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.

Which websites given here are "scams"? I don't see any. If you know any website given in a Wikipedia article to be a scam you should flag it.

There are websites (not listed in the article) which tell people how to qualify for citizenship in various countries. There is nothing illegal in this. (For that matter, government websites of several countries explain how to qualify for citizenship.) After becoming a citizen of a country, obtaining a passport is usually straightforward.

None of the "Perpetual Traveller" material is useful to citizens of the United States, Myanmar, or Eritrea, because these three countries tax citizens regardless of where they live. All other countries tax residents only. Longitude2 (talk) 15:35, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

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)

Five Flag Theory section - What countries currently meet the needs for each flag type?

This section talks about 5 flags. Where to "play" (flag #5) is certainly subject to personal taste. But it would be nice to have a top 5 list for current countries that suit the need for flags #1, #2, #3 and #4.

Flag #1 Passport and citizenship – in a country that does not tax money earned outside the country or control actions.

Flag #2 Legal residence – in a tax haven.

Flag #3 Business base – where one earns one's money, ideally somewhere with low corporate tax rates.

Flag #4 Asset haven - where one keeps one's money, ideally somewhere with low taxation of passive income and capital gains.

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.96.47 (talk) 14:44, 30 September 2012 (UTC) The site www.ptclub.com criticises W.G.Hill and seems to be a different site. It is also in a different style. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.96.47 (talk) 12:48, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

A site which is competing with Hill, www.panamalaw.org, says the "W.G.Hill" is a pseudonym. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.96.47 (talk) 09:00, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The site www.panamalaw.com has been sold as a result of a legal case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.96.47 (talk) 09:03, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

W.G.Hill has stopped producing his get-rich-quick book. It was based on the theory that banks will lend 100% to you for property. With the credit crisis, this is not so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.156.62.127 (talk) 14:15, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Perpetual traveler

If Perpetual traveller is the normal spelling, why does Perpetual traveller redirect to Perpetual traveler? Normally it has double-l146.199.70.186 (talk) 00:13, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://speculationrules.com/sovereign/pt.php. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:19, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

"Scheme" word choice

I changed the wording "schemes" in the lead section of perpetual traveler is because in North America, the term scheme doesn't mean programme – it alludes to deception (e.g. pyramid scheme – as I'm sure most are aware). Since the idea of the PT lifestyle is already considered morally grey by some people (who view using legitimate means of avoiding obligations such as taxes to be morally bankrupt or unpatriotic), I consider that altering the word "scheme" makes it more neutral.

Also, in evaluating the sentence that my edit was a part of, it is true that some of those companies might actually market strategies that are in fact illegal. I will include that info, as well as link to the distinction between tax avoidance (legal) and tax evasion (illegal). Objections?   — TARDIS builder^💬   |     08:55, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scheme "a plan or program of action; especially : a crafty or secret one". The majority of offshore tax arrangements are both crafty and secret so the word seems quite appropriate. I think the place for the tax avoidance/evasion debate is elsewhere. I added evasion to the see also. The trouble you will have in including it here is finding a source that is reliable and makes an explicit link between PT and tax evasion/avoidance. There are very few reliable sources at all for this subject as almost everything out there is low grade.Philafrenzy (talk) 09:19, 28 April 2018 (UTC)