5 ms·
> 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 c
by l0b0 5y ago
> 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?
- admjs 5y agoThat’s a feature not a bug, I think.
- sgjohnson 5y agoHow is it not? It’s not even a long-term visa, it’s a 180 day one. You can buy permanent residence in Costa Rica for $5000-ish. And all of this is for an activity that most countries would be fine with you doing on a tourist visa. It’s pointless.
- dahfizz 5y agoIs 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.
- Scoundreller 5y agoI’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.
- micromacrofoot 5y agoIt's twice as long as their standard visa
- sgjohnson 5y agoSo?
- kgin 5y agoSo you get to stay twice as long.
- malermeister 5y agoIt's made for rich knowledge workers to spend a few months there while working remotely and dump a bunch of money into their economy.
- Scoundreller 5y agobecause nobody would do that on a tourist visa. Never happened. Only real difference is you can pay to do it for longer than 90 days.
- malermeister 5y agoYup, that's exactly the point. Not sure why that would be a bad thing?
- sgjohnson 5y agoBecause the only people eligible for this visa are the people who don’t require a regular tourist visa in the first place. And it’s literally just a tourist visa that lets you stay for twice as long. I don’t see the appeal. It seems completely pointless to me. It’s basically targetting only wealthy countries outside of the EU, like Canada, the US, Australia and New Zealand. And in that case, why would I bother with visa and the paperwork just to be able to stay for 90 days longer? It’s basically like applying for a B1/B2 visa for the US if you’re from a VWP country. You can do it, but why in the gods name would you?
- 5y ago
- micromacrofoot 5y agoYeah 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.
- MattGaiser 5y agoThat seems deliberate. You want rich people to dump money into the economy.