These Border Closures Are Mostly Stupid

I posted on my Facebook account that border closures are stupid.  I suggested that an Abbott quick test could be administered before embarking on the flight and another could be administered at the destination prior to clearing passport control.  Airports would need to provide a quarantine space prior to clearing passport control and provide reasonable alternatives should the disembarkation test fail.

Immediately, people claimed that the Abbott test is not accurate.  Indeed there are a couple of studies that found this to be the case.  However, most studies found the test to be highly accurate,  over the normal FDA requirement of 95%.  Still, let's use 80% accuracy.  What that means is that 20% of those who present themselves for boarding will test negative and, in fact, be positive.  Assuming no correlation, of those 20% who were false negatives on boarding, 20% will test negative again on disembarkation.  That means that the combined false negative rate will be just 4%.

So, let's take the U.S. which has a current case rate of 0.44%.  Assuming that those who present themselves for international travel have the same percent case rate as the general population, it means that the country of destination will be allowing entrance to a group with a case rate of 0.44% X 4% = 0.0176%.  If the destination country has a case rate that is higher, they will actually be lowering their infection rate by letting them tourists in.  For example, France has a reported case rate of 0.0889%.  In other words, even with this simplistic analysis, it is clear that France should probably be allowing U.S. tourists into their country.

There are a number of reasons why this analysis is not reliable.  The one negative one is that there may be a correlation between the boarding false negatives and disembarkation false negatives.  In other words, while the false negative was a 20% probability upon boarding, it is possible that when those 20% are tested upon deplaning at their destination, more than 20% of them will be a false negative again.

While this is a concern, it is swamped by the many, many positives compared to the simplistic analysis.  The first and obvious one is that those who are listed as active cases know they will test positive and, consequently, they will not fly.  Asymptomatic cases and those people who were so recently infected that they do not yet show symptoms.  While asymptomatic cases are undoubtedly a function of identified cases, it is generally not thought that they outnumber them.  In other words, while .44% of the U.S. general population is identified as active cases, the population that would likely present themselves for foreign travel would almost surely be substantially less.

The current cases is highly suspect.  The primary reason is that, especially in the U.S., many people who test positive never present themselves for testing upon clearing the virus.  Because of that, they are registered as a active case and are never removed.  We know this is the case because the U.S. current cases are equal to 45 days of infection.  We know that, on average, clearance of the virus takes about 21 days.  So, while the U.S. reports .44% active cases, it is likely no higher than .2%.

So, in total, we see that those people who present themselves for international travel have a low likelihood of having the virus and an even lower likelihood of passing both a boarding and a deplaning virus check.  In nearly all countries where they may land, but doing so, they will actually reduce the infection rate.  Not only are these border closures destroying the local hospitality industry, it is depressing international commerce.  This is clearly 'mostly stupid'.

Keep in touch by subscribing to my Newsletter.  I will keep you up to date on my travels, issues for Digital Nomads, thoughts on being a Polymath and, through my companion blog, Michaelwferguson.blogspot.com, intellectually sophisticated analysis and commentary on contemporary issues.

Subscribe by clicking here

My Interest in U.S. Politics

As a Digital Nomad with U.S. citizenship, as I state often, my interest in politics are limited to four things.

1. Take care of my Social Security income stream
2. Protect the value of USD on the Forex markets
3. Don't bomb the places I visit.
4. Don't screw with expat tax treatments

The other issues are not important to me because I haven't been in the U.S. for 2 1/2 years and, other than a week's trip in 2021 to take care of some details that are difficult to do from abroad, I do not intend to ever return.  I watch the increase in lawlessness in the U.S. and while it makes me sad for my friends who live there, it is not personally relevant.

Social Security
We rely on about $2,500 per month in Social Security benefits to fund our lifestyle.  I am working on a series of self-published e-books which, with my decent and growing social media reach, I believe I can eventually eclipse Social Security as my primary source of income.  However, until then, any negative changes to the program would be distressing.

