Talk:Perpetual traveler

Comments

Aren't the websites given here scams or even somehow illegal (they sell passports...) ??

-Probably. I wouldn't buy anything from them. But they are informative.

concerns

i am african american and concerned about racism interfering with my world traverl (in the future, that is, i am 14) is it safe for black travelers in central asia aka the stans? (kazakhstan, turkmenistan, etc.)

Five Flag Theory section

No references. I suggest this is original research. As such it is not encyclopedic and I will remove it as per WP policy. Paul Beardsell (talk) 08:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Paul, thank you for raising the flag on what could have been original research! In this case, I have added some references in regards to the statement that "Perpetual travelers may attempt to organize their affairs around the 'Five Flags' theory". It is now -- as per Wikipedia policy -- based on a summary, review or synthesis of earlier publications on the subject of research. I hope that addresses the concern that you had about it being original research. Please comment if you still have concerns. Severisth (talk) 16:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

A year and a half later, it's still POVish. Duly tagged. Daniel Case (talk) 23:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide the other point of view? I have no objection to both points of view being present. Severisth (talk) 01:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Interesting

Is "perpetual traveler" just a politically correct phrase for the deadbeat kind of backpacker who bought a one way ticket and never really managed to get home?CloutierFan02 (talk) 02:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

not usually. It generally refers more to rich nomads who can afford to have homes in multiple countries etc, than backpackers who take trains at night to avoid having to pay for somewhere to sleep. --Salvadors (talk) 04:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised at the question. My response: Read the article. Paul Beardsell (talk) 20:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect information

This was obvious written by someone unversed in law. In particular, this:

For example, one can spend up to 122 days each year in the United States without being considered a resident or being required to file a US tax return.

In fact, one can be considered a "resident" of a state or the United States for some purposes in a very short period of time. There is no one definition of "residence" or "domicile" for all purposes. Next, this is dangerously wrong because all U.S. citizens who are not exempt (usually for having very little income at all) must file tax returns annually, regardless of whether they live in the United States for any period of time. While foreign taxes are deductible and the first several hundred thousand dollars earned overseas may be excluded from taxation, a return must still be filed. Finally, anyone, even an alien, who earns income within the United States (unless, again, it is a very small amount) must still file a tax return, regardless of how little time they spend in the U.S. (Sometimes, even if they spend no time in the United States, if they earn income from there.) If it is earned in an employment setting, income taxes will be withheld anyway, so it is usually necessary to file in order to claim a refund. NTK (talk) 12:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

NTK makes the mistake of assuming everyone is a US citizen. Neither is everyone a US resident. If someone, as a non-USA citizen, spends 122 days or less per year in the USA, then (s)he is not resident for tax purposes. And, if (s)he does not earn income in the USA, no US income tax is payable. So, article is correct. But how could it be disputed when IRS Publication 519 (2006) is cited and a great chunk of it is actually quoted? Paul Beardsell (talk) 15:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I did not assume that everyone is a US citizen. It CAN be disputed because just citing Pub 519 does not make it correct. It is misapplied. 1. The language says, without qualification, that one is not considered a resident if one is in the USA for less than 122 days each year. That is demonstrably false; although one may not be a resident for specific tax purposes there are different criteria for "residency" depending on the purpose, which is exactly what I said. This is true whether one is a citizen or not.

Secondly, the language says nothing about US citizens, who, as I noted, are required to file annually and may owe tax on income above an exclusion regardless of where it is earned or whether you are a resident. "Renouncing" ones citizenship will not terminate this duty unless very strict criteria are met, and wilful failure to file can result in prosecution.

Thirdly, income earned within the United States is subject to income tax whether you are a resident or a citizen or not.

I wonder what legal qualifications you have to interpret IRS publications. The language of the article says "One can spend up to 122 days each year in the United States without being considered a resident or being required to file a US tax return." Without qualification. Which is simply wrong for a huge proportion of people in that category.

For instance, if during your 120 days of stay in the USA as a non-citizen "perpetual traveler," you worked on some international consulting contract over the internet and received payment for it, you would owe self-employment income tax for that period. Unless your stay in the United States is purely one of leisure, it is very likely that failure to file, whether in reliance of some frivolous Wikipedian perpetual traveler argument or not, would be tax evasion.

And needless to say any real estate owned in the America would be subject to property tax, and any capital gains of property (of real estate or otherwise) would be subject to the capital gains tax, regardless of how much time, if any, was spent in the USA. NTK (talk) 18:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the US specific reference from the article as thrashing out the nuance of the residency laws of the US (or any other location), although interesting, isn't the primary focus of this article. --Salvadors (talk) 07:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a great pity that NTK has caused the deletion of true and useful information. Nobody said, I did not say, the article did not say that *all* those in the USA for less than 122 days escapes USA tax. All that the article said (and I did not write that section) is that one *can* be in the USA for 122 days without becoming tax resident or liable for USA taxes. Of course, *if* you do work in the USA, *if* you make earn income from a USA source, then you may not or will not escape USA taxes. But if you do none of those things (and other examples listed by NTK) and if you stay in the USA for less than 122 days then you *do* escape USA taxation. Legitimately. Paul Beardsell (talk) 09:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The article simply said "if you do X you can escape USA tax". NTK said "No! There are circumstances when despite X you do not escape USA tax." I agree with him, but point out the use of the word *can*. And that hundreds of thousands of visitors to the USA *do* legitimately escape USA taxes on their income and the need to file tax returns. I do so myself. Paul Beardsell (talk) 09:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

You can also be in the USA for 366 days in a year and not owe any income tax--if you don't have any income. It is better that there is no discussion of US tax law than there being clearly wrong and misleading language. And unless you have consulted a legitimate lawyer or tax expert, you should not trust that you do not have to file tax returns if you are spending substantial time in America. It is simply not true that being in the United States for less than 122 days in a year is a general exemption from filing tax returns or paying tax. NTK (talk) 00:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Give over! You forget the the subject of this article. A perpetual tourist would not by definition spend 366 days a year in the USA but even a very rich one *can* spend 4 months a year there and escape all tax on income. Paul Beardsell (talk) 12:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Spam

This article is almost totally a quotation from W.G.Hill's literature. Hill is behind the ptshamrock.com site but is not named there in any obvious way.