Do many feds choose to retire abroad?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:FSBP is an excellent health care plan that is designed to be used abroad.

True - but only certain agencies qualify for it - like State, DOD, DHS if I recall. Current member and was able to keep it after transitioning to another agency whose employees do not qualify.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Overseas coverage under FEHB varies, and requires careful choices: https://www.opm.gov/healthcare-insurance/healthcare/plan-information/important-facts-about-overseas-coverage/

There are also potential significant investment, financial management, and tax considerations involved in expatriation. And, many countries which allow USPERS to live long-term within their borders are not countries you'd necessarily want to live in, if not compelled by financial constraints. Even then, if you're motivated by a lower cost of living in some 3rd-world country, you probably have failed to consider the full range of domestic options which can provide a much lower COL without any of the many complications of living abroad long-term.

Move to rural Arkansas, for example, and your cost of living will be very low, while your quality of life will still likely be better than it might be in many foreign locales. https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/rankings/opportunity/affordability/cost-living

In other words, considerable research is required if you're not to make an impulsive and poorly considered life-changing decision.

Tell me you've never lived abroad without telling me you lived abroad.

It is HILARIOUS, absolutely laughable that anyone would prefer rural arkansas to the plethora of options outside the US. 😂😂😂

Actually, I have lived for extended periods in Europe and in Asia. Yes, I'd rather live in Zurich than in rural Arkansas. But:

People moving overseas for a low cost of living aren't looking to move to expensive countries where they will have a high quality of life. They are going to banana republics or other poorer countries with unstable politics and economies, language barriers, inefficient public services, and often an enmity towards foreigners. They will never "belong" unless they have local family. It's a pipe dream for most. If I were financially limited, I'd much prefer rural life in a Southern state to life anywhere in dozens of low-cost countries where my cost of living will be similar.

You act like there is no middle ground between Zurich and Kinshasa …

Or, just maybe, life in the rural U.S. is as low cost as you'll find in low COL foreign options, but with the advantages of living in the U.S., which are legion. Any foreign location cheaper than rural America is likely to have significant infrastructure, political, economic, social, language, and other quality of life drawbacks.

lol. I don’t want to live in rural America dude. I want to live in, say, Oaxaca, and enjoy a vibrant food and art culture and go to the beach. And surprise, I speak Spanish.

If you know of a place like that in rural America I am all ears.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Overseas coverage under FEHB varies, and requires careful choices: https://www.opm.gov/healthcare-insurance/healthcare/plan-information/important-facts-about-overseas-coverage/

There are also potential significant investment, financial management, and tax considerations involved in expatriation. And, many countries which allow USPERS to live long-term within their borders are not countries you'd necessarily want to live in, if not compelled by financial constraints. Even then, if you're motivated by a lower cost of living in some 3rd-world country, you probably have failed to consider the full range of domestic options which can provide a much lower COL without any of the many complications of living abroad long-term.

Move to rural Arkansas, for example, and your cost of living will be very low, while your quality of life will still likely be better than it might be in many foreign locales. https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/rankings/opportunity/affordability/cost-living

In other words, considerable research is required if you're not to make an impulsive and poorly considered life-changing decision.

Tell me you've never lived abroad without telling me you lived abroad.

It is HILARIOUS, absolutely laughable that anyone would prefer rural arkansas to the plethora of options outside the US. 😂😂😂

Actually, I have lived for extended periods in Europe and in Asia. Yes, I'd rather live in Zurich than in rural Arkansas. But:

People moving overseas for a low cost of living aren't looking to move to expensive countries where they will have a high quality of life. They are going to banana republics or other poorer countries with unstable politics and economies, language barriers, inefficient public services, and often an enmity towards foreigners. They will never "belong" unless they have local family. It's a pipe dream for most. If I were financially limited, I'd much prefer rural life in a Southern state to life anywhere in dozens of low-cost countries where my cost of living will be similar.

You act like there is no middle ground between Zurich and Kinshasa …

Or, just maybe, life in the rural U.S. is as low cost as you'll find in low COL foreign options, but with the advantages of living in the U.S., which are legion. Any foreign location cheaper than rural America is likely to have significant infrastructure, political, economic, social, language, and other quality of life drawbacks.

That’s your opinion, not a fact, and not a particularly informed opinion at that.