This is not something that I worry about very much.  With 43 million Social Security recipients who have a strong tendency to vote, negative impacts to current recipients would be political suicide.  Because of this, the political dialogue has mostly revolved around lowering the benefits for future recipients.

In reality, because Congress has a tendency to 'bribe' large voting blocks with better government benefits, I do expect that, somehow, over time, Social Security will likely become increasingly more generous.  The primary funding mechanism for this bribe, I believe, will be to eliminate some or all of the income cap.  Right now, income above $137,700 is not subject to Social Security retirement tax.  That has been increasing at about the same rate at incomes have increased.  I expect the rate at which the income cap is increased will increase and the additional tax raised will be used to increase social security benefits.

For me, Biden v Trump, and whether the House or Senate is in Democrat or Republican hands will probably have little impact on this item.  So, for now, I don't care who wins with regard to this item.

Forex USD
How much a USD will buy in the countries I visit is probably my most significant issue that can be affected by the upcoming elections.  Traditionally, both Republicans and Democrats, though for different reasons, have supported a strong dollar.  While Trump's policy statements would lead one to believe that the dollar would weaken under his Presidency and, for me, my standard of living would fall, that is not actually what happened.  When he took office, one U.S. Dollar bought 1.94 Belarussian Rubles (BYN).  It now buys 2.44 Rubles.  During that time, the Ruble has seen about 19% inflation, while the Dollar has seen about 8% inflation.  That means that I have seen a 14% increase in my purchasing power when I am in Belarus.  I have experienced similar increases in purchasing power in the other countries I typically visit.

So, while Trump's rhetoric makes one nervous about Forex, in reality, his policies are putting more foreign currencies in my pocket.  Congress is funded by people who want a strong dollar because it makes foreign labor and materials cheaper.  Consequently, while I think that U.S. residents should be worried about a Democratic takeover of the Presidency and both Houses of Congress, as an expat, it really isn't that important with regard to Forex issues.

Bombing my host countries
This is obviously a place where Trump shines.  I spend most of my time in Belarus, Turkey and Vietnam, at least for now, and the U.S. is not really fond of any of those countries.  Belarus had a controversial election that Lukashenko's opponents are calling rigged.  Turkey is causing problems with Syrian refugees and, now, offshore oil that, apparently, Greece thinks is theirs.  Vietnam, while a 'communist' country actually has the least contentious relationship with the U.S. among these three.  I'm in Serbia now and may spend significant time in Malaysia, so I have those countries to worry about, too.

While I am not really worried too much about this one, I guess Trump would be a better outcome than Biden.  Rather than actual bombs, I am more worried about economic and diplomatic bombs.  Those can affect me indirectly, through more difficult access, more limited product availability, more hostile locals, etc.  Here, actually, Trump is probably as bad as anyone.  He is not inclined to bomb countries, but he is very prone to sanctions and tariffs. 

Foreign Earned Income Tax Credit
For expats, there seems to always be a low level concern over public opinion being somewhat hostile toward them.  The attitude seems to mostly be, 'Don't let the door hit you on the way out'.  However, there is reasonable concern that things could turn against U.S. DNs at any time, especially if more attention comes to the phenomenon of high income expats renouncing U.S. citizenship. 

Right now, as a U.S. citizen, in theory, my worldwide income is taxable in the U.S. no matter where I live or where I work.  However, right now, U.S. DNs can set up a foreign corporation to shelter income, paying oneself a salary.  That income will be taxable, however, through the Foreign Earned Income Tax Credit, up to $240K  (joint filers and this is not tax advice) annual income can be sheltered from U.S. taxation.  However, that could go away at any time.  As I have said in other posts, my primary financial benefit comes from much lower cost of living, not tax avoidance.  That would be true, even if the FEITC disappeared.  Still, it would be a significant new expense if Congress and the President eliminated it.  Off hand, an Administration that bills itself as 'America First' would seem to be the bigger risk of eliminating expat tax preferences.

