9 ms·

You can visit for 90 days but what you're allowed to do is restricted to tourism and "temporary business". The US substantial presence test is actually somethi

• oxfordmale 4y ago
  90 days is the number agreed upon by company lawyers. Company lawyers do not have a sense of adventure, so this is a relatively watertight figure for most countries in the world and not dependent on your honesty.
  • ericmay 4y ago
    I'm not sure when this 90-day rule was written, but I imagine it was written in a time before now with high-performance laptops, video conferencing, common jet travel, and people wanting to work 30 days here, 90 days there, 120 days over there, etc. This should be revisited. Also I think this is a good example of the need to have expiration dates on new laws and regulations. This should be something that expires and has to be changed to reflect how people live today.
    • JusticeJuice 4y ago
      90 days is the standard tourist visa length for most countries, so it would be to match that.
      • ericmay 4y ago
        No need to match
        • rat9988 4y ago
          It needs to matchs.Otherwise you'd need a work visa.
          • kieloo 4y ago
            But isn’t it illegal to work on a tourist visa anyway?
            • Retric 4y ago
              Most countries have many exceptions. A UK “tourist visa” is called a “Standard Visitor visa.” https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1019544/Visit.pdf#page31 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/... Remote working Visitors are permitted to undertake activities relating to their employment overseas remotely whilst they are in the UK, such as responding to emails or answering phone calls. However, you should check that the applicant’s main purpose of coming to the UK is to undertake a permitted activity, rather than specifically to work remotely from the UK. Where the applicant indicates that they intend to spend a large proportion of their time in the UK and will be doing some remote working, you should ensure that they are genuinely employed overseas and are not seeking to work in the UK. PS: Actual rules are here: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/immigration-rules https://www.gov.uk/guidance/immigration-rules but the general intent seems to be if your there to do something very temporary like compete in a sports tournament or do something for someone outside the UK that requires you to briefly visit the UK it’s fine.
              • refurb 4y ago
                "the applicant’s main purpose of coming to the UK is to undertake a permitted activity, rather than specifically to work remotely from the UK" That's doesn't seem like an exception? That sounds like saying "hey, I'm going to fly to the UK and work remotely from there" is against the law. What that paragraph says to me is "If someone comes to the UK as a visitor, and happens to do some work - responding to email and/or answering phone calls" that's ok. But actually work full time in the UK remotely, is not legal.
    • MikeTheGreat 4y ago
      > the need to have expiration dates on new laws and regulations. This is a terrible idea. Here in the US the ever more hyper-partisan political environment makes it hard to do _anything_, even once. The idea that our Congress critters are going to re-pass all legislation for everything every (say) 5 years is ridiculous. Those of us who like knowing that our food is safe to eat, our cars aren't firebomb death traps waiting to explode, that planes won't fall out of the sky onto our houses that aren't going to spontaneously collapse / flood from shitty plumbing / burn down from an electrical fire will disagree that all legislation should be repealed (either directly or via repeal-by-expiration), but please - let's be honest about what the effects of an 'expiration date' on legislation would actually accomplish.
      • tdy_err 4y ago
        Maybe this is an indicator that we need a legal infrastructure that supports a progressive, scientific governance Rather than thumbing our noses at new approaches on behalf of defunct political parties
  • dheera 4y ago
    Personally I'm curious about how they have rights to even know where you are at any given time. If you're an in-office employee, your responsibilities are (a) show up at the expected work hours (b) get your tasks done. If you're defined as a fully remote employee, your responsibilities are (a) be online and available at the expected work hours (b) get your tasks done. Besides that you're just an amorphous black box, a person that has been placed in the cloud, much like a website placed on Cloudflare, where the input is money and the output is work. They don't need to know where you are, and I'd say they shouldn't even have a right to know -- that would be quite stalkerish, IMO. All that's really important is that this black box gets tasks done.
    • schrodinger 4y ago
      You can't just legally avoid taxes by not letting your employer know. Sure, they prob won't know and you'll get away with it, but you're technically breaking the law and an employer won't knowingly condone that. So it's not that they have a right to know where you are, it's that if they do notice and not act on it that's a legal risk to them as well since they're enabling it. (IANAL but this feels common sense.)
