A minimum amount of 10 years is needed to get the basic pension (which is proportional to years worked), but years on Universal Credit (benefits) count towards this. Also, anyone who is of pension age is entitled to a Pension Credit top-up to a weekly income of £227.10.
You mean, everyone watched the TV story which has little basis in fact. Chernobyl was the worst case scenario - there's no way to build a reactor that would produce worse radiation effects when destroyed than to use a pile of graphite.
Only about 20-40% of the radioactive contaminants were spread before the fire was put out by firefighters wearing no protection. On top of that only 1 reactor burned, but it shared facilities with another reactor.
So if the fire was not put out, it could have easily been 5x worse. There were 4 reactors total, so in the absolute worst case it could've been 10x worse.
G20 Targets for Enhancing Cross-border Payments[1]:
“Reaffirm UN SDG: Global average cost of sending $200 remittance to be no more than 3% by 2030, with no corridors with costs higher than 5%”
“75% of cross-border remittance payments in every corridor to provide availability of funds for the recipient within one hour of payment initiation and for the remainder of the market to be within one business day, by end-2027”
“More than 90% of individuals (including those without bank accounts) who wish to send or receive a remittance payment to have access to a means of cross-border electronic remittance payment by end-2027”
In Europe, Wero[1] has a chance to become the de-facto payment system, once it's supported by more banks in more countries and adds online payments functionality.
That's exactly how it works in Russia. This led to some innovative services and exotic contermeasures, like locating the datacentres inside the perimeter of military factories (hard for LEOs to breach unnoticed), or installing racks inside trucks - you have time to drive them out of a nearby building while the front doors are breached.
Note that there is a separate page [1] about tax benefits on the company website:
"When finances are structured accordingly, people who plan to run a business, foundation or other entity from the ship, can be considered to be on a continuous business trip. In this case, it may be possible to write off most annual fees."
"The ship is flagged in the Bahamas and the related fund is based in Liechtenstein. These could be considered the domicile for a business, foundation or other entity based on board (or another jurisdiction). While some ‘offshore’ models are illegitimate, in this instance, the asset is an investment in a fund attached to the rights to use a home office based offshore; so this is a perfectly legitimate use of offshore structures in tax-advantaged jurisdictions."
I have experienced something similar. I drive around the world and document my adventures with video and in print. For years at a time I drive from country to country, only ever on a tourist visa for 30 or 60 days per country. I don't set foot in my "home" country for years on end.
It was perfectly legal for me to be a resident of no country for tax purposes and pay no income tax.
Things have changed a bit now - in my "home" country they changed the laws so that if you even have a bank account there you're considered a resident for tax purposes and you must pay income tax there.
This isn’t an option for US citizens. Income made anywhere in the world is taxable and requires reporting and payments to the US. Furthermore, giving up one’s US citizenship requires an exit tax that taxes all unrealized gains as if you sold all assets the day before renouncing citizenship.
If the IRS suspects that you are renouncing citizenship to avoid future taxes, I believe that they can tax your next 10 years of (worldwide) income as well.
US tax laws and regulations are complex and I’m not a lawyer so don’t take my advice. (I plan on keeping my US citizenship.)
Assuming my understanding is correct - that your documentation of travels in video and print form is what brings you the revenues that would be taxed - aren't you committing visa fraud? Usually a tourist visa forbids any work or revenue generating activity (of course there are exceptions such as the UAE, but that's generally the rule).
No, I just a tourist in each country I pass through because I don't get paid by an employer from the country I happen to be in at the time, and I don't do any kind of freelancing in that country. I don't do anything to generate revenue in the country I'm in and I also don't get paid in that local currency, nor do I have a bank account in that country.
No that’s not how tourist visa works. Most tourist visas forbid any kind of business activities done in the target country with the exception of business meetings. I’ve had a lot of tourist visas and I’ve been told this rule by multiple lawyers.
The spirit of the law is protectionism, to avoid people working unregulated and taking jobs away from locals, like with customs the spirit is to prevent fraudsters from skipping import tax and hurt legitimate businesses.
Probably every one who travels (even you) broke the letter but not the spirit of both multiple times. Check work email? Illegal. Did not declare a purchase? Illegal. Even if they want to comply and declare eligible personal purchase via red corridor they would be waved through because they are not the target.
Otherwise you can jail every writer or artist who dared to practice their craft without a work visa and who sold/published later.
The details depend on the country of course but in the real world people traveling to a country for events and business meetings do all sorts of other routine business activities back home while they're in the country. Which could include writing of various sorts.
Thanks for this suggestion, I'll have to keep an eye on this the next time I need a router. Definitely on the pricey side, but given that it's fully open source, that's a con I can live with.
There was no increase of nuclear risk because of drones, and no need to increase the protection of the powerplants, for the very simple reason that there is nothing a drone can do against meters of reinforced concrete protecting the reactor. A drone big enough to do more than scratch the paint would be classified as a cruise missile, and that risk was understood since before the first nuclear powrplant was turned on.
