- This topic has 1 reply, 4 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 2 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Just read to post on the new immigration law—My wife and I have 2 children 8 and 6- Do you feel it will be in our best interest to wait till the new bill in affect or start the process immedialtily? Thank you for your response
It would appear that rentista status is the only option available to you. It might make more sense waiting for the new rules with the size or your family. There is still the issue of the new rules requiring enrollment in CAJA (CR Social Medical plan) which require some clarification… that might cost you another $325/month in addition to the new $2500/month deposit (60 months) for the status. With the rentista status you’ll be required to deposit (or show) $150,000 in a bank deposit to apply. It’s best if you speak with a attorney that can guide you through these new rules…
Best of luck!
Edited on Aug 23, 2009 14:27
Wait until the new law goes into effect; the existing requirement is $2,000/month per person. The new law is $2,500/month per family. $2,500 vs. $8,000 or $150,000 vs $480,000 over 5 years is quite significant.
Grd1063… I’m not sure your numbers are correct… this is from the ARCR.net site detailing the current requirements….
>>>>>Rentista Residency in Costa Rica
* Requires proof of US$1000 per month income for at least five years, guaranteed by a banking institution, OR a US$60,000 deposit in an approved Costa Rican bank. Now requires additional income for dependents.
* Must remain in country at least 4 months per year.
* Can claim spouse (additional $1000/mo) and dependents under 18 years of age (additional $500/mo).
* Cannot work as an employee.
* Can own a company and receive income.Source: The Association of Costa Rica Residents<<<<<
Still make sense to wait since the current rules would seem to cost $3000/month (Husband/Wife $1000/each + 2 Minor children $500/each… total $3000) compared to $2500 with the new rules… a savings… but nothing huge! Then there’s still the CAJA issue and it’s monthly cost!
Edited on Aug 24, 2009 13:40
Thanks for clarifying that. I have always been under the assumption tht the oldlaw was $1,000/adult. Of course, you can still have a child in CR or legitimately marry a Costa Rican as other options.
Two interesting ideas… If one was to relocate to CR and obtain residency under the current proposed rules which (as David has stated) require one to join CAJA and pay a 13% tax… and then either have a child in CR or marry a Costa Rican… would you still be forced to pay the tax? And how would adopting in CR effect these rules… so much time and so many angles to play! LOL
The more you look at it the more the PT angle makes sense for folks that are limited to calling CR home… and we’re not just talking about folks with “issues”!
Imx et al
Under the current rules, there is NOT a requirement to join CAJA… yet! However you would then have to pay “private” medical costs… which could be more.
Having a child or marrying a Tico/a wouldn’t get you past paying for CAJA as all Ticos have to pay now anyway.
David mentioned in another thread that the 13% “tax” is applied after you have shown verifyable expenses, therefore your mortgage/rent, utilities, food and such like would be deducted from your income to give a “net” income which would be then liable to the 13% charge. This is much better and a very feasible way of doing it. It is based on remaining disposable income which if your budget is relatively tight, the 13% would be negligible. This still needs to be verified in the new bill that this is in fact the way it is calculated, but it makes sense, especially when you look at what Ticos earn.Brian
Hey Enduro… Some interesting comments.
As for the CAJA requirement… that issue really needs some more clarification. Should folks that currently (or apply before the new rules hit) not have to enroll the saving could be rather sizable. I’m not sure that buying a private plan would be that much more expensive for folks with sizable pensions that are forced to pay a percentage income after the new rules become effective.
As for David’s comments I found the original 13% of income a bit over the top…. I’m glad we got a little bit of clarification… but the idea that somehow the CAJA folks are able to sit and “budget” your expenses and use net income to determine a tax is almost as unbelievable. Are these numbers (household budget) subject to annual review or update should expenses change? Is there an inflation factor added in? How about folks that are maintaining homes in both CR and the US (or elsewhere)… are these expenses taken into account in the budgeting formula? And since everyone’s living expenses and lifestyles are different (many by choice) it really doesn’t seem a fair or equitable way of taxing folks. So for example if I live in a castle, drive an expensive car, leave my lights on all the time, run the AC day and night, and eat nothing but expensive cuts of meat I pay less for CAJA because my “net” income is lower than someone that lives Pura Vida? Seems too easy to manipulate the numbers for folks inclined to do so. Perhaps a flat CAJA fee for retirees would be the simplest and fairest way to put this new requirement into effect. Should the new required income be $1000… perhaps a flat tax on that amount would work. Allowing folks to “limit” their taxable income for CAJA via living expenses just doesn’t seem fair.
I’d really like to see how this system is going to work. Once again it seems the “new improved” system is creating more questions than answers.
IMX
I understand the perplexing issues here, but we’ll have to wait until it is printed in La Geceta. I’ve been checking daily, but nothing yet. It appears some changes can be printed within a week or so, others take about 6 weeks. There doesn’t appear to be any pattern, as in what is more important or who signed it… I guess it’s when they get the full paperwork, then they print it. Sounds like the way a lot of things work like in Costa Rica… when they get to it… lol
Hey Enduro! As I like to say… “It is what it is!”…. but I’m also guessing that even after the new regulations are published there’s still going to be LOTS of questions that need clarification! It seems the new monetary requirements were the least of our worries… they went and slipped in that “must enroll in CAJA” which seemed like a nice idea and didn’t generate nearly the concerns that the increased dollar amount did. Now the question is what will CAJA cost, what will it be based on, and what kind of fair and equitable method will be used in determining the cost in each situation.
David had originally felt it was going to be based on 13% of declared income… he’s since updated that to say that CAJA somehow will (or had in his case previously) figure out a household budget based on his expenses to adjust that tax to be net of living expenses. I find both to be questionable and really rather unworkable. I’d like to see a simple straight forward system that benefits CAJA yet does not unreasonably tax folks applying for residency.
I just wish it would be a straight forward rate that was reasonable and easily explained. As I said perhaps a flat rate based on the type of residency. I guess we’ll see what the finally printing says… then wait for that to be clarified, challenged, amended, abused, and avoided! LOL
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
