attest it's probably some of the best in the whole latin american/caribbean zone. Fibre to the home rollout across the country in places where you wouldn't expect it like the beach and the jungle. What's spotty isn't as much actually the internet access, but the electricity. I usually make sure I'm in range of 4g and keep good batteries for the two hours or so that the 4g towers have batteries. After that it's time to go eat a mango in a hammock or something until it comes back on. Being in central time zone also helps for doing stuff like calls when you're dealing with people on both east and west coast and in between like your brother may be considering.
Didn’t read the article, so if they are claiming 1Gbps or something like that then no.
But as an engineering manager who travels to Costa Rica often to work for weeks from there (from all over the country) I can tell you that I rarely have connectivity issues.
But as an engineering manager who travels to Costa Rica often to work for weeks from there (from all over the country) I can tell you that I rarely have connectivity issues.
Touring the US in an RV while working is a pretty decent fallback plan. Don't discourage him either way!
Yes is very good, capital and some beaches has very stable connections.
It's very spotty
Any decent real estate sites and recommended areas for people curious about what the living situations and pricing are like?
Does anyone know if Colombia has this type of digital nomad visa?
Be aware drug trafficking is part of the culture there.
I'm from Costa Rica and I'm not aware of that, drug trafficking like what? We as other countries in the planet has issues with illegal drugs yes is true, but never in any way this has influenced into our culture.
it's part of the major drug transportation route from Colombia to Mexico though isn't it?
You mean from Colombia to the US (probably more accurate to say Peru these days)? By this logic the US has a huge drug trafficking culture which may or may not be true. Besides, I think the actual drug trafficking route at this stage (around Central Amercia) is by boat to Mexico where it is brought across the border by land (one of the many ways it is imported).
Certain parts of the US have that culture, like traders on wall street who work 100 hour weeks, yes. Part of the culture doesn't mean it's everyone. I don't know where that lands for CR, I just know someone who went there specifically for recreational use because it's decriminalized. My point was only to be aware of this potential cultural difference, and that it may not be for everyone. I'm sorry if that is hurtful to anyone. I should have said that drug use is decriminalized and accepted, which is the real difference.
what are you on about?
I know at least one person who joined a commune there and said it was part of every day life. Plus, just look it up. Drugs are "cheap and plentiful" there
https://theculturetrip.com/central-america/costa-rica/articl...
https://theculturetrip.com/central-america/costa-rica/articl...
You know where drugs are cheap and plentiful? The US, Europe, London, Russia, Africa, basically everywhere. To say "Be aware drug trafficking is part of the culture there." is extremely weird and probably racist. Why are you saying that? If you think, "Oh it's central America" is that it? Costa Rica is actually not in any of the traditional drug trafficking routes (say from Peru to the US) so that line of thought just doesn't go anywhere. I've spent a lot of time in Costa Rica and I've never trafficked any drugs nor have I witnessed this cultural drug trafficking.
I imagine there is some sort of drug trafficking fiesta or holiday that I'm just constantly missing.
I imagine there is some sort of drug trafficking fiesta or holiday that I'm just constantly missing.
Clarified in another comment, what I should have said is it's decriminalized, and therefore may have a different culture around recreational use that may or may not suit everyone.
This looks to me like the first step to generally get rid of income taxes (taxing people for working instead of for using the resources of the country).
The shipping industry has been exempt from taxes for a long time now. Online businesses for long time were escaping the system. Now it seems things are going to move to more indirect taxation becaus taxing things in an interconnected world based on location is going to become increasingly impossible
I think this is the wrong way to look at it.
You're looking at it from an individual/market economy point of view as a transaction (tax for services).
But that's not how the people setting the tax are looking at it. They're thinking about how can we make this country survive, how do we make it prosper, how much money do we need to make that happen, and how do we get that money from the population.
So you should expect to pay for things which are:
* Larger than individual or company scale
* Longer than individual or company lifespan
* Less probable than individuals or companies will consider
* Strategic in some other way that the market economy isn't able to handle
And yeah, a lot of those aren't going to benefit you personally. It's still a good idea for someone to be paying.
The above is an idealisation, and of course there is also waste and corruption to add to the picture, which is probably what you really object to I imagine.
You're looking at it from an individual/market economy point of view as a transaction (tax for services).
But that's not how the people setting the tax are looking at it. They're thinking about how can we make this country survive, how do we make it prosper, how much money do we need to make that happen, and how do we get that money from the population.
So you should expect to pay for things which are:
* Larger than individual or company scale
* Longer than individual or company lifespan
* Less probable than individuals or companies will consider
* Strategic in some other way that the market economy isn't able to handle
And yeah, a lot of those aren't going to benefit you personally. It's still a good idea for someone to be paying.