I’d much rather live in Thailand, Malaysia or parts of Indonesia than in rural Arkansas, and all three of those countries have a lower cost of living than the USA. Thailand and Malaysia attract a good amount of medical tourism because their facilities are good and not particularly expensive.

NP, but I have lived in both a rural Southern state (albeit in a medium-sized city in that state) and in Europe. Love Europe as a travel destination, and it might be fun to try to live there for say six months some time, but I'd also prefer a rural US state long-term. One, it's much cheaper to live well in the US; I don't particularly want to live long-term in some 900 ft^2 apartment in Paris. Two, we have things like dishwashers and functional clothes dryers and cars/garages in the US which I enjoy having and which can be difficult to get in Europe. Three, with apologies to the self-hating Americans, I'll bet on the US over Europe over the long-run any time, even when accounting for the highly suboptimal set of folks currently running things. And I have no interest in living in Asia, for reasons including language barriers. Obviously different people may have different preferences, and that's fine. But really, grow up with the "the US is doomed" stuff...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Overseas coverage under FEHB varies, and requires careful choices: https://www.opm.gov/healthcare-insurance/healthcare/plan-information/important-facts-about-overseas-coverage/

There are also potential significant investment, financial management, and tax considerations involved in expatriation. And, many countries which allow USPERS to live long-term within their borders are not countries you'd necessarily want to live in, if not compelled by financial constraints. Even then, if you're motivated by a lower cost of living in some 3rd-world country, you probably have failed to consider the full range of domestic options which can provide a much lower COL without any of the many complications of living abroad long-term.

Move to rural Arkansas, for example, and your cost of living will be very low, while your quality of life will still likely be better than it might be in many foreign locales. https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/rankings/opportunity/affordability/cost-living

In other words, considerable research is required if you're not to make an impulsive and poorly considered life-changing decision.

Tell me you've never lived abroad without telling me you lived abroad.

It is HILARIOUS, absolutely laughable that anyone would prefer rural arkansas to the plethora of options outside the US. 😂😂😂

Actually, I have lived for extended periods in Europe and in Asia. Yes, I'd rather live in Zurich than in rural Arkansas. But:

People moving overseas for a low cost of living aren't looking to move to expensive countries where they will have a high quality of life. They are going to banana republics or other poorer countries with unstable politics and economies, language barriers, inefficient public services, and often an enmity towards foreigners. They will never "belong" unless they have local family. It's a pipe dream for most. If I were financially limited, I'd much prefer rural life in a Southern state to life anywhere in dozens of low-cost countries where my cost of living will be similar.

You act like there is no middle ground between Zurich and Kinshasa …

Or, just maybe, life in the rural U.S. is as low cost as you'll find in low COL foreign options, but with the advantages of living in the U.S., which are legion. Any foreign location cheaper than rural America is likely to have significant infrastructure, political, economic, social, language, and other quality of life drawbacks.

That’s your opinion, not a fact, and not a particularly informed opinion at that.

I’d much rather live in Thailand, Malaysia or parts of Indonesia than in rural Arkansas, and all three of those countries have a lower cost of living than the USA. Thailand and Malaysia attract a good amount of medical tourism because their facilities are good and not particularly expensive.

NP, but I have lived in both a rural Southern state (albeit in a medium-sized city in that state) and in Europe. Love Europe as a travel destination, and it might be fun to try to live there for say six months some time, but I'd also prefer a rural US state long-term. One, it's much cheaper to live well in the US; I don't particularly want to live long-term in some 900 ft^2 apartment in Paris. Two, we have things like dishwashers and functional clothes dryers and cars/garages in the US which I enjoy having and which can be difficult to get in Europe. Three, with apologies to the self-hating Americans, I'll bet on the US over Europe over the long-run any time, even when accounting for the highly suboptimal set of folks currently running things. And I have no interest in living in Asia, for reasons including language barriers. Obviously different people may have different preferences, and that's fine. But really, grow up with the "the US is doomed" stuff...

