Miscellaneous desk
< July 11	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 13 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

July 12

An American retiree in Canada, England, Scotland, Australia, or New Zealand

Is it common for retirees from the US to move to any of the above places? On the one hand, well-off foreigners would support the local economies. If they had pensions, US Social Security and savings, they would not go on the dole. On the other hand, they might consume health services. Are any of these places more or less welcoming toward retired foreigners? Edison (talk) 00:01, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

US retirees are found in all the mentioned countries which are English speaking and at peace with the US. I make no comment to fuel stereotypical national attitudes. 84.209.89.214 (talk) 00:47, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For England and Scotland - which are not independent countries but both part of the UK and therefore have a single set of immigration rules - what you would appear to be talking about is seeking to live here as a "retired person of independent means". You can find information on this on this page of gov.uk. If you click through to read the detailed guidance you'll find it states "[t]his route is closed to new entrants to the UK. Only people already in the UK in this category can apply for leave to remain or indefinite leave to remain."

You can check the visa requirements for US citizens at this address. As a US citizen, one can easily enter the UK as a tourist or to visit family for up to 6 months (no visa is required). Longer stays to visit family will require a visa. You'll note on the link above that among the possible reasons to enter the UK for which you may require a visa "to live as a retired person of independent means" is not an option. The situation may be different if you have some UK ancestry as you may be eligible for a UK ancestry visa, which would allow you to reside for up to 5 years (and may be extendable and may be the start of a path to permanent residence), but you'll note that there is an expectation that you would be coming to work rather than to live as a retired person with even this visa.

You'll note that the UK is a geographically small and fairly densely populated country and already welcomes many migrants from within the European Economic Area (EEA) due to its EU treaty obligations (and likewise many Britons choose to use their equivalent rights to live elsewhere in Europe). People from outside the EEA are generally allowed to live in the UK temporarily on the basis that they are studying, or that they are working (and access to visas that allow work on a long-term basis is - broadly speaking - limited to those in "high skills" occupations). Although many migrants from outside the EEA won't have access to public funds - broadly speaking "the dole" as you mentioned - they would still have access to free healthcare, which is a particular expense of people in their later years, as well as other generally provided services; as pensioners, unless they are particularly well-off, they will be paying relatively little income tax (pensioners pay no tax on the first £10,500 of income) [1].

According to our Americans in the United Kingdom article, there were 177,185 persons of US birth in the UK at the time of the last census (2011), which is a tiny fraction of the population of either country, so clearly there isn't a sizable community of US retirees here, especially as many of those will be the spouses of British (or other European) citizens, people of working age who are working for a shorter or longer time in the UK, and indeed at least some British (etc.) citizens who happened to be born in the US. Valiantis (talk) 00:57, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to round out my previous post. If you are very well-off, you may be able to obtain an Investor visa [2]. You will need to have (as a minimum) a spare million pounds sterling to invest. Valiantis (talk) 01:09, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For Canada, here's the relevant government web site. According to this recent newspaper article, Canada used to have something like the "investor visa" that Valiantis describes for the UK, but it has been discontinued; the article also says that the total number of US citizens retiring to Canada in recent years is only about 1,500 per year.

Note also that US citizens are subject to US income taxes on all their income wherever they live, while residents in Canada are subject to Canadian income taxes on all their income. There is a tax treaty that generally avoids double taxation, but generally a U.S. citizen resident in Canada will have to file tax returns in both places and will end up paying in total something like the higher of the two countries' tax rate. But tax law is very complicated and there may be some situations that work differently. I would expect similar requirements to apply for other countries of residence. --50.100.189.160 (talk) 04:09, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it may be more common for Canadians to retire south than vice versa. Our snowbirds often migrate to the Florida wetlands in large, complex flocks, and are protected under federal law, thanks to dedicated preservation efforts. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:23, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There were a number of news stories a while back on how the US's tax laws - and the reporting regulations that come with them under the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act - were causing many US citizens living abroad on a permanent basis to renounce their citizenship [3] [4] [5]. Valiantis (talk) 22:23, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just went hunting for the Australian situation, and it looks like we don't want retirees. Immigration to Australia#Current government immigration programmes says we will take skilled immigrants, so the trick might be to come here with a useful skill, work for a year or two, then retire. I just have this suspicion that having plenty of money to invest would make a difference too. HiLo48 (talk) 08:10, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NZ has to investor categories. The main one which requirwes $1.5 million be invested in NZ [6] as well as $1 million settlement funds (available, you don't have to transfer it) is less suitable for retirees since it requires that you're 65 years or younger and you also have to spend a big chunk of your time here (so you can't really be actively working elsewhere). Still if it's a somewhat early retirement (you'd probably want to apply when 63 or younger in case there are problems) it will probably work. It also does require you're of good health and character. Although as shown by the Kim Dotcom and Donghua Liu the minister may override any ministry believe you fail the character requirement.

The investor plus category with no age requirement, no English requirement and only requiring you spend a 44 days here for each of the last 2 years of your 3 year investment would work well for wealthy retirees who want to retire here. (You still need to fill the health and character requirements.)

As others have mentioned, the US is somewhat unique in the world (I've never seen good statistics but some suggest only 2 other countries do the same) in taxing you regardless of whether you're living in the US if you're a US citizen. But as with Canada, NZ does have double taxation agreements with the US which may help so perhaps it's not enough of a barrier (and realisticly, if you have $10 million, tax is an annoyance but not going to stop you doing something if you really want to plus you could always gain citizenship here and renounce your US one).

As for the UK, there has been a lot of controversy over the alleged ease some EU countries are offering citizenship perhaps partially because of the dire state of their economies. E.g. [7] [8] [9] [10]. This controversy relateds not just to the "low price" but the limited residence requirement (so if you don't want to live in Bulgaria or whatever it may not be much of a problem).

