- This topic has 1 reply, 14 voices, and was last updated 11 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
[quote=”DavidCMurray”]No one really knows. The population includes expats who live here most of the time and are legal resisents, legal residents who live elsewhere much of the time, tourists, tourists who’ve overstayed their visas, “perpetual tourists” who come and go every three months, and probably others.
How would you count ’em?[/quote]
A agree. I have been hearing 50,000 for the last 25 yrs. I think that this # comes close.
all i know so far is that it has to do with ambulation.
a taxi driver told me yesterday there are 800,000 nicaraguans in costa rica. is that even possible, i asked? whew.
Can’t vouch for it, maravilla, but I’ve read that figure in the online press and attributed to Immigration officials. They must know, right?
i don’t know how they would know that for sure since many Nicas are illegals. the 200,000 number also came from immigratiobn but it’s a few years old. i doubt there are any hard numbers, although in 2006 they said there were only 8500 americans here — i assume with residency of some kind, but who the heck knows.
[quote=”maravilla”] i doubt there are any hard numbers, although in 2006 they said there were only 8500 americans here — i assume with residency of some kind, but who the heck knows.[/quote]
That’s my point. Nobody really knows.
The total expat population that lives there 11 months/year (30 day max in US if you are exempting foreign earned income)vs. 4 months/year for “rentista” has to be a huge gap. The number is closer to 80,000 US now, but Panama is currently the #1 country for US govt. pension checks.
As far as duties, this is a big income source and it would be ideal if it was exempted one time if you are moving permanently, but it won’t go away. If you move from state to state, you are subject to excise tax on vehicles, however, the value is determined from Kelley Blue Book and if yur car is in poor condition, that is what you pay on. This eliminates the inflationary CR pricing book and everyone pays more fairly. Or kill the duties completely and subject autos to the 16.39% sales tax and call it good.Sovereign Society
Extrapolating CIA factsInteresting factoids:
Panama vs. Costa Rica
Populations: 3,310,000 2008 4,196,000 2008
GDP: $34.81 billion $45.77 billion
$10,517/PP $10,908/PP 3.6% variance!Labor Force: 1,390,000 2008 1,820,000 2008
GDP: $34.81 billion $45.77 billion
$25,043/PLU $25,148/PLU .4% variance!Unemployment: 9.8% 6.6%
Populations: 3,360,474 (2009) +50,474 4,254,000 (2009) +58,000
Birth-Death
-Immigration = 2% = 3,376,200 +66,200 1.26% = 4,248,870 +52,870
Net Foreign Gain = -16,550 + 5,130Costa Rica gained 5,130 more people than their B-D-I resident growth rate in 1 year alone, so these should logically be all legal foreigners, probably excluding most Nicas. Including this year, that would be 102,600 since 1990 and Nosara was founded in the late 60’s/early 70’s; Monteverde in the 50’s. What % of those are US is anybody’s guess, but there are records of immigration applications. The US Embassy also has stats. Personally, judging by the amount of Americans that were at the embassy recently, solely for the purpose of getting birth certificates for their babies was amazing. Expatriations in the US are up 234% since Obama took office and what was once something only the very wealthy did, is now more prevalent in the middle class. There is a trend here that has spiked in the last 2 years, so the influx has increased in CR. If 80,000 Americans were distributed proportionately throughout the country, then 30,308 would live in San Jose metro (1,611,616 pop.) alone or only 1.9%. Surely this number is higher.
[quote=”grb1063″]Sovereign Society
Extrapolating CIA factsInteresting factoids:
[/quote]
Hmmmm…simply amazing. Their “honesty” in describing the following as “factoids”. Anyone else look that word up? The Sovereign Society extrapolating the CIA? Please. Why submit this to us as valid?I believe most of us underestimate the dysfunctionality of the political and governmental system prevalent in many countries.
Seems to me that la Presidenta has tried hard to make a difference but her efforts have been stymied by her opponents and the system.
l don’t anticipate her replacement being any more successful.
I’m of the opinion that the reasons for her unpopularity are two fold: 1. She doesn’t display any of the personal leadership qualities that one would expect in a President, such as her openly criticizing decisions of the Constitutional Court, when being a member of the Executive Branch as the President, when such action contravenes the very tenents of a Democracy; and 2. She has surrounded herself with what have to be considered the most inept group of advisors and Ministers that Costa Rica has seen in recent times, if ever before.
she should have alot in common with the Muslim King then :D:D:D:D
Democracy is another word for MOB Rules
[quote=”watchdog”]I’m of the opinion that the reasons for her unpopularity are two fold: 1. She doesn’t display any of the personal leadership qualities that one would expect in a President, such as her openly criticizing decisions of the Constitutional Court, when being a member of the Executive Branch as the President, when such action contravenes the very tenents of a Democracy; and 2. She has surrounded herself with what have to be considered the most inept group of advisors and Ministers that Costa Rica has seen in recent times, if ever before.[/quote]
Sweikert
The political system here is alive and well and it has alot of problems that are associated with government in general.
