Talk:Retiring abroad Voyage Tips and guide

Contents

I started this with text from the deleted retirement in Thailand article. Discussion there indicated this article might be a good idea. I've already deleted some text from the old article & more needs to go.

It needs much more, notably a list of countries that have a retirement visa available, with links to gov't sites with details. Australia, Indonesia & Thailand do. Others? (WT-en) Pashley 21:30, 14 May 2011 (EDT)

I've now deleted most of the old article's text. What is left is a bunch of stuff under the heading "complications", basically anything that looked to me like it might be useful as a reminder of things that need to be covered. It all needs rewriting in this context.

I won't be doing more work on this soon. Others are encouraged to jump in. (WT-en) Pashley 00:59, 15 May 2011 (EDT)

Made first pass on a rewrite. It still needs other contributors. (WT-en) Pashley 02:44, 15 May 2011 (EDT)

Very nice work Pashley. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 08:31, 15 May 2011 (EDT)

This is now about as far as I can take it. So far, I'm the only writer. It has been bumped to Guide status, but it is not actually complete. In particular, the list of countries with retirement visa programs has gaps of two types. One is that I almost certainly have not found all the possibilities, for either investment visas or retirement visas. Can anyone add some?

The other problem is that for several countries I found travel agents offering visa services but was unable to find a primary source, government site. I've added those countries to the list but without primary source links. Finding the gov't sites should be relatively easy; just Google for "retirement visa" plus something like "site:.gov.bz". The latter part restricts the search to government domains. Unfortunately, I cannot do much of that because I am in China and the Great Firewall is currently sabotaging Google. Volunteers? (WT-en) Pashley 00:37, 18 May 2011 (EDT)

Except for the above, I think it is done. (WT-en) Pashley 03:23, 15 June 2011 (EDT)

I changed the text for the investment visas so it now says these are just examples, with enough money you can go almost anywhere. The retirement visa list is still incomplete, though, and that's a problem. (WT-en) Pashley 02:45, 20 June 2011 (EDT)

I have filled in as many gaps as I can, but it is still incomplete. Both types of gap mentioned above still exist. In particular, I speak neither Spanish nor Portuguese so there are a lot of gaps in Latin America & some links that are there may be wrong.

Help! Pashley (talk) 14:44, 30 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Several links were found to be dead. I fixed one but deleted two others, Mexico & Honduras. Those join several other Spanish-speaking countries where we've never had a link (see last paragraph above). Any volunteers to fix that? Pashley (talk) 22:32, 9 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Are the few remaining overseas territories of colonial powers easy to retire in? Can a Briton go to Gibraltar without a visa, an American to Puerto Rico, or a Frenchman to French Polynesia? (WT-en) Pashley

What about former territories? Do Britons get special treatment in Malta or Americans in the Philippines? Are there some where resentment of the colonial past would be problem for a possible retiree? (WT-en) Pashley

I added text to cover this. (WT-en) Pashley 21:24, 7 June 2011 (EDT)

The section on Retiring_abroad#Information_sources is now fairly large.

Is it too large? Providing a web? directory is explicitly not a goal of the project. Are we on a slippery slope here? I'd say no, but other opinions are needed.

Should it become an independent article? Some of the information it gives would be useful not only to retirees, but to anyone planning to reside abroad, so links from Teaching English or Working abroad might make sense. Parts of it might even be useful in choosing a vacation destination, so it might get links from all over the place. Does this mean it should be in a standalone article, easier to link to? Again I'd say no, but other opinions are needed. Pashley (talk) 15:54, 13 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

I don't think it is too large and I also think this is a case where an exception to our "non-goals" is warranted.

One of the reasons we don't like non-primary external links is to encourage writers to actually put the information in new, originally written text here. As one of our most enduring and loyal editors (you've certainly proved your stamina trying to staunch the flow of spam over at Wikitravel.org) having (this ordinarily too large) sources section is not going to endanger your participation and I'm sure you'll be around to weed out any spammy or out of date links that anyone inserts. (If you do cease your personal interest in this article, that opinion would change, of course.)

Another reason that the external links are appropriate here is that many of them contain dense statistical information or data (like prices, for example) that change on a frequent (and sometimes daily) basis, and it wouldn't be a good use of anyone's time to simply re-locate the data here (there might even be intellectual property issues, too).

