This is what I’m trying to figure out. Medicare is kind of an advantage, but your out of pocket medical expenses in Thailand aren’t that bad unless you get cancer or something, then you just relocate back? American basic healthcare prices are just really messed up, so your insurance doesn’t really pay off until something serious happens.
I don't know about Thailand, but in France you can apply to join their healthcare system after 3 months. In the meantime you must have private insurance but it's a fraction of what it is here.
Spain is similar. I don’t understand how they are allowing retirees to just move there, but I have friends doing it. I’m not counting on it being that way when I retire since it sounds to good to be true (so it eventually probably won’t be true).
So the people who built the kind of society and economy where you can't live near your family in retirement - are they good stewards of the country? Astute leaders that we should unquestioningly praise? Because judging by the downvotes here it looks like they convinced the masses of this.
Ah yes, let's burden some third world nation with an entire class of people who produce no value, and raise the costs of housing and goods for everyone around them.
I'm not saying it's not smart, it's just not very savory, and isn't a great solution for the longer term.
Retirees don't earn income, so don't pay income tax. Increased demand for housing raises prices for everyone including natives. And typically, retirees require healthcare services well above the population average.
Retirees absolutely pay income tax. Withdrawing from a traditional IRA/401k generates ordinary income at the current federal tax rate. And any capital gains is taxed (albeit at a lower rate) when sold. It's a fraction of what they likely paid during their career, but it is not nothing.
Depending on the country of retiring, this could have majority tax implications. It's a big reason why people choose to retire in certain states: additional income tax on retirement income is possible, depending on the state.
Even if not zero, retirees' income is much lower than working people on average, and that income is taxed at lower rates. Further, tax paid to the US doesn't help the retirement country.
If they're residing in the other country, they're supposed to be paying income taxes to that country, in addition to taxes to the US. The taxes to the US will probably be canceled out by the tax exemption they can claim for the taxes paid locally though, but they still have to file in the US unless they renounce their US citizenship.
Very few people pay income taxes to a foreign government that they reside in unless they are actively working and collecting a paycheck. A passive income stream such as collecting social security or a pension is very rarely taxed. Even things like collecting rent as a landlord back in the home country or earning interest on a savings account there, are also very rarely taxed.
Then they're cheating on their taxes, and that government should probably look into how that person can afford to stay there with zero income. A lot of countries have tax treaties with the US to cover this sort of thing.
> Retirees don't earn income, so don't pay income tax.
The government can and often does find other ways to tax people.
> Increased demand for housing raises prices for everyone including natives.
While true locally, at a national level immigration is typically small compared to native populations. It is a manageable problem.
> And typically, retirees require healthcare services well above the population average.
In other words, they will be forced to put money into the local economy. They’re paying out of pocket, not on public assistance.
Comparatively wealthy foreigners that spend a lot of money on the local economy is any government’s wet dream. It’s a significant boost to their tax base and soft political power. I plan on retiring in a country like Thailand because as long as you don’t criticize the king, you’ll be treated like one.
Thailand is an amazing country and dollars/euros/pounds go a long way. But there are also a ton of Westerners who either ran out of money (or never had any) who live like leeches and even some who "begpack." Plenty more who just barely get by as a language instructor or such.
I'm not claiming there are no productive or welcome foreign retirees -- there are many. But I was responding to "xenospn"'s comment that they bring in money for free, which is absolutely not universally true.
How can you legally stay in Thailand with no retirement or work visa?
I don't remember the details (I had a work visa and retirement is still 2 decades away at least) but to get a retirement visa (valid for one year) you need proof of sufficient funds and health insurance.
There's a reason most countries offer no such thing as a retirement visa, except certain low income countries where overcharging clueless foreigners is the best way to get ahead in life. It's because old people are a burden on the medical system and a class of people who'll pay 5x the average for housing prices locals out. Whoever is renting out housing is probably living comfortably thousands of kilometers away.
Remittances and tourism are not the topic at hand here. It's the local economic effects of a swath of retirees permanently relocating to a poorer location.
> Why does this topic cause the dunning kruger effect to go into full stream among an ostensibly "intelligent" group of people?
