> The applicant can show their monthly income is equivalent to 1,000,000 ISK, or 1,300,000 ISK if applying for an accompanying spouse, cohabiting partner, and children under the age of 18.
That comes out to about $96k USD a year. Totally reachable for a SWE-type job, however I know fully remote workers who are far from this amount. I guess they just want people to come and throw money around the bars.
I assume the reason is more banal - that Iceland is a high cost of living country. I can't imagine groceries to be very cheap. So after those high basic expenses, I'm sure there needs to be enough fun money left over to throw at the Icelandic economy.
I went probably 5 years ago and found it to be one of the most expensive places I've ever been. I lived in the Nordics for years, I've been to around 50 countries. The only other country that I felt gave it a run for the money in terms of my spending was Norway. I was a tourist, so lots of eating at restaurants, no cooking, but average meal for a basic drink + entre out I was averaging ~$50. I think you're right about the costs, it's a very high COL place and they probably don't want to encourage cheap backpacker type nomads who don't add a whole lot to the economy.
Have you been to Switzerland and if yes, how does it compare? It's the most expensive county I've been to, and it was a bit shockingly so ( an example i recall was a burger in some random restaurant (nothing fancy) in Geneva costing 30CHF, which is a lot even compared to Paris, which is already an expensive place).
I've been visiting regularly over the last 10 years or so and it's definitely gotten more expensive the last few years. Also much more tourist oriented...
Cypress, Portugal and Malta offer similar (arguably better) schemes for Digital Nomads [0]. Portugal has been particularly aggressive to the point they offer zero tax on crypto for their "Golden Visa" [1].
I know of a few people using Malta as a base to nomad around Europe.
1) Is not visa, you have to not need visa for Iceland to qualify
2) Is not long term, it's valid up to 180 days
On the other hand, they recognize remote workers which kind of fit somewhere in between tourists and people who come to work, which many other countries don't.
It is a visa. Iceland offers visa free travel for many countries for the purposes of tourism. I haven’t looked at Iceland’s program but normally these programs are for 30-90 days. Therefore 180 days would be considered a long term tourist visa.
Most tourist visa's do not allow you to work (even remotely). I'm sure tons of people do it, but this is basically allowing people to legally "travel" the country for 6 months while explicitly working.
To my knowledge only the UK, Australia and Canada will allow remote work on a visitor visa with the caveat that the business must be based outside the country.
Last time I read Canada's (several years ago), they allow you to travel for "business meetings" (including conferences), but I don't believe you can technically use it to "work" in Canada.
Basically, you can travel to meet a Canadian business - but you shouldn't be planning to travel just to do your job.
I’m paraphrasing slightly but they said work performed on the internet by someone not usually resident in Canada was permitted if the employer wasn’t a Canadian company.
The webpage specifies that it is _not_ available to citizens of EU/EFTA countries. In fact they can already work remotely from Iceland without any visa requirement, thanks to Freedom of Movement agreements.
Schengen is inconsequential, they just don't check your documents. They are in EEA, with agreement for free movement of goods, people, services and capital which is much more important.
Not really as big a deal as people are making it out to be. Iceland allows 90 day tourist stays, this simply doubles it to 180 days. Everything else is the same.
In fact, if my options are to just jump on a plane without any thought and go for a 0-3 month trip vs file a ton of paperwork, get approved and go for a 3-6 month trip, I'll probably pick the former.
> An applicant for a long-term visa needs to show proof of health insurance coverage of 2,000,000 ISK as a minimum per person, which is 1) valid in Iceland | Schengen-area 2) valid for the duration of their stay in Iceland. If your insurance is not valid in Iceland, please see our Health Insurance page for a list of providers.
A great migration will happen soon as more cash/resource-starved countries will open their doors like this to international talent.
It will start a competition amongst countries to get the best talent in their borders.
For Iceland this will be a net win. Even if the people coming in don't pay taxes, their mere presence in the local economy for a few extra months per year could mean the difference between Iceland building another road or not.
Since tax situation is usually very different for different people and in different tax jurisdictions, it would be safe to say that this is considered income before taxes.
I guess they just want well off people who leave their $$$ in the local economy for half a year. Fair enough, but not a very impressive deal.
For comparison: Georgia (the country) offers a 360 day visa free entry for almost every country out there, no paperwork required. While the standard of living in Georgia is certainly lower, the nature there is much more diverse and just many more things to do.
For people asking about the 1m isk limit, I'm ok with that limit. I visited Iceland a few years ago and the cost of living is pretty high. Food and petrol are expensive.
I'm not sure if the person is allowed to use country services like healthcare, but I assume that also factors into the high-income requirement.
This is an anecdote, but I remember meals easily being 20-30 USD for basics. A cup of soup (tiny) was 13-14 USD and it wasn't in a tourist area. I'm sure someone will reply with cheap food found somewhere in iceland but as someone from the US, the cost of food in proportion to the amount and quality, it was surprising.