I would also say that there might be a case here for an exception to our link display policy - all those little numbers are both ugly and confusing to a casual reader who might not instantly realise that the displayed sequential numbers are of no significance whatever.

Finally, as long as the section title doesn't change (or you could create a shortcut such as REDS - retirement external data sources), linking is still easy and would be better than creating a more easily found spammer's delight stand alone article. -- Alice^✉ 19:34, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I inserted a paragraph about Polish visas and linked to Poland and to a list of links to the province offices that issue long-term visas. The surrounding text didn't go into great detail, so I tried to keep it short and sweet with links to more info in case Poland was of particular interest to the reader. Please let me know if you see how how I could have done better. Jimmu (talk) 05:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Pashley's obviously the best judge of that, but it seems just right to me - after all the data may change rapidly and you can't get a more authoritative source than the government website. Keep up the good work! -- Alice^✉ 06:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. Pashley (talk) 17:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Could this be our first star travel topic? Teaching English has been nominated and slushed; as far as I know no others have even been nominated.

It is not entirely complete — see the talk page for comment on that — but I think it is at least close to star level. Of course I'm the only author so far, so I cannot really judge. Comments here or contributions could fairly easily get it the last bit of the way, I think. (WT-en) Pashley 02:33, 20 June 2011 (EDT)

Query. Really like this article and would love to see it as a Star. Are there though any criteria for travel topic status?--(WT-en) Burmesedays 02:01, 23 June 2011 (EDT)

Link at top of this page takes you to Project:Travel_topic_status. (WT-en) Pashley 02:47, 23 June 2011 (EDT)

Ah yes :). That will teach me for not looking. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 03:49, 23 June 2011 (EDT)

Also Burmesedays, it may be useful to keep in mind as you read the stated goal within the article: "This article covers moving abroad to retire."

Are there any countries where you simply cannot retire in even if you want to or that you absoultely have to move to/become a citizen to live in? I tried looking up Uzbekistan, Kenya and Senegal, for example, and couldn't find any information on how to retire in these countries. Perhaps they have investor's visas, but maybe not.

The article is also highly centralized around retiring to Asia, which I know is the most common, but some geographical diversity in examples and pictures would be good. There are plenty of amazing coastal cities in Africa, for example, that have the same sort of exotic appeals that may attract someone to Thailand or the Caribbean, but it's difficult to know what/how much information applies for areas outside of Asia. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 04:04, 23 June 2011 (EDT)

Yep I am sure that is the case. I suspect finding the information (if it exists at all) for most African countries would be a bit of a nightmare. :::This is a very worthy topic, and one I am quite close to as I have assisted a number of retirees in understanding what is involved in acquiring a retirement residency visa in Indonesia. I think Pashley has done an excellent job with the structure of the article, it is certainly well written, and as far as I can tell, it seems complete. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 10:43, 24 June 2011 (EDT)

Not the first Star travel topic. Chicago skyline guide has that distinction, and there are 5 others related to Scuba Diving around Cape Town. See Project:Star article#Travel topics

South Africa has quite a number of Europeans who have retired here. Mostly Germans and Britons, who take advantage of the good exchange rate to enjoy the milder climate. Many are what is locally known as "Swallows", as they tend to go north for the winter, and so don't actually stay here permanently. However some do, though permanent is never certain while one is still alive. I have no idea what the arrangements are, as I am local, so retiring here would be a natural progression for me, requiring no special procedures. The information must be available somewhere. • • • (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) ^Talk 08:55, 26 June 2011 (EDT)

This one has been hanging out there a long time. I would like to propose that it is promoted to star. --(WT-en) burmesedays 12:22, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

• Support (Pashley's a "star" editor, too). -- Alice^✉ 04:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support. It's high time this one joins our star articles. --Peter ^Talk 18:10, 21 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

So, who gets to close this nomination and promote it to Star status, then?-- Alice^✉ 10:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

There are no outstanding criticisms that have not been dealt with and there does not seem to be any remaining opposition to promoting this topic to STAR status, so I will do just that in 2 days if nobody objects! -- Alice^✉ 19:44, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

There are some open questions; see Talk:Retiring_abroad#Contributions_wanted. I do not think these should block the nomination, but that needs more opinions. Pashley (talk) 20:40, 7 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

I have now fixed nearly all of them. Pashley (talk) 22:52, 22 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Well done!