The above is an idealisation, and of course there is also waste and corruption to add to the picture, which is probably what you really object to I imagine.
Just because you’re a digital nomad doesn’t mean you’re not using resources. You’ll still need healthcare, repairs to the road you probably drive on, someone to take your trash etc.
This is what VAT and property taxes are for. When I went to Costa Rica to a hotel, I payed quite high taxes there. Also there's VAT on every other service that I took (like taxi and Uber, though taxis hate Uber in Costa Rica and go to great lengths to tell you that it's illegal).
At the same time as I'm travelling, I'm still paying capital gain taxes to the country where I live officially, even though I get nothing in return from that country.
At the same time as I'm travelling, I'm still paying capital gain taxes to the country where I live officially, even though I get nothing in return from that country.
This concept is alien to me. Finland has income tax that everyone pays and it covers everything. There is still VAT when I buy an apple at the store, but it's not there to pay for the road repairs for the car I drive. We have seperate car tax.
If you gain residency here, you are treated no different to a Finn.
> At the same time as I'm travelling, I'm still paying capital gain taxes to the country where I live officially, even though I get nothing in return from that country.
This is ludicrous and a fault of your own gov. I presume you are US.
If you gain residency here, you are treated no different to a Finn.
> At the same time as I'm travelling, I'm still paying capital gain taxes to the country where I live officially, even though I get nothing in return from that country.
This is ludicrous and a fault of your own gov. I presume you are US.
https://vm.fi/en/the-budget
According to this, Finland's budget revenue for 2021 is estimated at €68.1 billion. €14 billion of it (20%) came from income and wealth taxes.
Your excise taxes alone are almost half of what income and wealth taxes bring in. VAT is 31% of the budget revenue.
With numbers like these I don't think it's unreasonable to do away with income taxes and replace them with other forms of taxation.
According to this, Finland's budget revenue for 2021 is estimated at €68.1 billion. €14 billion of it (20%) came from income and wealth taxes.
Your excise taxes alone are almost half of what income and wealth taxes bring in. VAT is 31% of the budget revenue.
With numbers like these I don't think it's unreasonable to do away with income taxes and replace them with other forms of taxation.
Keep in mind that these 20% aren’t spread across the whole population, contrary to VAT for example
If you did away with income tax you’d still end up having to modulate another tax according to income/wealth, which kind of ends up being the same thing as an income tax
If you did away with income tax you’d still end up having to modulate another tax according to income/wealth, which kind of ends up being the same thing as an income tax
Thank you for the explanation. This is new to me :)
Not really, I spent a month in Portugal, a few in Brazil, few weeks in Panama, 1 month in Costa Rica, 1 month in Mexico (which was my favourite mix of US level hotels with the friendliness of latin american people). I'm European, and I was half year in my home country. Splitting income tax / capital gains between countries would be an option, but not really practical, as I could select when I'm selling my assets.
Hey looking to do something similar, could I somehow contact yu and ask a few questions?
[deleted]
The problem is that VAT is strongly regressive. If you wanted to remove income tax, you’d have to increase VAT but also give negative income tax (ie handouts) to everyone in the bottom 2-3 deciles
Medical insurance from the Costa Rican Social Security will be required, so you'll have to pay for it. Roads are paid by tolls or tax at the gas pump. I think trash collection is paid by municipal taxes of the property you live in.
How is Internet in Costa Rica?
Excellent, I have 300 MBPS/20 MBPS fiber at my house near the capital San Jose, and at our beach place (Jaco Beach) I have cable internet which is 200 MBPS/10 MBPS. Both cost about $90 a month cabletica.com tigo.cr kolbi.cr are the three main ones but there are tons of options and starlink will be available in early 2022.
Excelllent compared to what... ?
Your upload speeds at least seem laughable from Eastern Europe. Download is also quite low. I have 500 mbps just because i don't see a reason for 1 Gbps.
Patchy outside the main cities, but I'm sure it will improve.
Also .. Starlink.
Also .. Starlink.
That's out of date. They ran fiber down the Pacific coast when the highway was paved, and it doesn't cost that much to get a connecting line run to your house (source, did this a few months ago, have reliable symmetric 75Mb).
Power is a larger concern - in rainy season we've been having outages several times a week, though most are short. That will vary based on location.
In any case, if renting a house, check for fiber & check whether they have a generator or a few UPSes at least.
Power is a larger concern - in rainy season we've been having outages several times a week, though most are short. That will vary based on location.
In any case, if renting a house, check for fiber & check whether they have a generator or a few UPSes at least.
Suppose you have a reliable generator system and your own house's power has reliable uptime. Would the internet still function during power outages? (The upstream telco equipment might lose power during an extended outage.)