      • dheera 4y ago
        I wasn't saying avoid taxes -- mostly just that the "90 day" thing is nonsense, because if you're a remote employee, you're effectively just a really intelligent amoeba on the face of the Earth without a well-defined location. Pay your taxes, but if you say 153 days in Thailand or wherever you can get a long enough tourist visa, and use a VPN to the US and get your work done, I'm not sure why anyone would, should, or even has a right to care.
        • schrodinger 4y ago
          Thailand has a right to care. You're earning money and not paying taxes to their roads, police, fire department, etc—all the things govt provides. When you're a true tourist, you are likely making up for this by boosting the local economy.
• frankfrankfrank 4y ago
  I propose people start reconsidering this imposed situation that exists between the people who do the work and the government, i.e. the parasitic ruling class. And to clarify, I say that as someone who is not at all “leftist” oriented, even though it may seem so at first glance of reading that to some. This situation we currently essentially globally have, at least in the west, is quite an abusive system that is really just the bait and switch type pivot off what most people know as slavery, into a differently structured model of the same fundamental thing, one which really just spreads the total amount of enslavement across more people rather than getting rid of it altogether. The parasitism of the ruling class that is far more obvious through slavery, is far harder to recognize in todays world because rather than taking, for argument’s sake, ~70% of 10% of people’s labor to support and enrich the ruling class; the shift/pivot off the slavery model was to introduce taking ~40% of the labor from 90% of the population and therefore enrich and empower the ruling parasitic class even more. It’s precisely why a certain segment of the ruling class were all for “ending slavery”, because they knew “ending it”, i.e. spreading it over most people, would be far more lucrative and profitable. Life tip: Always be extremely leery of what the ruling class is promoting, and even more so re-examine things if they start supporting what you support. The point is, we need to all start coming to a realization that the income tax and the whole tax system of fractional slavery enforcement needs to end. I do not claim to know the right answer, but I and any other rational and sane person know that this bait and switch slavery that exists needs to stop. What else do you call it, e.g. when hedge fund managers make billions per year and pay next to zero taxes, but some middle class person has huge sums of the value of their labor taken/ stolen to supply the hedge fund manager’s lifestyle? Some have proposed things like the Fairfax.org, essentially a consumption tax through sales tax that captures taxes on illegal/harmful activities and ill begotten wealth, e.g., drug dealers buying their flashy things, while at the same time also taxing polluting activities in a direct correlation, e.g., buying new shiny-object over keeping something maintained and repaired. This would be a radical and arguably positive impact for all of humanity … except the parasitic ruling class which very much likes and has been working hard to expand its parasitism. See currency inflation at the press of a button for reference, which defrauds workers and savers through the worst tax, fraud.
  • robertlagrant 4y ago
• vladvasiliu 4y ago
  > Most Europeans have access to things like cross border permits e.g. Switzerland/Germany and within the EU freedom of movement means it doesn't really matter much. You just register with the City Hall or wherever in your target country. This isn't as easy as it seems, even inside the EU. There are talks going on about laws regarding what constitutes "local hiring". Basically, the issue is that some companies hire people from Eastern Europe, and pay them EE salaries there. But those people are then physically working from Western Europe, where they are "visiting workers" (don't know the exact term). This allows the companies to, among others, 1. pay lower salaries than the local going rate and 2. avoid paying payroll taxes locally. I don't know how this works when applied to freelancing or remote working, but, as others have said, it's probably best to ask a lawyer or two.
  • moonchrome 4y ago
    I don't see a problem with this if the visiting workers are there less time than it takes to be considered a tax resident, eg. you have 3 months on-site onboarding and then proceed to work remotely. After some time you're considered a resident so it doesn't make a difference compared to a local hire ?
    • vladvasiliu 4y ago
      That's the thing, I don't think there's a clear duration after which you're automatically considered a tax resident. The thing with these employees was that they never became local hires. So they would get their salary through their home country branch, with taxes paid over there, etc. The whole point is that these companies were trying to dance around the limits of employment law. What they were doing was technically legal, hence the will of the government to change the law.
      • ptsneves 4y ago
        In Poland you are a tax citizen automatically if you have been there more than 183 days[1]. The exact same 183 in Portugal[2]. It is an automatic thing so quite simple. [1] https://taxsummaries.pwc.com/poland/individual/residence https://taxsummaries.pwc.com/poland/individual/residence [2] https://taxsummaries.pwc.com/portugal/individual/residence https://taxsummaries.pwc.com/portugal/individual/residence