I happen to have alot of respect for costa rica because here is a country that had the balls to put away 2 presidents for crimes. that is ballsy..
I do have a question and again please do not take offense 🙂
Democracy is based on a free expression of conflicting ideas so criticism of any government action is healthy
is this what you actually believe.. ???
Alex Epstein writes: Every Election Day, politicians, intellectuals, and activists propagate a seemingly patriotic but utterly un-American idea: the notion that our most important right–and the source of America’s greatness–is the right to vote. According to former President Bill Clinton, the right to vote is “the most fundamental right of citizenship”; it is “the heart and soul of our democracy,” says Senator John McCain
Such statements are regarded as uncontroversial–but consider their implications. If voting is truly our most fundamental right, then all other rights–including free speech, property, even life–are contingent on and revocable by the whims of the voting public (or their elected officials).
America, on this view, is a society based not on individual rights, but on unlimited majority rule–like ancient Athens, where the populace, exercising “the most fundamental right of citizenship,” elected to kill Socrates for voicing unpopular ideas–or modern-day Zimbabwe, where the democratically elected Robert Mugabe has seized the property of the nation’s white farmers and brought the nation to the verge of starvation–or Germany in 1932, when the people democratically elected the Nazi Party, including future Chancellor Adolph Hitler. Would anyone dare claim that America is thus fundamentally similar to these regimes, and that it is perfectly acceptable to kill controversial philosophers or to exterminate six million Jews, so long as it is done by popular vote?
Contrary to popular rhetoric,
[b]America was founded, not as a “democracy,” but as a constitutional republic–[/b][u][/u]
a political structure under which the government is bound by a written constitution to the task of protecting individual rights. “Democracy” does not mean a system that holds public elections for government officials; it means a system in which a majority vote rules everything and everyone, and in which the individual thus has no rights. In a democracy, observed James Madison in The Federalist Papers , “there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention [and] have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property.”
The right to vote derives from the recognition of man as an autonomous, rational being, who is responsible for his own life and who should therefore freely choose the people he authorizes to represent him in the government of his country. That autonomy is contradicted if a majority of voters is allowed to do whatever it wishes to the individual citizen. The right to vote is not a sanction for a gang to deprive other individuals of their freedom. Rather, because a free society requires a certain type of government, it is a means of installing the officials who will safeguard the individual rights of each citizen.
What makes America unique is not that it has elections–even dictatorships hold elections–but that its elections take place in a country limited by the absolute principle of individual freedom. From our Declaration of Independence, which upholds the “unalienable rights” of every individual, among which are “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” to our Constitution, whose Bill of Rights protects freedom of speech and the freedom of private property, respect for individual liberty is the essence of America–and the root of her greatness.
Unfortunately, with each passing Election Day, too many Americans view elections less as a means to protect freedom, and more as a means to win some government favor or handout at the expense of the liberty and property of other Americans. Our politicians promise, not to protect the basic rights spelled out in the Declaration and the Constitution, but to violate the rights of some people in order to benefit others.
Today’s politicians want capital for failing banks–by forcing non-failing Americans to pay for them; subsidies for farmers–by forcing non-farmers to pay for them; prescription drugs for the elderly–by forcing the non-elderly to pay for them; housing for the homeless–by forcing the non-homeless to pay for it. The more “democratic” our government becomes, the more we cannibalize our liberty, ultimately to the detriment of all.
This Election Day, therefore, we should reject those who wish to reduce our republic to mob rule. Instead, we should vote for those, to whatever extent they can be found, who are defenders of the essence of America: individual freedom.
By Alex Epstein
[quote=”sweikert925″][quote=”watchdog”]…such as her openly criticizing decisions of the Constitutional Court, when being a member of the Executive Branch as the President, when such action contravenes the very tenents of a Democracy[/quote]
If all she did was criticize, that hardly seems unpresidential to me. Democracy is based on a free expression of conflicting ideas so criticism of any government action is healthy, no matter from whom. Or did she do more than that, such as refuse to comply with some decision?[/quote]
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