If you're smarter than the policy makers of countries who look at the economic drain of taking in disabled old people and say "nope", then maybe you should be calling up their presidents and demanding to be in charge of their economic policy? You're clearly the smartest one in the world. :)
>certain low income countries where overcharging clueless foreigners is the best way to get ahead in life.
This is basically a snide way of saying that "yes, retiring to a country with low cost of living is often a mutually beneficial transaction, for both the retiree and the country in question"
* As demand for medical services grows, the price goes up, incentivizing more people to get medical training
* As demand for housing grows, build more housing
* Gradually expand issuance of retirement visas, so supply can grow in response to demand
It's not a snide way of saying it. I'm saying it only benefits a small portion of truly poor countries where people have absolutely nothing.
There's a reason countries push retirees out, barring the ones who are incredibly rich, once they develop into a middle economy. It's because a typical retiree making a low six figures or less becomes literal dead weight. Locals can make more money than them while actually doing a job.
Thailand is pushing foreign non-workers out because they're developed to the point that they don't need or want those people. Decades ago, Thailand was incredibly poor. One retiree could splurge a bit of cash and pay the wages of dozens of people. That era is gone. Now it's just people acting like they own the place and driving up prices of property that locals are now competing for.
And yes, they could incentivize more people to become doctors for foreigners. But not everyone wants to grow up to be a servant and literally wiping the bums of an elite class of elderly colonists. Some prefer to work in other fields.
And yes, they could build new houses. Your home country could build new houses too. Retire at home and just build a new house there instead of going to a "cheaper" country. If it's too expensive at home, just get more money and build more.
And no, the won't expand issuance of visas because they need to take care of their own elderly.
>Thailand is pushing foreign non-workers out because they're developed to the point that they don't need or want those people. Decades ago, Thailand was incredibly poor. One retiree could splurge a bit of cash and pay the wages of dozens of people. That era is gone. Now it's just people acting like they own the place and driving up prices of property that locals are now competing for.
Hm, I wonder if letting retirees in was helpful for Thailand in escaping poverty? The retirees didn't seem to ruin the Thai economy, as your 'burden' theory appears to predict.
>And yes, they could incentivize more people to become doctors for foreigners. But not everyone wants to grow up to be a servant and literally wiping the bums of an elite class of elderly colonists. Some prefer to work in other fields.
There's a lot of immigration from the developing world to the developed work for medical careers, e.g. NHS workers in the UK. If your people are immigrating to work in medicine anyway, maybe it's better for them to stay home so you can tax them and collect the revenue?
You're going rather heavy on narrative vibes such as "wiping the bums of an elite class of elderly colonists", and rather light on the agency of people in the developing world to make economic decisions for themselves.
If demand for medical services rises, salaries will also rise. If no one steps in to fill those roles, salaries will rise further, to the point where medical services become expensive. And retirees will go to a different country, where people want to work in medicine. Capitalism works!
SE Asia as a whole has been improving, including countries that never participated in the retiree scheme. Thailand has been relatively stable and hasn't been invaded by foreign powers and is a big hub of manufacturing. It'd be more surprising if they didn't grow these past 20 years.
The snide "hmmmm" doesn't contradict anything I've said. Only incredibly poor countries do it. Whenever they have a functional economy, they drop it. And plenty of countries went directly from poor to rich without taking in retirees. See: Singapore, Korea, China, Taiwan. If anything, countries that take in retirees seem to lag compared to those who don't.
And decisions of government officials taking a cut of money from visa approvals for retirees really doesn't have anything to do with the agency of the people. There's a reason countries get rid of these policies: locals don't like it. No need to continue to assert that forcing yourself on unwilling people is good because their rents go up.
>Whenever they have a functional economy, they drop it.
Based on my research, there are a few countries which tightened their retirement visa requirements, but getting rid of it outright is actually quite uncommon. You talk as though this is a common thing. Can you name 5 countries that outright eliminated their retirement visa program? (Not just "considering it", actually eliminated it)
Why would they tighten it up? It's supposed to be great for the economy. It wouldn't make sense to do that if it's good, would it?
And there's virtually no country that doesn't let people with absolutely massive amounts of money buy their way in. 50 people a year buying top floor apartments in the middle of town in cash affects things far less than 150000 people a year happily paying quadruple what locals would pay to rent a normal apartment.