Another HNer mentioned Costa Rica's internet connections during power outages, hence my question: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28169281
Another HNer mentioned Costa Rica's internet connections during power outages, hence my question: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28169281
I guess it depends on where you are and how wide the outage is. Most of our power outages are extremely local (we're in the middle of the jungle and trees come down during heavy rain), and usually resolved within a couple of hours. So far our internet has been consistently up, as long as we've been able to keep power on at the network cabinet and router.
There's also good LTE (as a fallback) in many villages that cater to tourists, but coverage is spotty as you get more remote.
There's also good LTE (as a fallback) in many villages that cater to tourists, but coverage is spotty as you get more remote.
Hey there, you linked my comment, figured I'd fill you in a bit
Again I don't really see power outages last longer than an hour or so, but my laptop manages to run for about 2 hours with a 4g modem in it. I used to be able to go even longer with an extra battery back when laptops still had those -- So really as long as you're not lugging around a UPS and desktop for some reason you should be good for at least that much time.
If it's out longer than a day I pretty much just pack my stuff and head into the city. I recognize most people don't really have this kind of luxury with the kind of work they do but I specifically worked my way to this point where I can afford to do this and maybe if you stretch your imagination in terms of possibilities you can too
Again I don't really see power outages last longer than an hour or so, but my laptop manages to run for about 2 hours with a 4g modem in it. I used to be able to go even longer with an extra battery back when laptops still had those -- So really as long as you're not lugging around a UPS and desktop for some reason you should be good for at least that much time.
If it's out longer than a day I pretty much just pack my stuff and head into the city. I recognize most people don't really have this kind of luxury with the kind of work they do but I specifically worked my way to this point where I can afford to do this and maybe if you stretch your imagination in terms of possibilities you can too
How hard would it be to get 1GBs symmetric?
That would be several thousand bucks a month, but there are numerous companies in the city that would run the fiber to your house. I had 50/50 and was paying $300 with a company called fibernet, but I dropped that in favor of a 300/20 + a 100/10 backup/load balanced at my house in the city.
IIRC it should be doable, though it would be expensive. I believe the line that I paid for (which I get to resell infrastructure costs to any neighbors who want to join after the fact) has a capacity over 1Gb.
You will be limited by backbone and inter-country connections. Having 1 GBit to Costa Rica servers won’t be that useful.
This is unfortunately the real bottleneck
Either way I've come to view bandwidth that high as something great if you're running severs or whatever but kind of overkill if all you need is enough for a small home office
For symmetric fibre for business you might want to look at this company's business offerings: https://www.data.cr/ but other than that you're only going to find that in data centres
Either way I've come to view bandwidth that high as something great if you're running severs or whatever but kind of overkill if all you need is enough for a small home office
For symmetric fibre for business you might want to look at this company's business offerings: https://www.data.cr/ but other than that you're only going to find that in data centres
Depends where you are. We were on the Caribbean side and in Lake Areal - loved it there. Internet was often useless in both places.
Visiting this website made my iPhone get very hot.
Interestingly enough, also has no covid restrictions [NO test, NO quarantine, NO vaccine]: https://www.travelinglifestyle.net/countries-without-covid-t...
Would be great to see more remote friendly + no covid restriction places esp as other countries double down.
Would be great to see more remote friendly + no covid restriction places esp as other countries double down.
This is only great if you believe that covid is fake and/or have no concern for the health of the people who live in the country.
This is only true if you assume every Covid restriction is scientifically-based.
I don't have to assume that *every* restriction is scientifically based to know that *some* restrictions, quarantines and (virtually all) vaccines are important science-based tools for fighting a pandemic.
Or, devil's advocate, if you believe it's a pretty low risk disease for most of the population, and that a novel mrna vaccine falls outside your risk tolerance. Or maybe you believe if you already have natural immunity from contracting covid you shouldn't need any restrictions at all. Or maybe you believe that mask mandates don't help much since the mask pores are 5k times larger than the size of this airborne (not aerosel) virus. Or maybe you understand that therapeutics exist, eg. how India is beating the virus with ivermectin which has been around forever and widely available.
Or maybe you just think governments have overstepped and are on a slippery slope, as far as goes types of coercion methods, subtle or not, over your personal health choices.
It's not black or white. There's a ton going on in this debate, and I think any healthy skeptic should continue to look at these things closely. I think there was just a Carnegie Melon study the other day saying that those with Phd's are unexpectedly vaccine hesitant vs. general pop. Just saying covid measures - vaccines - quarantines - there is a lot of room for debate right now.
Or maybe you just think governments have overstepped and are on a slippery slope, as far as goes types of coercion methods, subtle or not, over your personal health choices.
It's not black or white. There's a ton going on in this debate, and I think any healthy skeptic should continue to look at these things closely. I think there was just a Carnegie Melon study the other day saying that those with Phd's are unexpectedly vaccine hesitant vs. general pop. Just saying covid measures - vaccines - quarantines - there is a lot of room for debate right now.