I have some comments about the horizontal style of ToC but they will have to wait until I have a faster Internet connection, Sandy. -- Alice^✉ 00:33, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

This got overlooked in the star nomination, but the lede to this article is currently quite weak:

It is moderately common for people to retire to countries other than where they spent their working life.

Yawn. It's wishy-washy and doesn't serve to hook the reader into reading on. Could we spice this up, and evoke the romance of adventure and/or beautiful beaches and climate in one's latter years? --Peter ^Talk 16:06, 10 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

The next paragraph did mention climate etc. and the photo suggested that too. I'm not entirely convinced there was much of a problem.

Originally, though, what you quote was just the first sentence of a longer lede that did mention reasons to go. I've now moved it back to that format and reworded a bit. I think it is an improvement. What do others think? Pashley (talk) 20:06, 10 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I also think it's an improvement. It still would be nice to throw in a more spicy line or two up front, though. It really stuck out as dryly informational when added to Star articles, where most entries feature especially creative/lively writing (by our standards). Retiring abroad is kind of an exciting prospect, and I don't think that is currently captured in the intro. The more prosaic reasons could follow using a transition like, "Of course, there are also more prosaic, sensible reasons to retire abroad..." --Peter ^Talk 00:56, 11 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I took a crack at that. Maybe others can do better? Pashley (talk) 19:17, 11 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I think the recent change was a big improvement, and have updated the star articles page accordingly [1]. --Peter ^Talk 03:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I sent the link of this article to a friend who is considering a number of south american countries - and he has noted there is little information about the issue of residency (costs, requirements, etc)

anyone with any ideas as to whether more needs to be put in that is country specific to the issue (or not) ? sats (talk) 07:50, 12 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

It does need more info in that region. See above #Contributions_wanted. Pashley (talk) 11:18, 12 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Any preferences? I like the first one best. Danapit (talk) 14:46, 4 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I prefer it too. Some of the others are too similar to the photo in the lead section or are not the full 2100*300 size that I think we need. I'll insert that one. Pashley (talk) 14:56, 4 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I read on a discussion that exact size doesn't matter, important is the ratio 7:1. If you happen to like another one, I can also resize it, no problem. Danapit (talk) 15:06, 4 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I added one more. Not very colorful, but I quite like it. I have some doubts about the license of the current one, although I took it from Commons... Danapit (talk) 17:33, 4 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I like all of these a lot, and have a hunch that some that are not being used here could probably be used in some other travel topic. --Peter ^Talk 18:50, 4 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Peter (I like your SPB banners a lot). Here another version of the last one. Danapit (talk) 19:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yes. Some of these may well be useful elsewhere. I just dropped the second one into Belize; it is not ideal there, though, because all of the beach part gets covered by the linked section names. Pashley (talk) 21:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Borrowing one of those for senior travel. /Yvwv (talk) 19:46, 11 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

I have changed many links from footnote style ("[1]" etc.) to front links in accordance with recent policy changes. See Wikivoyage_talk:External_links#Front_linking_.28hear_me_out.29.

However, some pose a problem so I have not touched those yet. We currently have several dozen links under Retiring_abroad#Retirement_visa and in the following section that look like this:

• Australia [2]

What should we do with those? Just turning them into front links is not ideal because it loses the link to our article on the country. We could add some other text to get, for example:

• Australia visa info

However, that seems a bit odd, especially if "visa info" gets repeated 20 times.

Anyone got a better idea? Pashley (talk) 20:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

I don't see a problem with the footnote-style links in this context. On the other hand, I don't know if the internal links are necessary either. LtPowers (talk) 00:26, 8 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

What if you used the name of the government department whose website the link goes to? Or perhaps there is enough variety in the official visa names that you could use that. Just clicking through a few I see "Assured Income Visa", "Retirement Visa", "Dream Home Visa", etc.. Texugo (talk) 12:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

I took Texugo's suggestion & there are now no footnote-style links left.