The other concern is that the Democrats, if they get into power, will increase the top marginal tax rate and then apply it to expats on their worldwide income.  That is of concern to me because my goal is, in fact, to earn substantial income from the books I am writing.  My goal is to sell 200K e-books per year at an average income of $5.50 each.  That is a total income of $1.1 million which, I suspect, is going to be pretty average for successful Polymaths.  That makes the top marginal tax rate, which starts at $612,351, relevant to me.  Some Democrats are talking about doubling it or more.

In the end, it is very likely that successful U.S. citizens with location independent income will need to renounce their citizenship as a purely defensive move.  However, the U.S. has already made renunciation more difficult for their citizens than for almost any other country.  Additionally, if it is determined that you renounced in order to avoid taxation, any future requests for a visa will be denied.  It is even possible that at some time in the future, Congress and the President will make renunciation so difficult as to make it impossible for all practical purposes.

While it is not wholly clear whether Democrats or Republicans or Donald Trump or Joe Biden would be better outcome based upon the four stated political issues, when I look to the future, the Democrats appear more dangerous simply because I strive to be financially successful and they will be more inclined to take my earnings, even if I am living and working outside the U.S.

Right now there are an estimated 9,000,000 U.S. citizens living outside of the country.  While they tend to slowly lose interest in the U.S., they can and should submit absentee ballots in order to assure that they will continue to enjoy the many benefits that they enjoy today.  

Keep in touch by subscribing to my Newsletter.  I will keep you up to date on my travels, issues for Digital Nomads, thoughts on being a Polymath and, through my companion blog, Michaelwferguson.blogspot.com, intellectually sophisticated analysis and commentary on contemporary issues.

Subscribe by clicking here

Why I Left the U.S.

The primary reason I left the U.S. was to avoid the high cost of living.  Suppose you are a couple with retirement income of $2,500 per month.  You can live on that in the U.S., but it will be a very modest lifestyle.  However, in Brest, Belarus, for example, where we live seasonally, that income will spend like $8,250 per month.  Suppose your retirement income is $5,000 per month.  Your lifestyle will be about average if you live in the U.S., but in Brest, it will spend like $18,500 per month.  So, in a way, the more you earn, the more absolute benefit you gain from leaving the U.S. in favor of a low COL (cost of living) country.

This is not solely a characteristic of Belarus.  Rather, it is a characteristic, primarily, of Eastern Europe and South East Asia.  For example, in Alanya, Turkey, $2,500 spends like $7,570 and $5,000 per month spends like $15,140.  In Da Nang, Vietnam, $2,500 spends like $7,360 and $5,000 spends like $14,720.  In Kuala Lumpur, $2,500 spends like $7,525 and $5,000 spends like $15,050 per month. 

There are clearly some issues that must be addressed before an Eastern Europe/ Southeast Asia lifestyle can be undertaken.  The first is residency permissions.  These can range from a visa free stay, usually 30 to 90 days, if available, to a tourist visa stay to, again, if available, a residence permit which is usually for one year or more.  For a U.S. passport holder, this is not difficult, though it can take some planning.  Ukraine, Turkey, Cyprus, Bulgaria, Serbia, and several other Eastern European countries allow 90 day stays, either visa free or with a simple Internet visa, out of every 180 days.  A few of these allow unrestricted stays if you purchase a home.  If not, this will require at least one move during the summer months.  By the way, because my wife holds a Belarus passport, I am entitled to residency.  For others, stays in Belarus will likely be limited to 30 days though two visa runs per year are allowed.  

Vietnam allows 6 month stays with a simple visa, acquired via the Internet in about two or three days, and Malaysia allows 90 days but, with a simple visa extension, allows 5 months.  Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand and Cambodia all are somewhat more restrictive. but most do have mechanisms for extending one's stay.  Some countries, such as Thailand, are very accommodating for U.S. Passport holders with incomes over $3,000 per month but are cracking down on the $1,000 per month Digital Nomads that swarmed Chiang Mai.  There are still every 30 day visa runs but they are becoming more difficult. 