> Or maybe you believe that mask mandates don't help much since the mask pores are 5k times larger than the size of this airborne (not aerosel) virus.
The COVID virus is about 0.1 µm.
The pores in a 3-layer surgical mask are about 50 µm to 500 µm in the first and third layer averaging around 100 µm, and 12 µm to 30 µm in the middle layer averaging around 13 µm.
For a 3-layer N95 mask, it is 50 µm to 200 µm first layer averaging about 75 µm, 40 µm to 120 µm averaging 50 µm for the third layer, and 10 µm to 20 µm averaging 11 µm for the middle layer.
If the only mechanism by which filtering of air worked was to catch particles that were too big to pass through the pores, then the virus would indeed go right through.
However, that is not the only mechanism. Here's a short article from a filter company explaining the different mechanisms [1]. It is quite counterintuitive--as particle size goes down below the pore size efficiency starts to drop as you would intuitively expect but only for a bit and then as particle size continues to go down efficiency rises.
[1] http://donaldsonaerospace-defense.com/library/files/document...
The COVID virus is about 0.1 µm.
The pores in a 3-layer surgical mask are about 50 µm to 500 µm in the first and third layer averaging around 100 µm, and 12 µm to 30 µm in the middle layer averaging around 13 µm.
For a 3-layer N95 mask, it is 50 µm to 200 µm first layer averaging about 75 µm, 40 µm to 120 µm averaging 50 µm for the third layer, and 10 µm to 20 µm averaging 11 µm for the middle layer.
If the only mechanism by which filtering of air worked was to catch particles that were too big to pass through the pores, then the virus would indeed go right through.
However, that is not the only mechanism. Here's a short article from a filter company explaining the different mechanisms [1]. It is quite counterintuitive--as particle size goes down below the pore size efficiency starts to drop as you would intuitively expect but only for a bit and then as particle size continues to go down efficiency rises.
[1] http://donaldsonaerospace-defense.com/library/files/document...
Meta comment: I upvoted this despite disagreeing with a lot of it, because it's an articulate and polite presentation of a view that many HN-ers apparently hold (going by other threads). I adhere to the old norms that downvotes are for non-contributing or impolite comments (like the "you stupid sheeple" form that many others have taken with this), not for disagreement.
No, the vaccine data are black and white. We're approaching 5 billion doses administered with minimal serious adverse effects. Compare the rates to MMR, DPT or anything else given in the billions to the world.
Conversely, some 95% of covid deaths are unvaccinated. It works. Get it and help everyone around you.
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/covid-vaccine-tracker-glo...
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/info-by-product/modern...
Conversely, some 95% of covid deaths are unvaccinated. It works. Get it and help everyone around you.
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/covid-vaccine-tracker-glo...
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/info-by-product/modern...
> No, the vaccine data are black and white.
If you look at some real-world vaccine efficacy data, you will find that it is far from black and white. In the UK, with delta infections, there is no observable risk reduction against death for under 50s.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
> We're approaching 5 billion doses administered with minimal serious adverse effects.
It doesn't matter if the side-effects are minimal, what matters is that the risk/reward benefit pays off. For instance, we still don't know the complete extent to which Pfizer vaccines cause heart issues. There are many cardiac events that aren't clearly linked to the vaccine, because they could have occurred by chance. That doesn't mean they aren't linked though.
Here's some statistically significant numbers out of Israel, showing an increase in lethal cardiac events in certain population groups:
https://twitter.com/RanIsraeli/status/1425002893116166144
If we put this putative risk against the vanishingly small risk of a lethal covid infection in a young person with no risk factors, the vaccine doesn't necessarily come out on top.
In the case of viral-vector vaccines, even the very rare (but often fatal) TTS alone suggests that such vaccination is not indicated for people under 60 in Australia:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X2...
> Conversely, some 95% of covid deaths are unvaccinated.
This is a meaningless number. It depends on how many people are vaccinated and when you started counting. In the UK, roughly half of the recent COVID deaths are in the fully vaccinated, though they are also obviously older. In the under-50 group, there is no difference, like I said.
> Get it and help everyone around you.
This is another fallacy, because the vaccine prevents neither infection nor transmission reliably. If you have reason to believe the vaccine gives you a meaningful reduction in risk, get it to protect yourself. If you want to protect others, adjust your behavior. Get tested and avoid close interactions with lots of people. In either case, don't ask me to take a risk for your or anyone else's benefit.
If you look at some real-world vaccine efficacy data, you will find that it is far from black and white. In the UK, with delta infections, there is no observable risk reduction against death for under 50s.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
> We're approaching 5 billion doses administered with minimal serious adverse effects.
It doesn't matter if the side-effects are minimal, what matters is that the risk/reward benefit pays off. For instance, we still don't know the complete extent to which Pfizer vaccines cause heart issues. There are many cardiac events that aren't clearly linked to the vaccine, because they could have occurred by chance. That doesn't mean they aren't linked though.
Here's some statistically significant numbers out of Israel, showing an increase in lethal cardiac events in certain population groups:
https://twitter.com/RanIsraeli/status/1425002893116166144
If we put this putative risk against the vanishingly small risk of a lethal covid infection in a young person with no risk factors, the vaccine doesn't necessarily come out on top.
In the case of viral-vector vaccines, even the very rare (but often fatal) TTS alone suggests that such vaccination is not indicated for people under 60 in Australia:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X2...
> Conversely, some 95% of covid deaths are unvaccinated.
This is a meaningless number. It depends on how many people are vaccinated and when you started counting. In the UK, roughly half of the recent COVID deaths are in the fully vaccinated, though they are also obviously older. In the under-50 group, there is no difference, like I said.
> Get it and help everyone around you.
This is another fallacy, because the vaccine prevents neither infection nor transmission reliably. If you have reason to believe the vaccine gives you a meaningful reduction in risk, get it to protect yourself. If you want to protect others, adjust your behavior. Get tested and avoid close interactions with lots of people. In either case, don't ask me to take a risk for your or anyone else's benefit.
> In the UK, with delta infections, there is no observable risk reduction against death for under 50s
I am really not sure how you reached this conclusion from the 44 page paper you linked. That paper explicitly says that being vaccinated reduces risk of becoming infected, and only mentions that Ct values (detectable virus) are similar in infected people whether they are vaccinated or not, but similar Ct values does not imply similar disease trajectories or outcomes.
I am really not sure how you reached this conclusion from the 44 page paper you linked. That paper explicitly says that being vaccinated reduces risk of becoming infected, and only mentions that Ct values (detectable virus) are similar in infected people whether they are vaccinated or not, but similar Ct values does not imply similar disease trajectories or outcomes.
> I am really not sure how you reached this conclusion from the 44 page paper you linked.
The data is on page 18/19. In the vaccinated group 13 out of 25,536 infections resulted in death (0.051%). In the unvaccinated group, it's 48 out of 147,612 (0.032%).
> That paper explicitly says that being vaccinated reduces risk of becoming infected.
Perhaps, but then even if you are infected, your risk of death (under 50) is still effectively the same. It's also not clear how big that risk reduction of infection is. It started out at 95% during the trials, Israel last reported 39%:
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/23/delta-variant-pfizer-covid-v...
> similar Ct values does not imply similar disease trajectories or outcomes
We still use Ct values as a proxy for infectiousness.
The data is on page 18/19. In the vaccinated group 13 out of 25,536 infections resulted in death (0.051%). In the unvaccinated group, it's 48 out of 147,612 (0.032%).
> That paper explicitly says that being vaccinated reduces risk of becoming infected.
Perhaps, but then even if you are infected, your risk of death (under 50) is still effectively the same. It's also not clear how big that risk reduction of infection is. It started out at 95% during the trials, Israel last reported 39%:
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/23/delta-variant-pfizer-covid-v...
> similar Ct values does not imply similar disease trajectories or outcomes
We still use Ct values as a proxy for infectiousness.
Who and why downvotes this?
Better to get the full mRNA load from being infected with Covid, right?
They still do masks everywhere, I think, so I will pass for now.
No effort to fight a pandemic is categorically a bad thing.
Genuinely curious why you think this no-test-no-vaccine regime is a good thing for remote workers.
I’d feel much safer living in a country whose healthcare system isn’t constantly at risk of being overwhelmed by uncontrolled Covid spread.
I’d feel much safer living in a country whose healthcare system isn’t constantly at risk of being overwhelmed by uncontrolled Covid spread.
It's just my preference to not want to live in fear (i've long left the US) and have more freedom in practice (due to lack of ability for government to enforce or government practices). There are plenty of other countries that are increasingly catering to the opposite for those who want to feel safe over everything, plus will make it easy to meet up with friends from other places in the world who are also working remotely.
I live in a country with less than 10% vaccination rate now, and there is plenty of hospital capacity to cater to non-covid related things, esp for ones that see more expats than not.
I live in a country with less than 10% vaccination rate now, and there is plenty of hospital capacity to cater to non-covid related things, esp for ones that see more expats than not.
I can confirm that latin america is pretty chill right now but I'd be more tactful about how you frame it. So many people have had no choice but to comply with some pretty harsh restrictions that even if deep down they want to agree with you they'll lash out and accuse you of being reckless and getting people killed, blaming you for their restrictions continuing, etc. This applies not just to your old compatriots scared to travel but the people in the countries youre visiting. Colombia, from your list, for example may be open now but a few months ago the cops were beating people for going out. Not "please sir go back inside" but literal beat downs. When locals explained it me all I could say was "yeah it was rough for us too(even though not really Im from a laid back state in the US)"
> but I'd be more tactful about how you frame it.
Fair enough, but thats never really how i've been, and old habits die hard.
> So many people have had no choice but to comply with some pretty harsh restrictions
True, but the writing has been on the wall for a while in certain jurisdictions that could even enable governments to do such things. I have a lot of sympathy for those who wanted out but couldn't for whatever reason (this goes beyond covid).
> Colombia, from your list, for example may be open now but a few months ago the cops were beating people for going out. Not "please sir go back inside" but literal beat downs
Yeah, cops like to beat down folks for various reasons everyday throughout the world (some places more than others), with or without covid restrictions, and that sucks in general.
Fair enough, but thats never really how i've been, and old habits die hard.
> So many people have had no choice but to comply with some pretty harsh restrictions
True, but the writing has been on the wall for a while in certain jurisdictions that could even enable governments to do such things. I have a lot of sympathy for those who wanted out but couldn't for whatever reason (this goes beyond covid).
> Colombia, from your list, for example may be open now but a few months ago the cops were beating people for going out. Not "please sir go back inside" but literal beat downs
Yeah, cops like to beat down folks for various reasons everyday throughout the world (some places more than others), with or without covid restrictions, and that sucks in general.
I'm not sure why you would live in fear, regardless of location. Sounds like an unpleasant way to live. But we should all live smartly enough to avoid overwhelming healthcare systems with COVID cases, which is a pretty easy thing to do at this point and requires no fear whatsoever.
I’ll give you some support as I’ve also spent most of the last 18 months in countries with a more measured response to the virus. It’s difficult for me to go and do the nomad thing, but escaping the madness for a year or two would be my main motivation.
That's completely fair, all I'm saying is that i'm for people to have the choice and options to do so if they can and want to and live where they want to live. If people want to take more risk along one dimension compared to other things they care about, good! If they want to take less risk along another dimension for things they care about, that's good too!
More governmental jurisdictions offering a variety of ways people can try to live the way they want to live is better than less, imo.
More governmental jurisdictions offering a variety of ways people can try to live the way they want to live is better than less, imo.
I'm looking for a new country to move to, where can I get more freedom than USA?
I also prefer not to live in fear, which is why I wear a seatbelt in a car, a harness and a rope while climbing, and get a vaccine when there is a pandemic. Not living in fear doesn't have to mean pretending that life has no risks. It's about being aware of what the risks are and taking appropriate measures to protect yourself.
> Not living in fear doesn't have to mean pretending that life has no risks.
Ha, I faced more risks growing up when I had to avoid the local gangs walking to school as a kid than I do now. Most people never gave a shit about that (and still don't), esp those that didn't live there. I won't really pretend that people really care about my safety or the safety of others any more so than their personal preferences.
Ha, I faced more risks growing up when I had to avoid the local gangs walking to school as a kid than I do now. Most people never gave a shit about that (and still don't), esp those that didn't live there. I won't really pretend that people really care about my safety or the safety of others any more so than their personal preferences.
> when I had to avoid the local gangs walking to school
Following your logic, its a great thing that local authorities didn't do anything stop the local gangs, nor encourage taking any safety measures to protect yourself. Yay freedom?
Following your logic, its a great thing that local authorities didn't do anything stop the local gangs, nor encourage taking any safety measures to protect yourself. Yay freedom?
He is saying you only care about your pet issue. Real issues affecting his life you will never consider because it's not part of your worldview.
Based on your response it seems true. You don't care to respond about issues posing more danger than your pet issue
Based on your response it seems true. You don't care to respond about issues posing more danger than your pet issue
> Following your logic, its a great thing that local authorities didn't do anything stop the local gangs, nor encourage taking any safety measures to protect yourself.
They did, always another task force this that or another (I was only aware of some of this growing up), but never really changed the realities on the ground that some were exposed to more than others. Just learned to grow up and not expect that much and try to work with the people around me and watch each other, which wouldn't be possible if we were just trying to coerce one another to do things we didn't want to do (and was already kind of hard because I couldn't necessarily trust some around me).
By all means, live where you want to live and shoot your self up with the latest drug someone is pushing (whether that is some kid selling "water" on the corner or Pfizer incentivized doctors in a pop up tent) to your ability to do so.
They did, always another task force this that or another (I was only aware of some of this growing up), but never really changed the realities on the ground that some were exposed to more than others. Just learned to grow up and not expect that much and try to work with the people around me and watch each other, which wouldn't be possible if we were just trying to coerce one another to do things we didn't want to do (and was already kind of hard because I couldn't necessarily trust some around me).
By all means, live where you want to live and shoot your self up with the latest drug someone is pushing (whether that is some kid selling "water" on the corner or Pfizer incentivized doctors in a pop up tent) to your ability to do so.
I don’t understand your response. Getting vaccinated for Covid has orders of magnitude less risk than not getting vaccinated. Desiring to live where there are no vaccination requirements has nothing to do with wanting to be free. That you’ve lived through more risky situations than Covid has nothing to do with these facts.
> Getting vaccinated for Covid has orders of magnitude less risk than not getting vaccinated.
I'm gonna have to fact-check that. In the UK, for under 50s with a delta infection, there is basically no risk reduction for death. For over 50s, the risk reduction is currently about 75%[1]. You would then have to scale that by the risk of getting infected, which would be a reduction of up to 90%, depending on when you got your vaccination and how well your immune system picked up on it. You might hit a single order of magnitude.
[1] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
I'm gonna have to fact-check that. In the UK, for under 50s with a delta infection, there is basically no risk reduction for death. For over 50s, the risk reduction is currently about 75%[1]. You would then have to scale that by the risk of getting infected, which would be a reduction of up to 90%, depending on when you got your vaccination and how well your immune system picked up on it. You might hit a single order of magnitude.
[1] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
> In the UK, for under 50s with a delta infection, there is basically no risk reduction for death
I am really not sure how you reached this conclusion from the 44 page paper you linked. That paper explicitly says that being vaccinated reduces risk of becoming infected, and only mentions that Ct values (detectable virus) are similar in infected people whether they are vaccinated or not, but similar Ct values does not imply similar disease trajectories or outcomes.
I am really not sure how you reached this conclusion from the 44 page paper you linked. That paper explicitly says that being vaccinated reduces risk of becoming infected, and only mentions that Ct values (detectable virus) are similar in infected people whether they are vaccinated or not, but similar Ct values does not imply similar disease trajectories or outcomes.
> I am really not sure how you reached this conclusion from the 44 page paper you linked.
The data is on page 18/19. In the vaccinated group 13 out of 25,536 infections resulted in death (0.051%). In the unvaccinated group, it's 48 out of 147,612 (0.032%).
> That paper explicitly says that being vaccinated reduces risk of becoming infected.
Perhaps, but then even if you are infected, your risk of death (under 50) is still effectively the same. It's also not clear how big that risk reduction of infection is. It started out at 95% during the trials, Israel last reported 39%:
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/23/delta-variant-pfizer-covid-v...
> similar Ct values does not imply similar disease trajectories or outcomes
We still use Ct values as a proxy for infectiousness.
The data is on page 18/19. In the vaccinated group 13 out of 25,536 infections resulted in death (0.051%). In the unvaccinated group, it's 48 out of 147,612 (0.032%).
> That paper explicitly says that being vaccinated reduces risk of becoming infected.
Perhaps, but then even if you are infected, your risk of death (under 50) is still effectively the same. It's also not clear how big that risk reduction of infection is. It started out at 95% during the trials, Israel last reported 39%:
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/23/delta-variant-pfizer-covid-v...
> similar Ct values does not imply similar disease trajectories or outcomes
We still use Ct values as a proxy for infectiousness.
I’m surprised that this excludes digital nomads from local income taxes. You’d think tax revenue would be a big incentive for them to attract people, and most countries have anti double taxation laws.
The people will still bring in plenty of money into the local economy
This ^^^. It’s essentially cash flow towards the country, part of which is spent locally. It’s pretty much tourism on steroids.
And, to make it work, they need to make it very attractive.
And, to make it work, they need to make it very attractive.
and it's tourism in the off-season.
I think it's more like a steady drip feed. I moved abroad, and I spend less than a tourist once I figured out how locals generally do it, but still considerably more than a local because I want to eat foods from other countries and get a nice coffee most days.
And they can always tax again later.
And they have to compete with other countries.
It’s possible that this means no employer taxes either, which shields the employing company from having to set up a local tax entity, which is otherwise a huge barrier for US FAANG-type employees as I understand it. I know that I can’t work from any other countries currently, and I’m curious if these types of visas/arrangements would remove that barrier.
The other two big barriers which can apply are company taxation (if I am a director/senior manager of a company is there a risk that the Company could become tax resident in Costa Rica?) and regulation (is there a risk that I am doing something illegal in Costa Rica because either I or the Company don't have any local regulatory permission?).
(There is also a company tax issue which I don't think this type of thing can solve, which is the risk of the tax residency or tax status of the Company in its home jursidiction or third countries relying on directors/senior managers physically being located in the home jurisdiction).
(There is also a company tax issue which I don't think this type of thing can solve, which is the risk of the tax residency or tax status of the Company in its home jursidiction or third countries relying on directors/senior managers physically being located in the home jurisdiction).
a new startup called "Remote", reached unicorn status, is solving this issue by having all these entities set up on behalf of their clients.