Some of the problems mentioned at #Contributions_wanted are still present, though. Pashley (talk) 15:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Some New Zealand banks have a problem because NZ has privacy laws that make it illegal for them to provide info on US citizens in NZ that the US gov't is demanding. The NZ gov't is considering adding an exception to their laws to accommodate the US. [3]

It is possible that this & similar things elsewhere should be covered in our Taxation section. However, it is a complex area so hard to do well and it is not clear if it belongs in a travel guide. I am not about to attempt it, largely because I would find it hard to be objective. To me, it is horrifying that the NZ gov't would even bother to discuss this rather than telling the US to get very thoroughly stuffed. Pashley (talk) 16:10, 4 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

According to website internationalliving.com , Ecuador is the best country to retire to. It also lists another 'top 25' countries. Maybe useful for this article?

http://www.traveller.com.au/ecuador-tops-list-of-the-25-best-countries-for-retirement-in-2015-12huwi?utm_source=outbrain&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=Outbrain_cpc

--Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:29, 9 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

The section Retiring_abroad#Information_sources includes links to that site and at least one "ten best" list. Should we add more lists? There are quite a lot out there; I linked to several toward the end of the discuusion at Wikivoyage:Destination_of_the_month_candidates#Dumaguete. Should they all be here?

Ecuador, especially Cuenca (Ecuador), is certainly a popular destination. In Retiring_abroad/Table it shows as one of the cheaper destinations and the only country where prostitution, homosexuality and cannabis are all legal. Pashley (talk) 04:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

I wasn't suggesting another 'Top X' list. I just did a search for Ecuador in the article and only saw two minor references. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 04:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

I added a new section Retiring_abroad#Destinations that includes a list. I also moved some existing text into that section which makes the intro shorter & I think much cleaner/punchier. Comments? Additions to my first-cut list? Pashley (talk) 22:54, 21 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Two things that might be added at Retiring_abroad#Special_cases:

• Taiwanese in China. I've met some Taiwanese retirees there, but do not know details.
• Jews going to Israel.

Does anyone know enough detail to add these? Pashley (talk) 13:14, 3 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

As brought up on Wikivoyage:Travellers' pub, this article has a lot of quotes. Most of them deal with travel in general; hardly any of them are specific to the travel topic. Should we move them to articles where they are more appropriate? /Yvwv (talk) 16:04, 11 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

I'm biased since I inserted most of them; to me nearly all are appropriate & should stay where they are.

The two exceptions are in the sections Retiring_abroad#Visas and Retiring_abroad#Other_ways_to_retire. I'd say those should be replaced with more appropriate quotes, but I do not have any candidates. Pashley (talk) 17:52, 11 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

8 countries where you could retire on $150,000 Pashley (talk) 23:40, 10 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

13 things people should do to save for an international retirement, according to Americans who retired abroad Pashley (talk) 14:30, 21 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

I wrote most of this over 5 years ago. Now there are quite a few dead links & others may be outdated; e.g. the first link I tested under Retiring_abroad#Information_sources led to a Newsweek article from 2010. The article is rated star but may no longer deserve the rating.

I do not currently have the time for a thorough review & probably am not the best person to do it anyway. Volunteers? Pashley (talk) 12:45, 23 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Bump!. It still needs review & there are now far too many dead links for a star article.

For related issues, see #Old articles & #EU and retiring across borders below. Pashley (talk) 01:34, 6 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Also, it arguably has far too many WP links and other external links, especially in Retiring_abroad#Information_sources. I inserted most of those & do not see them as problematic, but this also needs review. Pashley (talk) 18:57, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

See also #Information_sources above. Pashley (talk) 19:04, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

It seems still to be great advice; most things haven't changed that radically. I cannot say anything though about the information sources and possible new issues. –LPfi (talk) 20:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

One thing that strikes me, is the excessive usage of epigraphic quotes. Most of them are generalized, and have little to do with the subject. It has been customary that a lengthy article has two or at maximum three quotes. Some of them can be relocated to travel topics where they are more illustrative. /Yvwv (talk) 14:57, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I have been around WV on and off for few months, but only discovered this article now. I just started working my way through it, and expect it will take me a while to read it all.

I am curious about one particular paragraph:

For most people, it will be more sensible to take things slowly, rather than diving straight into a partly unknown culture. For example, instead of selling your home to move abroad, you might rent it out while you discover how a new country suits you.

I am curious because several provinces in Canada, and in particular British Columbia have recent legislation that may have unpleasant consequences for people who rent out their homes, especially those who are no longer considered residents. I did some research on this topic a few years ago for an article I developed on one of the wikipedias, and I remember finding out other jurisdictions with similar sentiments.