I hope someone chimes in with the rent cost. I'm not sure where that sits.
That's insane. I'd like to visit Iceland, but I think it's better to just go visit for a couple of weeks and then bail. Remote working in a cold and expensive country seems counter intuitive.
Give me word class beaches, great weather and cheap cost of living....South East Asia here I come!
But I don't really disagree with your basic point. I'd mostly rather vacation someplace and work at home. (Mostly. I have remote worked when I've had some time between trips in the same general area and I've just stayed there in between.)
Zero interest in working from a beach in SE Asia though, especially given the time zone difference from the eastern US. Though this comes from someone who has "free" lodging in my house in the US.
I would love to be able to work in SE Asia or in Iceland even... I am 100% remote, working for a US company in Mexico. The problem is Timezones, due to TZ restrictions, I can only opt to work in the Americas. So far I haven't found a country that would accept me for longish term (6 months would be the sweet spot for me) without a Visa
I've been to several countries, but not yet a world traveler. Iceland is beautiful, but I've had more fun in other countries. One of my favorite trips was riding motorcycles around in Peru's Amazon.
Honestly, what is the appeal of this? The minimum salary requirements are absurdly high. There are nice landscapes and environments available for much cheaper requirements, likely in one's own current country. The incentive for Iceland is pretty clear, they get rich foreigners' money. But the incentive for rich foreigners to temporarily relocate here is not at all clear.
US citizens, for example, can also stay in Iceland as tourists for 90 days, so this sounds like an onerous amount of requirements to jump through to stay for 90 more.
Meaning not working. You can visit and live of you savings for 3 months, but not work. This new visa would allow you to work in Iceland for up to 6 months. That is a very big difference.
Under the long-term visa, you cannot work for an Icelandic employer. You can work for an international employer, just like you can when you're staying for tourism. There is no difference.
FFS how difficult is this concept to grasp? A tourist visa means you are not allowed to work in the country. You might get away with doing so, but getting away with something and that thing being legal are two different things.
No, traveling as a tourist means you are not allowed to work in the country for any employer in that country. Not you are not allowed to work at all. If it were the latter, you would not legally be able to check your work emails while in another country.
Bear in mind that (warning: assumption) most of these rules in most places probably haven't had a significant update since checking your work emails became a thing.
So yeah, technically that might be a volition of the visa (or visa waver). That is the point of the change we are discussing. Previously people visiting Iceland could not work without a work visa. Iceland is updating its set of visas acknowledge the current reality.
Again, you probably won't get kicked out of some country for checking you emails, but that doesn't mean it doesn't violate the conditions of the visa.
Edit: and no, in most places a tourist visa means you are not allowed to do work (for anyone) in that country. The point is to make employers (both foreign and domestic) hire locals in the first instance. Doing work for a foreign employer still requires a specific visa.
That’s not true. Taking the US as the example, they have some very specific guidances what you can do on a B1 visa or when entering under a visa waiver.
Allowed:
- Consult with business associates
- Attend a scientific, educational, professional, or business convention or conference
- Participating in short-term training
- Settle an estate
- Negotiate a contrast
Not allowed:
- Paid performances, or any professional performance before a paying audience
- Arrival as a crewmember on a ship or aircraft
- Work as foreign press, in radio, film, print journalism, or other information media
To take an extreme example, Microsoft can’t just have someone from Mexico come into the US for 3 months to work on a project in their Seattle office even though their salary may be paid by Microsoft Mexico.
> The applicant can show their monthly income is equivalent to 1,000,000 ISK, or 1,300,000 ISK if applying for an accompanying spouse, cohabiting partner, and children under the age of 18.
1M ISK is 8k USD, 1.3M ISK is 10.4k USD. That excludes, what, 99% of the world's working population, or basically anyone outside of tech/biomed/banking/etc in very rich countries?
Is Iceland all that depserate for new residents / tourists? Being choosy about who you let move into your country is their prerogative. If they can attract a few high income people, that is a win.
I’d assume various covid requirements (vaccines and testing) have hurt tourism a bit.
Their airline was quite popular as a cheap route between Europe and North America, and again, lots of otherwise passengers can’t/won’t make that journey.
Yeah essentially they're saying people that are well off can come spend money there longer than other people. In typical Iceland fashion it excludes any path to permanent residency.
Why such sort of visas do not get popular beyond very hipster cases.
1. You are offering entry but not equal treatment (in terms of economic freedom).
2. In Europe citizens have taxpayer paid healthcare but as a visitor you are screwed, I mean private insurance exists but it is hard to have a good restaurant in town if another government funded restaurant is distributing food for free.
If you can say we will give you 100% exemption from tax then it is a different story.
I mean there is absolutely no incentive to offer any of those to anyone. The sole reason for allowing workers is to collect taxes and not have them leech off your social programs.
It seems beautiful, but saying unparalleled is a little hyperbolic. Western Norway, Switzerland, Northern Scotland, and the North American Rockies all appeal to similar sensibilities and arguably just as grand, if not more so in some cases.
There are no trees in Iceland. It's fine to look at for a week and the northern lights are a novelty, but the US and Canada (even California alone) offer much much more in terms of nature.
There are definitely trees in Iceland. Not many, not everywhere, and not impressive ones, but they exist.
However if you've been to Iceland and thought there wasn't much outdoors, I'm not really sure what to say. It's sparsely inhabited, beautiful, and gigantic. It's a totally different experience from something like the sierras.
Not all nomads are cheap / poor. I know there is a stereotype (probably well earned) about nomads. It's why you see low COL places being so popular (Thailand, Bali, Portugal, Mexico, etc). They get the most attention, but there's definitely folks who make good money and have interests in different regions/climates/activities. I can definitely see the appeal of Iceland. It's gorgeous natural landscape. I didn't get to see the northern lights while there, doing a six month stay might increase those chances tremendously versus flying over and crossing my fingers. I doubt we will see a huge flood to Iceland, but offering this kind of visa makes it easier for some higher value, longer term visitors. That's good for their economy and if they make it easy enough the administrative hurdles aren't that high, even better.
Korea is a fantastic place to live. The food is amazing, the country itself is beautiful, and the people are very welcoming (at least when I was there about a decade ago). The only issue is that outside of Seoul not a lot of people speak English, so you would need to learn a bit of basic Korean.
Its basically an urbanist's dream come true, with mega tall apartment complexes even in backwater villages. Right next to single family homes, right next to hilly forested areas where you can hike. There is excellent transit so you don't need to own a car (although a lot of people still do).
There is the possibility of being caught in a nuclear hellfire though. So... YMMV.
They closed a month ago due to Omicron, a measure multiple sensible countries followed to reduce risk. The intent is to remove this restriction at the end of Feb.
The only problem would be the time difference, assuming you're working for an American company.
I've spent 4 months in Japan as a digital nomad, while working for a company based in Europe. It worked. Now that I live and work in the US, I'm pretty sure the time difference would be too disruptive.
Sounds like Iceland should be trying harder, there is a lot of competition for these things now. All of southern europe and even netherlands (nicer/easier place to live) offers incentives for remote workers. Also they should be more inclusive, these programs should be accessible to people from south america or india, not just be a longer tourist visa for people who can afford the shorter one.
Seems structured to attract remote workers mostly from other developed countries since you need to be from a place that doesn't need a visa to travel to Iceland. Not sure what this is intended to accomplish considering there's no pathway to permanent residency either.
I think that makes sense. However Its odd because if they were enticed to become permanent residents they'll setup businesses and eventually create an ecosystem, which can create more spending in their economy.
Surely it’s intended to bring people with money to spend to Iceland? What other benefit do Iceland get from remote workers then injecting money into the economy?
One of the prerequisites is that the candidate does not otherwise need a visa to travel Iceland. Which means that foreign nationals who reside in the US and work in the kind of jobs that will meet the criteria Iceland is looking for will not be eligible for this.
If a) I can work from anywhere, and b) many countries will let me stay 6mos with a tourist visa (no need for application and meet requirements). Why would I choose a friggin cold and expensive place?
In most countries a tourist visa expressly prohibits working while in the country, even if the work is entirely remote. While you can get away with it much of the time in practice, it can become complicated if the local authorities become suspicious that you are violating your visa terms. Some countries monitor this more closely than others.
A "tourist working remotely" visa fills this obvious gap, without the implication of a proper work visa that you are taking a job away from a local (what they local authorities are mostly concerned with).
>In most countries a tourist visa expressly prohibits working while in the country, even if the work is entirely remote.
I doubt there is any tourist visa that explicitly prohibits working for a company in another country. Were this true, everyone checking their work email, or taking a work call, while on vacation, would be breaking the law.
Some countries migration control authorities won't accept the "I'm just here working remotely" answers when entering, exiting or re entering a country. Answering that could mean being sent back.
Good idea but why 1m isk monthly salary? Strange new world if only the ultra rich are welcome. Im sure Iceland would benefit also from average income remote workers.
> Strange new world if only the ultra rich are welcome.
Hardly. Most countries treat the rich differently from everyone else, when it comes to immigration/visas, and have basically forever. It's the overwhelming norm. In plenty of desirable countries you can simply buy your way to permanent residency. And I don't just mean the usual tropical tax havens.
For most countries, it's "prove your worth—and it better be damn good—or go away". One way to prove worth is to bring a ton of cash to the table.
It's not a new world. Plenty of countries will only give you a visa, or rather make it easier for you to get certain kinds of visas, if you make over a certain amount.
That comes out to about $96k USD a year. Totally reachable for a SWE-type job, however I know fully remote workers who are far from this amount. I guess they just want people to come and throw money around the bars.