European here. My family back home has a dishwasher and a dryer and their apartment is around 1200 sf, which is the size of the rancher homes that are all over the DMV. They both have cars.
An item that is not addressed in your push for rural America is the complete lack of health care. Good luck having a stroke, there's no adequate hospital within 50+ miles. Most places have a traveling cardiologist who goes to rural areas once a month if that. There a huge push to increase the number of doctors in rural areas, but with very little success. You need to be within 30 min of a comprehensive stroke center for the best chance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Overseas coverage under FEHB varies, and requires careful choices: https://www.opm.gov/healthcare-insurance/healthcare/plan-information/important-facts-about-overseas-coverage/

There are also potential significant investment, financial management, and tax considerations involved in expatriation. And, many countries which allow USPERS to live long-term within their borders are not countries you'd necessarily want to live in, if not compelled by financial constraints. Even then, if you're motivated by a lower cost of living in some 3rd-world country, you probably have failed to consider the full range of domestic options which can provide a much lower COL without any of the many complications of living abroad long-term.

Move to rural Arkansas, for example, and your cost of living will be very low, while your quality of life will still likely be better than it might be in many foreign locales. https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/rankings/opportunity/affordability/cost-living

In other words, considerable research is required if you're not to make an impulsive and poorly considered life-changing decision.

Tell me you've never lived abroad without telling me you lived abroad.

It is HILARIOUS, absolutely laughable that anyone would prefer rural arkansas to the plethora of options outside the US. 😂😂😂

Actually, I have lived for extended periods in Europe and in Asia. Yes, I'd rather live in Zurich than in rural Arkansas. But:

People moving overseas for a low cost of living aren't looking to move to expensive countries where they will have a high quality of life. They are going to banana republics or other poorer countries with unstable politics and economies, language barriers, inefficient public services, and often an enmity towards foreigners. They will never "belong" unless they have local family. It's a pipe dream for most. If I were financially limited, I'd much prefer rural life in a Southern state to life anywhere in dozens of low-cost countries where my cost of living will be similar.

You act like there is no middle ground between Zurich and Kinshasa …

Or, just maybe, life in the rural U.S. is as low cost as you'll find in low COL foreign options, but with the advantages of living in the U.S., which are legion. Any foreign location cheaper than rural America is likely to have significant infrastructure, political, economic, social, language, and other quality of life drawbacks.

If you want to live in rural Arkansas and see the current government as stable, maybe you aren't really the person to ask.

[Anonymous]

Im eyeing northern Italy or even Switzerland for at least 3 months of the year. I have Italian citizenship so some things would be easier. But European countries also have a wealth tax thing that I need to learn more about before more seriously considering it

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Overseas coverage under FEHB varies, and requires careful choices: https://www.opm.gov/healthcare-insurance/healthcare/plan-information/important-facts-about-overseas-coverage/

There are also potential significant investment, financial management, and tax considerations involved in expatriation. And, many countries which allow USPERS to live long-term within their borders are not countries you'd necessarily want to live in, if not compelled by financial constraints. Even then, if you're motivated by a lower cost of living in some 3rd-world country, you probably have failed to consider the full range of domestic options which can provide a much lower COL without any of the many complications of living abroad long-term.

Move to rural Arkansas, for example, and your cost of living will be very low, while your quality of life will still likely be better than it might be in many foreign locales. https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/rankings/opportunity/affordability/cost-living

In other words, considerable research is required if you're not to make an impulsive and poorly considered life-changing decision.

Tell me you've never lived abroad without telling me you lived abroad.

It is HILARIOUS, absolutely laughable that anyone would prefer rural arkansas to the plethora of options outside the US. 😂😂😂

Actually, I have lived for extended periods in Europe and in Asia. Yes, I'd rather live in Zurich than in rural Arkansas. But:

People moving overseas for a low cost of living aren't looking to move to expensive countries where they will have a high quality of life. They are going to banana republics or other poorer countries with unstable politics and economies, language barriers, inefficient public services, and often an enmity towards foreigners. They will never "belong" unless they have local family. It's a pipe dream for most. If I were financially limited, I'd much prefer rural life in a Southern state to life anywhere in dozens of low-cost countries where my cost of living will be similar.

You act like there is no middle ground between Zurich and Kinshasa …

Or, just maybe, life in the rural U.S. is as low cost as you'll find in low COL foreign options, but with the advantages of living in the U.S., which are legion. Any foreign location cheaper than rural America is likely to have significant infrastructure, political, economic, social, language, and other quality of life drawbacks.

That’s your opinion, not a fact, and not a particularly informed opinion at that.

I’d much rather live in Thailand, Malaysia or parts of Indonesia than in rural Arkansas, and all three of those countries have a lower cost of living than the USA. Thailand and Malaysia attract a good amount of medical tourism because their facilities are good and not particularly expensive.