Just wondering if anyone here has had experience with this. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 23:17, 1 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

I think that would be important to mention. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:26, 2 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Part of it is covered under Retiring_abroad#Taxation:

... take a Canadian who has $20,000 a year of income from renting out a house in Canada, but lives elsewhere. If he or she lives in a country such as the US which has a tax agreement with Canada, then the Canadian government takes a flat 15% of the Canadian income, $3000 in this case. On the US tax return, he or she reports the $20,000 as income and deducts the $3000 from the US tax due as tax already paid. If he or she lives in a country which has no tax agreement with Canada, then the Canadian government takes a flat 25%.

If you can improve that, or add text on other problems, please do.

It might also be worth adding material on destination countries that restrict ownership of property; e.g. in the Philippines, a foreigner cannot own land but can own a condo. Some people get around that with a 99-year lease. Others buy land in the name of a Filipina wife or girlfriend, but that can be problematic if you split up. Pashley (talk) 00:37, 2 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

@SHB2000: If we want quotes to be in italics, we should change the template rather than insert local formatting. Now one out of eight quotes in this article is in italics. Is there some special reason that quote should be and not the others, and not those in other articles? I suppose all the quotes here use {{quote}}, so adjustments are easy (but should be discussed on the template talk, as it is not clear that everyone would agree on it). That's more or less the reason we are using a template. –LPfi (talk) 06:59, 15 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

I'll revert it/ SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 08:24, 15 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

See Template talk:Quote. Arguably we should just scrap the template as unnecessary. If we keep it, we must make it format decently. Pashley (talk) 04:30, 16 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Swept in from the pub

NASA predicts record flooding a few years hence. I do not think we need to say anything about this yet, but keep it in mind. Eventually, perhaps add a comment at Retiring_abroad#Housing or anywhere else that discusses buying property. Pashley (talk) 04:44, 17 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

I added a paragraph in Retiring abroad. Pashley (talk) 05:01, 17 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

And I did the same at the end of Second homes#Concerns. –LPfi (talk) 06:13, 17 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Would this also have to be mentioned in any low level lying countries where people move to retire? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:32, 18 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

For example, on the Florida coast many people buy property in vulnerable areas with flood risk, particularly near the Intracoastal Waterway. I’d always be concerned about rising sea levels (won’t be there in 30 years?) and flooding from hurricanes, but fortunately as soon as you get off the island the elevation is several feet higher. Bad property risk on the beach but on the other hand I think it’s the wrong image for us to advise people where to live; our readers might not see it as our business. So I’m 50/50 on this. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 10:49, 18 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Wikivoyage gives all kinds of warnings and cautions without being legally responsible for the specifics. This is another good example. It would be much weirder to ignore the clear threat, nay guarantee of flooding. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:33, 18 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

I don't think we want those warnings in country articles. People who want our advice when buying property should read Retiring abroad and Second homes. If they are made aware of the flooding risk in general, they should be able to check it locally by themselves – they can do it for a specific neighbourhood, which we cannot. –LPfi (talk) 19:39, 18 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

If we add by destination, we’ll have thousands of articles with sea level rise warnings, because thousands of travel destinations are by the beach. Putting the information in the retiring abroad articles and places already underwater would be the best idea in my opinion. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 20:03, 18 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

I just deleted this:

More general magazines also have material: for example Forbes has a survey of expat-friendly countries and Newsweek has an article on the best countries to live in.

Both links still work, but both articles are over 10 years old. Does anyone think it is worth searching for current articles? Or just restoring these? Pashley (talk) 06:35, 2 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for getting rid of those. Many other external links here need to go per Wikivoyage:External_links#What_not_to_link_to. Nelson Ricardo (talk) 07:30, 2 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Yes. I added most of them; it seemed like a good idea at the time & nobody objected when the article was nominated for & promoted to star status. Now I agree that many should go. Pashley (talk) 07:42, 2 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

OK, probably just best to delete what you deleted. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 07:44, 2 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

The article now states that citizens of the EU/EEA/etc. countries is allowed to stay in any of the others indefinitely with only a valid ID card. Is this true? Mostly yes, but for staying more than a limited time, you must have a valid rationale, such as a job. Retiring is allowed, but I think there are some conditions, such as having enough of an income. These should be checked. –LPfi (talk) 18:35, 7 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

I edited the bullet. You need to register your right of residence if you are to stay more than three months. That right may come from studies, work, family ties etc., but none of these is relevant for an arbitrary person retiring abroad. They have to show sufficient funds. If you have a good pension, that should be enough, but if you don't, then you may have a problem. I didn't check what social security you get; you should mostly be able to cover your costs yourself. –LPfi (talk) 20:31, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply