441–450 of 736 posts
No thanks. Couple this with the two or three trips I take per year with my girlfriend, I'm going to be getting on an airplane every other month at a minimum. That is way too much travel for me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I still can't believe there's no catch Do you believe that remote work is a net gain for society but is a net negative for many individuals?
I think this depends largely on whether you live alone. I would never go back to an office, even part time. One of my best friends lives by himself and struggled hard during the covid-induced requirement to work from home. Much like schools double as a day care for children, work often doubles as a social club for adults.
What full remote has done is made it harder for me to consider moving. Sure, I could move anywhere, but I'll show up there knowing essentially no one and have to just go out and meet people by force of will. There's no group of people at my new office I could connect with and at minimum get some recommendations of places to go. Even if you don't become friends with your coworkers, having some amount of in-person social contact is important for most folks, and knowing you have to build that yourself is daunting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is health care really an issue? They'd really only need to cover emergency issues? Everything longer term I would assume you'd have to go back to your home country to get covered.
Healthcare tourism is real. People come to Spain for that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which community is that?
Ever heard of locals? You can't imagine how much better Rome has been in these last two years without Americans coming to colonize our historical districts. It's not entirely Americans fault, they do not belong here, don't know the language, the traditions, but they gather together all in the same place and suddenly it's not Rome anymore and obviously prices skyrocket up to the point that locals can't afford to live…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 something like 31 days in the current year, and ~180 calculated as a weighted sum of presence over all visits in the preceeding few years. That's just to determine if you should pay tax, and note that vacations to the US contribute. Whether you can legally work in the…
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 real…
I'm not sure how this would make hedge fund managers who's net worth and amount invested might go up billions in a year but don't get paid or spend that amount.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax#Distribution_of_tax_bu...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 ?
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 technicall…
[1] https://taxsummaries.pwc.com/poland/individual/residence [2] https://taxsummaries.pwc.com/portugal/individual/residence
> Most of you should expect to gather in person every quarter for about a week at a time. No thanks. Couple this with the two or three trips I take per year with my girlfriend, I'm going to be getting on an airplane every other month at a minimum. That is way too much travel for me.
It does make more sense to me if that stays an option, and it's only the people who do move away who would have to travel. That way people could choose the perk of living elsewhere, knowing they would have the downside of traveling quarterly.
But for people who were hired on to an office job with no travel requirement shouldn't suddenly have a travel requirement so that their coworkers who move away have it more convenient. It might even be enough of a change in working conditions for someone to quit and be eligible to draw unemployment benefits. (I used to adjudicate claims, and a significant change in working conditions is one of the ways you might be eligible for benefits even if you quit instead of being laid off.)