NP, but I have lived in both a rural Southern state (albeit in a medium-sized city in that state) and in Europe. Love Europe as a travel destination, and it might be fun to try to live there for say six months some time, but I'd also prefer a rural US state long-term. One, it's much cheaper to live well in the US; I don't particularly want to live long-term in some 900 ft^2 apartment in Paris. Two, we have things like dishwashers and functional clothes dryers and cars/garages in the US which I enjoy having and which can be difficult to get in Europe. Three, with apologies to the self-hating Americans, I'll bet on the US over Europe over the long-run any time, even when accounting for the highly suboptimal set of folks currently running things. And I have no interest in living in Asia, for reasons including language barriers. Obviously different people may have different preferences, and that's fine. But really, grow up with the "the US is doomed" stuff...

European here. My family back home has a dishwasher and a dryer and their apartment is around 1200 sf, which is the size of the rancher homes that are all over the DMV. They both have cars.
An item that is not addressed in your push for rural America is the complete lack of health care. Good luck having a stroke, there's no adequate hospital within 50+ miles. Most places have a traveling cardiologist who goes to rural areas once a month if that. There a huge push to increase the number of doctors in rural areas, but with very little success. You need to be within 30 min of a comprehensive stroke center for the best chance.

A dishwasher, a dryer, and a 1200 ft^2 apartment; your family must be in the top 1%!

The southern city I lived in had an academic medical center that I'd take in a second over a European hospital.

I'm not "pushing" anything. I'm happy in the DMV, and if I did move I would likely go to another big US metro. I just wouldn't, myself, move to a poor country like France or Britain when I could stay in a (relatively) rich place like Arkansas.

[Anonymous]

I know two people that took the VERA around 50, and are now in two different South American countries.

[Anonymous]

Vanishingly few.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Overseas coverage under FEHB varies, and requires careful choices: https://www.opm.gov/healthcare-insurance/healthcare/plan-information/important-facts-about-overseas-coverage/

There are also potential significant investment, financial management, and tax considerations involved in expatriation. And, many countries which allow USPERS to live long-term within their borders are not countries you'd necessarily want to live in, if not compelled by financial constraints. Even then, if you're motivated by a lower cost of living in some 3rd-world country, you probably have failed to consider the full range of domestic options which can provide a much lower COL without any of the many complications of living abroad long-term.

Move to rural Arkansas, for example, and your cost of living will be very low, while your quality of life will still likely be better than it might be in many foreign locales. https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/rankings/opportunity/affordability/cost-living

In other words, considerable research is required if you're not to make an impulsive and poorly considered life-changing decision.

Tell me you've never lived abroad without telling me you lived abroad.

It is HILARIOUS, absolutely laughable that anyone would prefer rural arkansas to the plethora of options outside the US. 😂😂😂

Actually, I have lived for extended periods in Europe and in Asia. Yes, I'd rather live in Zurich than in rural Arkansas. But:

People moving overseas for a low cost of living aren't looking to move to expensive countries where they will have a high quality of life. They are going to banana republics or other poorer countries with unstable politics and economies, language barriers, inefficient public services, and often an enmity towards foreigners. They will never "belong" unless they have local family. It's a pipe dream for most. If I were financially limited, I'd much prefer rural life in a Southern state to life anywhere in dozens of low-cost countries where my cost of living will be similar.

You act like there is no middle ground between Zurich and Kinshasa …

Or, just maybe, life in the rural U.S. is as low cost as you'll find in low COL foreign options, but with the advantages of living in the U.S., which are legion. Any foreign location cheaper than rural America is likely to have significant infrastructure, political, economic, social, language, and other quality of life drawbacks.

That’s your opinion, not a fact, and not a particularly informed opinion at that.

I’d much rather live in Thailand, Malaysia or parts of Indonesia than in rural Arkansas, and all three of those countries have a lower cost of living than the USA. Thailand and Malaysia attract a good amount of medical tourism because their facilities are good and not particularly expensive.