As I understand Citizenship of the European Union, Directive 2004/38/EC on the right to move and reside freely and Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 and what was said above, based on current law, provided they are able to support themselves these people are free to settle in the UK. They don't have economically active (i.e. it's fine for retirees). (Given the controversy and their being not economically active, they may never qualify for benefits [11] but I don't know if that was an issue.)

The only possible limitation may be if they fail some character requirement (I believe there are some limits perhaps only for criminal convictions but I couldn't find sources). Given the controversy, I don't know whether this will change, although I do agree with one of the sources, I suspect as much as anything, the controversy is because it means people are "buying" some other citizenship to get in to the UK rather than "buying" UK citizenship directly.

Nil Einne (talk) 14:41, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"NZ has to investor categories": I pondered this for some time, thinking I'd come across the first example of the noun "investor" being verbed. I still wondered what on earth it meant. Then it hit me: you're using "to" as a substitute homograph for "two". That's in line with the all-too-common spelling of "too" as "to" (I couldn't eat all my dinner, as I was given to much). It really does make for colossal confusion when three distinctly spelt words (to, too, two) are deprived of their uniqueness, and for no apparent good reason. Am I the only person who's tremendously distressed by this trend and cries himself to sleep most nights? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:39, 13 July 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Area code scams

There have been long-distance telephone scams from area codes 809, 284, 649, and 876.

AT&T Smart Controls: 809 Area Code Scam

Are any other area codes involved in this scam?
—Wavelength (talk) 01:44, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Corporate Research

Are there businesses or online tools that might be able to help me identify who has bid on, or won a US Government contract identified by a solicitation number? Pay services are ok. What type of professional might offer such services?68.55.110.163 (talk) 13:17, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BMW Mercedes-Benz Volkswagen Porsche Audi seven to eight seaters

Which cars of BMW, Mercedes-Benz, Volkswagen, Porsche and Audi has seven to eight seaters? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.33.49 (talk) 15:44, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The VW bus, specifically the "shuttle" configuration, seats 8-9: Volkswagen Transporter (T5)#Body_types. StuRat (talk) 16:08, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Mercedes minivan can also be configured to seat 8: Mercedes-Benz V-Class#Second generation (W639; 2003–present). StuRat (talk) 16:12, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mercedes-Benz Sprinter has up to nine seats, including driver. In North America it is sold as Freightliner or Dodge Sprinter. The Volkswagen Crafter is the badge-engineered Volkswagen equivalent from the same factory. --Rôtkæppchen68 00:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Negative marginal cost

Strictly speaking, is it possible to have a negative marginal cost? Not negative marginal cost per unit, but negative for everything: is this possible, or are the requirements impossible by definition? Imagine that I'm running a food-canning plant in an area with high trash-pickup rates and low labor and raw-materials costs, and my freezers are full, but I have lots of fresh food that won't fit in the freezers. I calculate that it will cost less to can the remaining food than it will to throw it away or to buy more freezers (or to find some other method of storing it safely), and doing neither one is completely unacceptable — after I account for these and all other known factors, my total spending will be less if I produce X+Y units than it will if I produce X units. Can we say that the marginal cost for producing the Y units is negative, or is there some definition (whether marginal cost, total cost, or something else) that excludes situations like mine? Nyttend (talk) 17:38, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A situation where you have more raw material than capacity to preserve it, and must dispose of it all, with trashing as a relatively expensive process for the material which cost you very little, sounds contrived compared with a normal supply/work/delivery-limited Supply chain. But it's true that calculating Marginal cost as the change in the total cost that arises when the quantity produced has an increment by unit, where you choose to count only cans of food as the product, can give a negative ratio. 84.209.89.214 (talk) 18:51, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Butter mountain#Criticism and Wine lake may suggest some real life examples of oversupply. DOR (HK) (talk) 10:16, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is this place in Bratislava?

Could someone tell me what exactly is this place in Bratislava, Slovakia? 48°8′4.03″N 17°5′9.48″E / 48.1344528°N 17.0859667°E / 48.1344528; 17.0859667 I walked past it less than two weeks ago. It had a tall, sturdy fence all around it, barring all entry for non-authorised people. There were some warning sides on both the eastern and the western ends of the road leading to the house, but they were all only in Slovak, which I don't understand. Is it some top-secret military base or something? JIP | Talk 21:59, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is it perhaps the Czechoslovak fortification museum/Múzeum Československého opevnenia? This name appears at the southern point of the area on Google Maps; maybe the tall sturdy fence was meant to keep out people before it became a museum. I've copied your question to de:Wikipedia:Auskunft, thinking that they might know, since it's on the Austrian border. Nyttend (talk) 22:46, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, the tall sturdy fence is still rather active, the gates at both ends are kept closed all the time, except when authorised people pass through them. JIP | Talk 22:54, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On page 51 in this PDF is a map of the Bratislava water infrastructure. On the relevant site there is a signature for odber z toku, google-translated to “collection of flow”. On the west thereof, on the other side of the D2 there is a vodný zdroj (water source). It all fits together. Even the blue roof of the installation looks very “watery”. --Rôtkæppchen₆₈ 11:27, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The signs obviously say that it's a source of drinking water with pumping station and water processing. According to the signs damaging or contaminating are prohibited and punishable. --88.130.97.109 (talk) 13:51, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nice! How'd you search for that photo? --50.100.189.160 (talk) 18:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I found this photo too. I just randomly clicked the Panoramio icons around the site on Google earth. Gargle translate then gave another hint (see linked German thread). --Rôtkæppchen68 23:50, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --50.100.189.160 (talk) 10:03, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]