If countries do stuff like this tho, it would actually undermine.
really hope to see other countires follow suit.
If countries do stuff like this tho, it would actually undermine.
really hope to see other countires follow suit.
This would be interesting if it is the case - you remain a tax resident in and employed by a company in your home country, but you live elsewhere. No idea if such a thing is possible. International tax laws are beyond me!
It's all about local jobs. The official unemployment rate is 20%, reality is likely significantly higher.
Pura Vida!
Just kidding, I really did not like Costa Rica. The exchange rate ( The colon is worth more than the dollar, really ??? ), the people were rude, power goes out a lot and internet was spotty at best ( on the Atlantic side ).
Just kidding, I really did not like Costa Rica. The exchange rate ( The colon is worth more than the dollar, really ??? ), the people were rude, power goes out a lot and internet was spotty at best ( on the Atlantic side ).
> the colon is worth more than the dollar, really ???
I'm a little confused by this. The exchange value for 1 USD to 1 Costa Rican Colon is 1:621. But I'm even more confused why this is a problem for you. It's the purchasing power that is important, and Costa Rica is significantly less expensive that the United States for someone holding US Dollars.
> the people were rude
All 4 million of them? If you've written off an entire country as rude, it might be on you.
I'm a little confused by this. The exchange value for 1 USD to 1 Costa Rican Colon is 1:621. But I'm even more confused why this is a problem for you. It's the purchasing power that is important, and Costa Rica is significantly less expensive that the United States for someone holding US Dollars.
> the people were rude
All 4 million of them? If you've written off an entire country as rude, it might be on you.
> If you've written off an entire country as rude, it might be on you.
To quote thomas jefferson out of context, “uhhh, France?”
Kidding, but more substantially… you’re being a bit pedantic to the poster. When talking about places to possibly live for a while, anecdotes are helpful. And saying, “There people were rude” is a perfectly legit anecdote that clearly isn’t meant to imply the entire population was assessed.
To quote thomas jefferson out of context, “uhhh, France?”
Kidding, but more substantially… you’re being a bit pedantic to the poster. When talking about places to possibly live for a while, anecdotes are helpful. And saying, “There people were rude” is a perfectly legit anecdote that clearly isn’t meant to imply the entire population was assessed.
When we were there last year, a lot of restaurants were way more expensive to eat in than restaurants in Canada, and the conversion rate was 2 to 1 everywhere, so if you carried U.S. money, you lost more than the actual exchange rate.
That's because the base unit is essentially 1,000 colones, and if you're transacting in US dollars, most people will give you 1000 colones to 2 US dollars (500:1).
If you change your money, then you'll obviously get a better rate.
When I said "holding US dollars," I didn't mean literally holding US dollars. I meant Costa Rica is generally cheaper than the United States for people whose primary income, or wealth is in US dollars.
If you change your money, then you'll obviously get a better rate.
When I said "holding US dollars," I didn't mean literally holding US dollars. I meant Costa Rica is generally cheaper than the United States for people whose primary income, or wealth is in US dollars.
Right, what he said.
For places with prices in Colones, you can pay in most places with a Visa/Mastercard or sometimes Amex card and you'll get a better rate than paying with cash.
Atlantic side tends to suck, try going back and explore the Pacific!
The government has prioritized important things like clean drinking water, food safety standards, power, and internet (sometimes at the tradeoff of roads). There's a national emphasis on preserving the natural ecology of the country, and there's no military. The budget for which goes into social programs, education, and health care.
You can go from the Caribbean to the Pacific Ocean in a few hours, which is great. But be warned the coastal areas are both incredibly hot and humid. Fortunately, much of the country is at altitude and not nearly as hot thanks to numerous volcanoes which also feature a hot springs culture in certain areas. Because of the rain forests there's an impossible number of flora and fauna (and of course rain). All of this combines to make the country quite beautiful with some of the freshest tropical fruits you'll ever eat.
The population is generally well educated, Intel used to have a chip fab there for a time and HP, Dell, Bayer, Bosch, IBM and more operate there. It's a heavily services oriented economy. Housing is affordable and the people are generally friendly enough. Food can be relatively basic, but is very filling and generally cheap.
It's also fair to point out the downsides. Transportation around can be...rugged and the cities can be bogged down with traffic. The Capital city, San José...I didn't care much for...at least near the city center. It's also a very small country with a very small population (~4 million). This can be constraining for some outsiders.
Overall though, I found it a fascinating and beautiful country and really did enjoy my time there. I would definitely go back given the chance. I also had a friend who lived there for several years and ran an consulting business to companies in the U.S. The timezone turned out to be rather advantageous and he was able to easy support U.S. East and West coast companies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Costa_Rica