NP, but I have lived in both a rural Southern state (albeit in a medium-sized city in that state) and in Europe. Love Europe as a travel destination, and it might be fun to try to live there for say six months some time, but I'd also prefer a rural US state long-term. One, it's much cheaper to live well in the US; I don't particularly want to live long-term in some 900 ft^2 apartment in Paris. Two, we have things like dishwashers and functional clothes dryers and cars/garages in the US which I enjoy having and which can be difficult to get in Europe. Three, with apologies to the self-hating Americans, I'll bet on the US over Europe over the long-run any time, even when accounting for the highly suboptimal set of folks currently running things. And I have no interest in living in Asia, for reasons including language barriers. Obviously different people may have different preferences, and that's fine. But really, grow up with the "the US is doomed" stuff...

Oh my, I would much rather live in 900sq ft in Paris than an ugly SFH in rural Arkansas. And unless you think “living well” means “buy as much as you can at Walmart,” I think Paris is better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Overseas coverage under FEHB varies, and requires careful choices: https://www.opm.gov/healthcare-insurance/healthcare/plan-information/important-facts-about-overseas-coverage/

There are also potential significant investment, financial management, and tax considerations involved in expatriation. And, many countries which allow USPERS to live long-term within their borders are not countries you'd necessarily want to live in, if not compelled by financial constraints. Even then, if you're motivated by a lower cost of living in some 3rd-world country, you probably have failed to consider the full range of domestic options which can provide a much lower COL without any of the many complications of living abroad long-term.

Move to rural Arkansas, for example, and your cost of living will be very low, while your quality of life will still likely be better than it might be in many foreign locales. https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/rankings/opportunity/affordability/cost-living

In other words, considerable research is required if you're not to make an impulsive and poorly considered life-changing decision.

Tell me you've never lived abroad without telling me you lived abroad.

It is HILARIOUS, absolutely laughable that anyone would prefer rural arkansas to the plethora of options outside the US. 😂😂😂

Actually, I have lived for extended periods in Europe and in Asia. Yes, I'd rather live in Zurich than in rural Arkansas. But:

People moving overseas for a low cost of living aren't looking to move to expensive countries where they will have a high quality of life. They are going to banana republics or other poorer countries with unstable politics and economies, language barriers, inefficient public services, and often an enmity towards foreigners. They will never "belong" unless they have local family. It's a pipe dream for most. If I were financially limited, I'd much prefer rural life in a Southern state to life anywhere in dozens of low-cost countries where my cost of living will be similar.

You act like there is no middle ground between Zurich and Kinshasa …

Or, just maybe, life in the rural U.S. is as low cost as you'll find in low COL foreign options, but with the advantages of living in the U.S., which are legion. Any foreign location cheaper than rural America is likely to have significant infrastructure, political, economic, social, language, and other quality of life drawbacks.

That’s your opinion, not a fact, and not a particularly informed opinion at that.

I’d much rather live in Thailand, Malaysia or parts of Indonesia than in rural Arkansas, and all three of those countries have a lower cost of living than the USA. Thailand and Malaysia attract a good amount of medical tourism because their facilities are good and not particularly expensive.

NP, but I have lived in both a rural Southern state (albeit in a medium-sized city in that state) and in Europe. Love Europe as a travel destination, and it might be fun to try to live there for say six months some time, but I'd also prefer a rural US state long-term. One, it's much cheaper to live well in the US; I don't particularly want to live long-term in some 900 ft^2 apartment in Paris. Two, we have things like dishwashers and functional clothes dryers and cars/garages in the US which I enjoy having and which can be difficult to get in Europe. Three, with apologies to the self-hating Americans, I'll bet on the US over Europe over the long-run any time, even when accounting for the highly suboptimal set of folks currently running things. And I have no interest in living in Asia, for reasons including language barriers. Obviously different people may have different preferences, and that's fine. But really, grow up with the "the US is doomed" stuff...

Oh my, I would much rather live in 900sq ft in Paris than an ugly SFH in rural Arkansas. And unless you think “living well” means “buy as much as you can at Walmart,” I think Paris is better.

Good for you; this was a statement about my preferences, not yours.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Overseas coverage under FEHB varies, and requires careful choices: https://www.opm.gov/healthcare-insurance/healthcare/plan-information/important-facts-about-overseas-coverage/

There are also potential significant investment, financial management, and tax considerations involved in expatriation. And, many countries which allow USPERS to live long-term within their borders are not countries you'd necessarily want to live in, if not compelled by financial constraints. Even then, if you're motivated by a lower cost of living in some 3rd-world country, you probably have failed to consider the full range of domestic options which can provide a much lower COL without any of the many complications of living abroad long-term.

Move to rural Arkansas, for example, and your cost of living will be very low, while your quality of life will still likely be better than it might be in many foreign locales. https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/rankings/opportunity/affordability/cost-living

In other words, considerable research is required if you're not to make an impulsive and poorly considered life-changing decision.

Tell me you've never lived abroad without telling me you lived abroad.

It is HILARIOUS, absolutely laughable that anyone would prefer rural arkansas to the plethora of options outside the US. 😂😂😂

Actually, I have lived for extended periods in Europe and in Asia. Yes, I'd rather live in Zurich than in rural Arkansas. But:

People moving overseas for a low cost of living aren't looking to move to expensive countries where they will have a high quality of life. They are going to banana republics or other poorer countries with unstable politics and economies, language barriers, inefficient public services, and often an enmity towards foreigners. They will never "belong" unless they have local family. It's a pipe dream for most. If I were financially limited, I'd much prefer rural life in a Southern state to life anywhere in dozens of low-cost countries where my cost of living will be similar.

You act like there is no middle ground between Zurich and Kinshasa …

Or, just maybe, life in the rural U.S. is as low cost as you'll find in low COL foreign options, but with the advantages of living in the U.S., which are legion. Any foreign location cheaper than rural America is likely to have significant infrastructure, political, economic, social, language, and other quality of life drawbacks.

That’s your opinion, not a fact, and not a particularly informed opinion at that.

I’d much rather live in Thailand, Malaysia or parts of Indonesia than in rural Arkansas, and all three of those countries have a lower cost of living than the USA. Thailand and Malaysia attract a good amount of medical tourism because their facilities are good and not particularly expensive.

NP, but I have lived in both a rural Southern state (albeit in a medium-sized city in that state) and in Europe. Love Europe as a travel destination, and it might be fun to try to live there for say six months some time, but I'd also prefer a rural US state long-term. One, it's much cheaper to live well in the US; I don't particularly want to live long-term in some 900 ft^2 apartment in Paris. Two, we have things like dishwashers and functional clothes dryers and cars/garages in the US which I enjoy having and which can be difficult to get in Europe. Three, with apologies to the self-hating Americans, I'll bet on the US over Europe over the long-run any time, even when accounting for the highly suboptimal set of folks currently running things. And I have no interest in living in Asia, for reasons including language barriers. Obviously different people may have different preferences, and that's fine. But really, grow up with the "the US is doomed" stuff...

Oh my, I would much rather live in 900sq ft in Paris than an ugly SFH in rural Arkansas. And unless you think “living well” means “buy as much as you can at Walmart,” I think Paris is better.

Paris is delightful but France has very high inheritance tax, should you die as a resident. They tax everything including your property and assets outside of France, and your heirs have to pay. That’s why I would not retire in France, but just visit every year instead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Overseas coverage under FEHB varies, and requires careful choices: https://www.opm.gov/healthcare-insurance/healthcare/plan-information/important-facts-about-overseas-coverage/

There are also potential significant investment, financial management, and tax considerations involved in expatriation. And, many countries which allow USPERS to live long-term within their borders are not countries you'd necessarily want to live in, if not compelled by financial constraints. Even then, if you're motivated by a lower cost of living in some 3rd-world country, you probably have failed to consider the full range of domestic options which can provide a much lower COL without any of the many complications of living abroad long-term.

Move to rural Arkansas, for example, and your cost of living will be very low, while your quality of life will still likely be better than it might be in many foreign locales. https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/rankings/opportunity/affordability/cost-living

In other words, considerable research is required if you're not to make an impulsive and poorly considered life-changing decision.

Tell me you've never lived abroad without telling me you lived abroad.

It is HILARIOUS, absolutely laughable that anyone would prefer rural arkansas to the plethora of options outside the US. 😂😂😂

Actually, I have lived for extended periods in Europe and in Asia. Yes, I'd rather live in Zurich than in rural Arkansas. But:

People moving overseas for a low cost of living aren't looking to move to expensive countries where they will have a high quality of life. They are going to banana republics or other poorer countries with unstable politics and economies, language barriers, inefficient public services, and often an enmity towards foreigners. They will never "belong" unless they have local family. It's a pipe dream for most. If I were financially limited, I'd much prefer rural life in a Southern state to life anywhere in dozens of low-cost countries where my cost of living will be similar.

You act like there is no middle ground between Zurich and Kinshasa …

Or, just maybe, life in the rural U.S. is as low cost as you'll find in low COL foreign options, but with the advantages of living in the U.S., which are legion. Any foreign location cheaper than rural America is likely to have significant infrastructure, political, economic, social, language, and other quality of life drawbacks.

That’s your opinion, not a fact, and not a particularly informed opinion at that.

I’d much rather live in Thailand, Malaysia or parts of Indonesia than in rural Arkansas, and all three of those countries have a lower cost of living than the USA. Thailand and Malaysia attract a good amount of medical tourism because their facilities are good and not particularly expensive.

NP, but I have lived in both a rural Southern state (albeit in a medium-sized city in that state) and in Europe. Love Europe as a travel destination, and it might be fun to try to live there for say six months some time, but I'd also prefer a rural US state long-term. One, it's much cheaper to live well in the US; I don't particularly want to live long-term in some 900 ft^2 apartment in Paris. Two, we have things like dishwashers and functional clothes dryers and cars/garages in the US which I enjoy having and which can be difficult to get in Europe. Three, with apologies to the self-hating Americans, I'll bet on the US over Europe over the long-run any time, even when accounting for the highly suboptimal set of folks currently running things. And I have no interest in living in Asia, for reasons including language barriers. Obviously different people may have different preferences, and that's fine. But really, grow up with the "the US is doomed" stuff...

Oh my, I would much rather live in 900sq ft in Paris than an ugly SFH in rural Arkansas. And unless you think “living well” means “buy as much as you can at Walmart,” I think Paris is better.

Paris is delightful but France has very high inheritance tax, should you die as a resident. They tax everything including your property and assets outside of France, and your heirs have to pay. That’s why I would not retire in France, but just visit every year instead.

I thought liberals were so mad income inequality??Wouldn't you want your hard earned money to help Lala's son who unfortunately did not have the chance to grew up with parents freaking out over their tiny $300k in 529?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Overseas coverage under FEHB varies, and requires careful choices: https://www.opm.gov/healthcare-insurance/healthcare/plan-information/important-facts-about-overseas-coverage/

There are also potential significant investment, financial management, and tax considerations involved in expatriation. And, many countries which allow USPERS to live long-term within their borders are not countries you'd necessarily want to live in, if not compelled by financial constraints. Even then, if you're motivated by a lower cost of living in some 3rd-world country, you probably have failed to consider the full range of domestic options which can provide a much lower COL without any of the many complications of living abroad long-term.

Move to rural Arkansas, for example, and your cost of living will be very low, while your quality of life will still likely be better than it might be in many foreign locales. https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/rankings/opportunity/affordability/cost-living

In other words, considerable research is required if you're not to make an impulsive and poorly considered life-changing decision.

Tell me you've never lived abroad without telling me you lived abroad.

It is HILARIOUS, absolutely laughable that anyone would prefer rural arkansas to the plethora of options outside the US. 😂😂😂

Actually, I have lived for extended periods in Europe and in Asia. Yes, I'd rather live in Zurich than in rural Arkansas. But:

People moving overseas for a low cost of living aren't looking to move to expensive countries where they will have a high quality of life. They are going to banana republics or other poorer countries with unstable politics and economies, language barriers, inefficient public services, and often an enmity towards foreigners. They will never "belong" unless they have local family. It's a pipe dream for most. If I were financially limited, I'd much prefer rural life in a Southern state to life anywhere in dozens of low-cost countries where my cost of living will be similar.

You act like there is no middle ground between Zurich and Kinshasa …

Or, just maybe, life in the rural U.S. is as low cost as you'll find in low COL foreign options, but with the advantages of living in the U.S., which are legion. Any foreign location cheaper than rural America is likely to have significant infrastructure, political, economic, social, language, and other quality of life drawbacks.

That’s your opinion, not a fact, and not a particularly informed opinion at that.

I’d much rather live in Thailand, Malaysia or parts of Indonesia than in rural Arkansas, and all three of those countries have a lower cost of living than the USA. Thailand and Malaysia attract a good amount of medical tourism because their facilities are good and not particularly expensive.

