[dmurray]

The disadvantage is that you may become a burden on the host country - you cost more in public services than you bring in revenue.

This could happen if the host country supplies plentiful public services funded mainly by income taxes rather than consumption taxes. Or simply if you lost your job and turned to begging or crime, and the host country finds it expensive or politically difficult to deport you.

These are pretty niche cases and most countries are happy to take wealthy, self-sufficient immigrants. But there are valid reasons why you might not want too open an immigration policy.

[nogabebop23]

even countries with lots of publicly funded services usually exclude tourists. For example, a visitor to Canada would either not be allowed to take advantage of many services (ex: Employmnet Insurance / Welfare) or get billed (Healthcare) although it would be unlikely to be refused service in the later if you could not pay. In countries like Barbados the divide between citizens and visitors is even more stark. Deportation from these countries is usually easy and fast to countries that have resources (like the US or Canada); it's deporting from western countries back to poorer or "democratically challenged" countries that is hard and takes forever. Anyone who wants to turn to crime would be better served to stay at home and do it (I'd rather deal with the Canadian criminal system as a citizen than Barbados as a foreigner).

[tonyarkles]

Something to keep in mind regarding Canadian health care, if you’re an American up here with no travel insurance: it is still very affordable. I suspect surgeries and things like that would be expensive, but routine procedures are very very affordable.

As an example, I moved and forgot to renew my health card. I fell in the yard and sprained my wrist. Head to a clinic, they warn me that I have to pay for the visit, but I can send the receipt to SaskHealth to get reimbursed for it when I renew my card. See the doctor, he wants to do x-rays. Go to the place next door for digital x-rays, come back, and see the doctor again. He confirms it’s just a sprain and nothing broken. Awesome. Head to the counter on my way out to pay, expecting to be out a good chunk of cash for a while. $60 total for the visit and the x-rays.

[oh_sigh]

I'm sure there is a means test + some proof of your job to get the stamp, which probably dramatically limits the the odds that someone is going to become destitute and turn to a life of crime in some foreign land.

[dominotw]

> funded mainly by income taxes rather than consumption taxes.

Why would you not pay income taxes in barbados though?

[buran77]

Many countries have laws so that if you are a resident there you also pay taxes there. They may also have agreements with other countries in order to avoid double taxation. But I'm fairly certain that barring any weird legal setup living in a country for a year means you pay the income taxes (at least) in that particular country.

[nogabebop23]

I don't think you would pay tax in this scenario, as essentially this is just a longer-term tourist visa. You won't be allowed to get a job locally and are expected to work remote. There's no way they could track (and tax) this; it's really no different than doing some work on your 2-week Mexico vacation. Also Americans pay tax based on citizenship too.

[szatkus]

I don't know about tax laws on Barbados, but usually you need to pay income tax in a country where you spend more than half of a year. Just the fact that you rent a flat for a year is enough for an revenue authority to start an investigation.

[dominotw]

> it's really no different than doing some work on your 2-week Mexico vacation.

Does 1 yr make a difference? Or would it still be considered "vacation".

[dzhiurgis]

Maybe no tax, buy visa costs 10k a year which you write off as business expense in your work country.

[buran77]

> essentially this is just a longer-term tourist visa

As always the devil's in the details. A 2 week vacation will incur far fewer expenses on the host state and its citizens than a 1 year stay, while probably bringing in more money. A tourist stays at hotels, rents cars, dishes out for all the tourist attractions and baubles, eats out every meal, etc. Very little competition with locals for the same resources. A quasi-local is a different story, competing from a privileged position with locals on everything but jobs. So while both visas are time limited there's no real comparison between them. The profiles of the two types of stay are very different.

The fiscal residence usually revolves around the centre of vital interests or the habitual abode. Both would be the place you live in rather than the place your employer lives.

I don't know what the details of the implementation are but I'm guessing that if this type of setup catches up it's unlikely it will always be treated as tourist-like without making life worse for the less well off residents.