Low cost of living is one thing.  However, one must also consider the quality of life.  Many of the men of my generation were conscripted and sent to Vietnam where they experienced a third world squalor with which they were unfamiliar.  Americans who grew up during the cold war remember depictions of Eastern Europe as bland, impoverished and restrictive.  This is a critical consideration because having substantial purchasing power in a country with a low standard of living may not be very comfortable.  My wife and I spent a week at a Jamaican Sandals.  It was magnificent, but once we left the resort, we were immediately confronted with extreme poverty.  No matter how much money we had in our pockets, there wasn't much to buy because the locals couldn't afford the items that we would want.  

When I visited Minsk, Belarus in 2002, the lines in grocery stores were still there as depicted as the norm during the Soviet Union era.  You would wait in line for five minutes to ask for a loaf of bread and then you would spend another five minutes in a different line in order to pay for it.  That was for bread.  If you wanted other things, there would be other lines.

So, the concern isn't invalid; however, it is mostly outdated.  Whatever the truth of this image of Eastern Europe and Southeast Asia may have been in the past, it most certainly is not the case today.  Many of these places are very pleasant tourist destinations catering to first world visitors and providing first world accommodations, restaurants, shops and services.  Probably the most exquisite beach side restaurant I have so far visited was in Alanya, Turkey.  That is saying something because I lived in Miami for six years.

Even if a location is not a tourist destination, nearly all of the cities in these regions have residents of the global Information Age economy and consequently contain neighborhoods that are modern, pleasant and affluent.  For me, Brest, Belarus is one of the most pleasant residential cities in the world.  It has a magnificent shopping street with lots of boutiques and sidewalk cafes.  It has gorgeous parks.  Green Market is probably the best grocery stores I have ever visited.  My wife just bought a pair of Pierre Cardin shoes and visits The Colors of Benetton regularly.  Because Brest is relatively small, the selection is more limited than in, say, Warsaw or Minsk, but there is quality shopping.  There are neighborhoods where a 3,000 ft² (280 m²) house is small and people drive BMWs, Mercedes, Maseratis, etc.

Clearly, one may visit the U.S., Western Europe, Japan, Hong Kong, South Korea, Singapore as a tourist.  There is the Louvre in Paris, the restaurants of Tokyo, the monuments of Washington, D.C., the fashion of Milan, the beaches of Cote d'Azur, etc. The key is that, while there is much to see in these regions, when it comes to places to live, none of them make much sense.  They are just too expensive. 

Parenthetically, many retired Americans and Digital Nomads choose to settle in Mexico, Panama, Belize, Colombia, Ecuador, Argentina, etc.  In these countries, rather than your dollar spending like three dollars, they will spend like two dollars.  For some, the proximity to the U.S. justifies a lower standard of living.  For us, we see no sense in cutting our standard of living by 1/3.

There is also the language issue.  I can communicate with relative ease in English, Russian and German and I am adding Spanish and Mandarin to the list.  While Brest, Belarus is a gracious town, with a charming shopping street lots of sidewalk cafes, and beautiful parks, few people speak English.  For me, that is not an issue, but it is a serious consideration before one decides to take advantage of the lower cost of living in Eastern Europe and Southeast Asia.  For example, in Turkey, even though I stayed in a tourist town, English was uncommon.  However, when I added Russian and German to the mix, I found many more people with whom I could communicate.  And of course, today there are effective, if a bit cumbersome, translator programs.

Taken, in total, our lifestyle easily handles all of the considerations above and our passports make travel relatively uncomplicated.  In summary, I say that our modest income affords us a 3* lifestyle.  By adding writing, I am hoping to turn that into 4*.  However, if it never happens, it won't be a disaster.