NP, but I have lived in both a rural Southern state (albeit in a medium-sized city in that state) and in Europe. Love Europe as a travel destination, and it might be fun to try to live there for say six months some time, but I'd also prefer a rural US state long-term. One, it's much cheaper to live well in the US; I don't particularly want to live long-term in some 900 ft^2 apartment in Paris. Two, we have things like dishwashers and functional clothes dryers and cars/garages in the US which I enjoy having and which can be difficult to get in Europe. Three, with apologies to the self-hating Americans, I'll bet on the US over Europe over the long-run any time, even when accounting for the highly suboptimal set of folks currently running things. And I have no interest in living in Asia, for reasons including language barriers. Obviously different people may have different preferences, and that's fine. But really, grow up with the "the US is doomed" stuff...

Oh my, I would much rather live in 900sq ft in Paris than an ugly SFH in rural Arkansas. And unless you think “living well” means “buy as much as you can at Walmart,” I think Paris is better.

Paris is delightful but France has very high inheritance tax, should you die as a resident. They tax everything including your property and assets outside of France, and your heirs have to pay. That’s why I would not retire in France, but just visit every year instead.

DCUM seems to not be aware of this fun fact

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Overseas coverage under FEHB varies, and requires careful choices: https://www.opm.gov/healthcare-insurance/healthcare/plan-information/important-facts-about-overseas-coverage/

There are also potential significant investment, financial management, and tax considerations involved in expatriation. And, many countries which allow USPERS to live long-term within their borders are not countries you'd necessarily want to live in, if not compelled by financial constraints. Even then, if you're motivated by a lower cost of living in some 3rd-world country, you probably have failed to consider the full range of domestic options which can provide a much lower COL without any of the many complications of living abroad long-term.

Move to rural Arkansas, for example, and your cost of living will be very low, while your quality of life will still likely be better than it might be in many foreign locales. https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/rankings/opportunity/affordability/cost-living

In other words, considerable research is required if you're not to make an impulsive and poorly considered life-changing decision.

Tell me you've never lived abroad without telling me you lived abroad.

It is HILARIOUS, absolutely laughable that anyone would prefer rural arkansas to the plethora of options outside the US. 😂😂😂

Actually, I have lived for extended periods in Europe and in Asia. Yes, I'd rather live in Zurich than in rural Arkansas. But:

People moving overseas for a low cost of living aren't looking to move to expensive countries where they will have a high quality of life. They are going to banana republics or other poorer countries with unstable politics and economies, language barriers, inefficient public services, and often an enmity towards foreigners. They will never "belong" unless they have local family. It's a pipe dream for most. If I were financially limited, I'd much prefer rural life in a Southern state to life anywhere in dozens of low-cost countries where my cost of living will be similar.

You act like there is no middle ground between Zurich and Kinshasa …

Or, just maybe, life in the rural U.S. is as low cost as you'll find in low COL foreign options, but with the advantages of living in the U.S., which are legion. Any foreign location cheaper than rural America is likely to have significant infrastructure, political, economic, social, language, and other quality of life drawbacks.

That’s your opinion, not a fact, and not a particularly informed opinion at that.

I’d much rather live in Thailand, Malaysia or parts of Indonesia than in rural Arkansas, and all three of those countries have a lower cost of living than the USA. Thailand and Malaysia attract a good amount of medical tourism because their facilities are good and not particularly expensive.

NP, but I have lived in both a rural Southern state (albeit in a medium-sized city in that state) and in Europe. Love Europe as a travel destination, and it might be fun to try to live there for say six months some time, but I'd also prefer a rural US state long-term. One, it's much cheaper to live well in the US; I don't particularly want to live long-term in some 900 ft^2 apartment in Paris. Two, we have things like dishwashers and functional clothes dryers and cars/garages in the US which I enjoy having and which can be difficult to get in Europe. Three, with apologies to the self-hating Americans, I'll bet on the US over Europe over the long-run any time, even when accounting for the highly suboptimal set of folks currently running things. And I have no interest in living in Asia, for reasons including language barriers. Obviously different people may have different preferences, and that's fine. But really, grow up with the "the US is doomed" stuff...

Oh my, I would much rather live in 900sq ft in Paris than an ugly SFH in rural Arkansas. And unless you think “living well” means “buy as much as you can at Walmart,” I think Paris is better.

Good for you; this was a statement about my preferences, not yours.

Thank you clarifying hillbilly.