This leads me to reason number two for leaving the U.S.  I have spent my life almost entirely in the U.S. and it is well past the time for me to see the world.  By splitting our time between Brest, Belarus, Alanya, Turkey and Da Nang, Vietnam, in what Andrew Henderson calls the Trifecta Strategy, not only are we becoming very familiar with three places in different parts of the world, we are opening up whole regions to easy visitation.  For example, assuming that the EU borders open up for U.S. citizens before the summer ends, we will likely take the train from Brest to Krakow, Poland and spend a week there - maybe two.  It is truly one of the top romantic cities in the world and also, though not the Louvre, Hermitage or Met, it, surprisingly, has an art collection valued at $3 billion which includes one of only 15 extant da Vinci paintings.  Furthermore,  a week's vacation there will only cost us about $500 to $600 more than our normal budget.  That compares to our old vacation budgets of $3,000 to $5,000.

Alanya, Turkey also is a gracious place to live with an abundance of first world apartments for rent and Kleopatra Beach may be the best beach on the Mediterranean with several inexpensive beach clubs that would be right at home on the Cote d'Azur.  It not only provides us with easy, fast and inexpensive access to the archaeological ruins of the region (including Athens), but also to the romance of the Greek Islands, and short, inexpensive flights to other interesting spots, such as Egypt and Dubai.  

Whether we ultimately choose Da Nang or Kuala Lumpur (or perhaps Penang) as our Winter home in SE Asia, it provides us with easy access to the vacation spots of Indonesia (Bali), Malaysia (Penang), Thailand (Phuket) and Philippines (Boracay), tourist spots like Hoi An and Angkor Wat and even, as a splurge, Hong Kong and Macau.  

Being a Digital Nomad allows one to shed the provincialism that is common for most people.  I advocate at least one year of world travel upon retirement for everyone and earlier if you can acquire a location independent income.  One should see Paris, Mount Kilimanjaro, the Pyramids, the Great Wall, etc.  However, for many, such as us, we are also in the exploratory phase of being Trifecta DNs.  By that I mean, we will eventually have at least two, and possibly three, home bases.  But, first, we must travel the world so that we choose the locations that are best for us.  Will any of them be in the U.S.?  It is highly unlikely, simply because the U.S. is just too expensive.

We retired with a pension income of between $2,500 and $5,000 per month.  That is a pretty typical range and, though some portion of Social Security benefits and world wide ordinary income are subject to U.S. taxation, we owe no taxes on that amount.  This is partially due to a significant tax exclusion of Social Security benefits.

However, I am writing, both as an independent essayist and columnist and as an author of non-fiction books.  These are becoming more lucrative endeavors for those who engage in them because the Internet allows one to keep 70% to 80% of the ad revenue or purchase price one generates.  In the past, writers typically received 15% to 20% of the revenue generated from their efforts.  So, one can survive on 1/4 to 1/5 as many readers or earn 4X to 5X more for the same number of readers.

For this income, as a U.S. citizen, I am subject to taxation no matter where I live or where I work.  If I expatriate, (live outside the U.S. for at least 330 days per year), we may exclude up to $215,200 of foreign 'earned' income.  This income can be earned without taxation by setting up a foreign corporation that actually receives the revenue and pays me a salary.  In addition, we can claim a $24,800 standard deduction, which means that we will be exempt from taxation on our first $240,000 of income.  If we lived in the U.S. we would likely pay over $43,000 in Federal Income Taxes.  Since, if we did live in the U.S., it would likely be in Florida, we would not be subject to State Income tax. 

This is a unique issue for U.S. Passport holders.  Of all significant countries, only U.S. citizens are subject to taxation on worldwide income.  Because of this, for expats with seven or eight figure annual income, often the only viable option is to renounce U.S. citizenship and a growing number of them are doing just that.  Without asserting that I will, suppose I wrote a million seller.  If it sold for $10 of which I kept $8, I would earn $8 million in that year.  I would owe nearly $3 million in taxes on that, even though I was living in Brest, Alanya and Da Nang.  One can avoid this tax liability by renouncing citizenship, but it must be done before you earn the $8 million.

It should also be pointed out that some Democratic Members of Congress have proposed increasing marginal tax rates to as much as 70%.  This may cause a flurry of defensive renunciations if the Democrats take the Presidency and both Houses of Congress in November, 2020. Under any circumstances, living in the U.S. when one has location independent income is a huge tax liability risk, especially if one is engaged in activities where windfall income is not unreasonable.

These are the practical reasons why I left.  Essentially, by leaving, I have a much higher standard of living with no significant tax liabilities, a diversity of environments and interesting cultures and sights to be seen.  That should be, and is, enough reasons.  However, I have some philosophical reasons as well,  There are basically two.

First, I consider myself to be a citizen of Western Civilization and I am proud of it.  From moral, political, economic and cultural standpoints, the Enlightenment was singularly the most significant event in history.  From blue jeans to Bach, Western culture has been adopted by much of the world.  Through free enterprise, Western Civilization has given the world almost every technological advance that we enjoy today.  However, my identity is with Western Civilization, not the U.S.

Unfortunately, if you live in the U.S. in the minds of Americans and the world, you are an American.  I spent a lifetime trying to make the distinction between being American and being a Westerner and, almost completely, without success.  When people ask me where I am from, I say, 'Everywhere and nowhere'.  Still, that is no more than a partial indemnification from being labeled an American.

I wish it was possible to be a citizen of Western Civilization. However, it is not.  So, when I write articles and books, they are written by an 'American Author' and, as such, are often taken to be written from an American perspective.  For me, this is definitely not the case.  The article I wrote on the Crimean situation was dramatically at odds with all of the 'Western press'.  It wasn't pro-Russian, either.  I am very harsh with the U.S. with regard to its penchant to stick its nose into everyone else's business.

This is important because I want my writing to be interpreted as intelligent, erudite and mostly free of any partisanship or provincialism.  That is certainly easier to do if I am NOT living in the U.S. and, even better, if I am not really living anywhere.  This was a driving reason for me to leave the U.S., though I recognize that unlike the practical reasons I have given, will be a compelling reason for very few people.

Second, to put it bluntly, I don't want to be 'owned' by any country.  This ownership is made most clear by the claim that the United States makes upon my income no matter where I live or where I earn that income.  Yes, they exempt a substantial amount of income.  However, by exempting that income they are asserting that they could take some or all of it.  They say that they have the authority.  They reserve the right to conscript one for military service.  Again, they presently do not, and under no circumstance would they likely conscript someone in my age group.  However, by reserving the right, they are claiming 'ownership' of me.  They can order me to jury duty.  Based upon court order they can revoke my passport.  Right now, they will do so if the IRS claims that I owe them over $52,000 or a State authority claims that I have more than $2,500 of child support arrears.  Again, the important point is not whether I am subject to any of these limitations.  It is that, by claiming these authorities, they are asserting that I am their subject.  I am owned.

Furthermore, the U.S. claims, by virtue of one's citizenship, an absolute right to one's information.  Not only, even if you live outside the U.S., are you required to submit complex and extensive reports, the U.S. has badgered foreign governments into agreeing to report financial information on U.S. citizens residing in or doing business in their country.  It seems that the U.S. government has no compunction against exercising the principle of 'might makes right'.  While, for me, this is mostly offensive on philosophical rather than practical grounds, many foreign banks will not open bank accounts for U.S. citizens because of the reporting requirements and legal exposures.

Because of the above, a growing number of higher income U.S. citizens are acquiring foreign passports 'just in case'.  The greatest fear is that through some FATCA reporting, the IRS decides that they owe over $52,000 in unpaid taxes, penalties and interest.  This is not some rare thing.  In 2019, the IRS directed the State Department to revoke nearly 400K passports. Suddenly, your passport is revoked and you can't travel.  Furthermore, because it is an administrative, not a criminal, procedure, one is guilty until proven innocent. 

Because of this, a number of small countries, mostly in the Caribbean, are selling citizenship for varying six figure amounts.  That seems like a lot of money, but to a six or seven figure person it is simply prudent.  It also can be a predicate to renunciation of citizenship, which is becoming progressively more common.  While you can exempt about $240,000 of income from taxation, for the seven and eight figure income person, that can still leave a very hefty tax liability to a country that they have left.  For example, suppose I sold one million e-books at $8 net income each.  Yes, I can exempt $240,000 of it from taxation, but most of the $8,000,000 would be subject to a 37% tax.  That is millions of dollars of tax liability to a country where I do not live or work and from which I require no services.

If my writing career is sufficiently successful I will acquire a couple of Caribbean passports and then renounce my citizenship.  As I said, when you hold a U.S. passport, the U.S. government claims sovereignty over you, what I consider to be ownership, and that is risky.  The Caribbean passports are different.  They understand that, in exchange for $100,000 to $150,000 plus some fees, they are selling you a travel document.  All five of them allow for visa free travel within the Schengen region and U.K. and have visa free travel to between 119 and 136 countries in total.  They will not impose income taxes on any foreign income, nor will they impose residency requirements nor will they assert rights of sovereignty.

This is extremely important to me and why it is a goal to operate with a handful of 'travel document' passports.  It is not that I don't want to be owned by the U.S., specifically, but rather that  I don't want to be owned by any country.

Andrew Henderson, the Nomad Capitalist, renounced his U.S. citizenship several years ago.  He does not cite legal or tax reasons.  When he speaks of it, he mostly talks about never feeling 'at home' in the U.S.  He finds it to be a bad identity fit.  So do I.  I am often asked, 'Where is it better?'  Well, I have a couple of responses to that.  The first is, 'I am not leaving the U.S. in favor of someplace better.  I don't want to be an American but that doesn't mean that I want to be a Swede or a Korean.  Why must I be anything?'  I mean, I need a travel document, but if, for example, I acquire a Granada passport, that doesn't mean I am Granadan.  If it did, I wouldn't get that passport.  I'd get a different one.

Lastly, and this is more of a general take than one that applies to the U.S.  I like that, wherever I go, I am just visiting. Your ethnic arguments, your political arguments, your cultural arguments aren't mine.  I don't feel a need to become embroiled in local arguments and, frankly, the locals almost always prefer that I don't.  People, when they find out that I was born in the U.S. almost always ask me about U.S. politics.  What I tell them is that I only have threefour issues.  One, don't screw with my Social Security. Two, don't do stupid things with the USD that decreases its value in the Forex markets, three, don't change my tax exemptions of foreign income unless you want them to be less and four, don't bomb places where I might be. 

As I write this article, people have been marching in the streets, rioting and looting, seizing a part of the country and calling it CHAZ or CHOP or whatever.  None of these are my issues and I am happy about that.  When I am in Turkey, the Syrian crisis issue is not mine.  When I am in Vietnam, the kerfuffle over the South China Sea is not my kerfuffle.  I float above local and regional issues because, in a couple of months, I will be gone.

Andrew Henderson sometimes refers to people like he and I as 'citizens of the world'.  I don't like that reference because, for me, it conjures up images of pledging fealty to and granting sovereignty to the United Nations.  I prefer multinationalist as a terminology and I would be even happier with anationalist, though I think it would come off as pretentious for most people.  Still, it is likely the most accurate.

Making the decision to leave the U.S., on one hand, is a simple economic one.  If your income is location independent, the 'first world' is just too expensive.  Even if you earn $1 million per year, wouldn't it still be better to live in Alanya or Da Nang and have purchasing power of $3 million.  In the U.K. a live-in domestic costs between  £250-£550 per week.  In Da Nang he or she will cost that in a month.  That difference exists whether you have $2,500 per month in income or $250,000 per month in income.

Still, the decision to leave is more complex than a straight economic decision, as I have explored here.  There are issues of national identity, political risks, interpersonal factors and more.  A U.S. passport is a bit more of a boot out the door than, say, a British passport.  However, I do advocate the Trifecta Strategy or something like it for anyone with location independent income.  Many Brits winter in Dubai and then summer on Costa del Sol or Cote d'Azur, rarely returning to their home country.  When I was in Alanya, I ran into Germans, Swedes, Poles and more who winter in Turkey.  They do so for climate, for cost of living, for tax benefits, etc.

This is quite likely a wave of the future.