I’ve read many sites on the income/savings/retirement money requirement for Portugal D7 Resisent Visa and i’m confused with the wording. They all state must show proof of annual income of whatever, but is that literal? Do i have to show that amount already in the bank for a year AHEAD, or divide the amount listed by 12 and show them that monthly resource that is available? I have small US social security supplemented by some online income.
Please include reference to the website you obtained the answer, if possible.
Sophia, is they ask for annual income you simply have to show your tax return. Income is not capital, so you do not have so mention how much you have in assets (unless they specifically ask for it). They obviously do not want people that cannot support themselves.
Sophia, you need to show typically twice Portuguese minimum wage (around €1200 per month) and generally consulates accept a combination of Social Security, 401K or other income, and investment income include net real estate income. It MUST be regular, documented and easy to understand for consular staff.
Thanks much but that was not exactly the question I asked because I already have all the basic info from the internet. The specific thing I need to know is what kind of documentation and how much time do I need to show for? In other words+ if I go in today do I have to show proof that I have enough income for the next YEAR to live on? Or can I just show what I currently have monthly coming in? And how many months back do I have to provide bank statements to verify that? I am starting new online income along with my small social security so that’s why this is a critical question. Thanks again…
The Portuguese authorities want you to show the recurring nature of the income, in other words, as far as I am aware, it is not for the next pear per se, it is the recurring nature of the income. Generally, social security and pension income would need to be forward-looking, so a document showing that you will continue to have the right to receive it, while other income needs to demonstrate historical consistency, generally 3 years. Apologies that I cannot be more specific but different consulates have been known to ask for variations of information, in our experience.
There are official sources and then there is accumulated experience. There is an official amount that is based the the current minimum wage. It’s so low (1/3 of my SS) I didn’t keep the link.
Best source for detailed info on the D7 visa is in the ‘Proof of financial means / proof of sufficient funds’ section of ‘2019ObtainingVisa_1Aug.pdf’ (or a more current version) in the Files section of Facebook group ‘Americans & Friends PT’. If you don’t see it on the list, click the ‘See More’ link at the bottom of the list.
When I applied last year for the visa, I provided the previous 6 months of checking account statements containing my SS auto deposit, as well as the SS benefits letter.
Are there cases where they will consider cash in bank? Would having 5 or 6 years worth of the portuguese minimum wage in the bank qualify you? Or would it be better to go freelance visa route?
I’ve the same question Adam. I can show 30 years x minimum wage worth cash in the bank, and am wondering why having passive monthly income should trump that. Do let us know if you found more info on this since. Thanks!
I ran across your post and I was wondering if you have since discovered if Portugal will allow multiple years’ worth of income in the bank (vs. regular recurring income) or the D7 visa.
I ran across some info on this. This was a post on an American Expat Portugal FB post some time ago.
While there is “no official” requirement, the post stated that people WITHOUT passive income or a job will need to have funds according to this formula (60 - your age)*8000 USD. For someone who is 40 years old, this would equal $160k USD. This is in addition to the 8,000 Euro that you need in the Portuguese bank account to apply for the D7. The $160k USD can be in a separate account.
(“No official” – so I think it’s at the discretion of the official, but that makes sense to me. Although I read that passive income makes a stronger case because it’s consistent and you can’t readily move/lose regular passive income.
This doesn’t really make sense to me, unless I misunderstood the definition of passive income. Investment returns (other than on bonds, real estate rentals etc) or any returns linked to the stock market are by definition unstable and can be lost. How is money stashed away in a savings account not a clear-cut stronger case?
Passive income is just that, income. Money in a savings account is… not income. They want to see not only that you have savings but also a steady stream of income that will not be readily depleted.
You can define the term however you like for your own purposes. I’m not the one enforcing the rules.
Steady income from pensions, dividends, annuities, royalties, rentals has a patina of stability that a bank account full of perfectly liquid cash does not. People are often loathe to make big changes in their capital investments to avoid recognizing capital gains. Sure, you could liquidate your annuity, sell your dividend stocks, burn down your rental property.
The Social Security Administration could save a lot on administrative and operational costs by paying every retiree a cash lump sum based on actuarial projections, then leave folks to fend for themselves, but they consider it to be good public policy to provide a steady, predictable stream of recurring income. It tends to mitigate risks and forestall abject poverty. The people giving out the immigration visas are thinking along the same lines: they’d like to welcome people who aren’t as likely to lose it all and start living off of the dole.
It’s fine if you vehemently disagree with everything I’m saying. You asked a question; I volunteered an answer. I’m not the one you need to convince that a bank account full of money isn’t just as good as a steady income stream. It’s not my policy.
Nah I’m not vehemently disagreeing , what you said makes sense. I was just trying to understand the rationale because while stock investments are not readily liquidated due to tax implications for capital gains (as you pointed out), they are still pretty unsteady as an income stream. But obviously it’s a different story with bonds, pensions, rentals, SSA funds etc., those are definitely more “steady and constant”. I really thought showing 1 year of savings account statements or something would be proof that the money is there, has been there for a while and not going anywhere. Ah well, I guess not.
So if I understand it right, something like the returns on my low cost S&P index fund in my online brokerage account is sufficient proof of passive income? (like say the returns over the last 6 months or whatever were consistently higher than Portugal’s minimum wage amount).
I don’t know exactly what they expect; I’m just guessing from first principles. I suspect that the rules describe the expectation with broad brush strokes and that it’s left to the discretion of the government official(s) to make a judgment call. American regulatory culture is really into precise quantification and technicalities and fine-grained parsing; I get the impression that this isn’t as common overseas.
Don’t bank on this, but I’m guessing that they’re not looking for excuses to disqualify people over trivial issues. Ultimately they’re looking for financially competent, self-sufficient, law-abiding immigrants who will contribute positively to the economy and fit in with the culture. If you can demonstrate that you fit the bill, I think you have good prospects to succeed.
, what you said makes sense. I was just trying to understand the rationale because while stock investments are not readily liquidated due to tax implications for capital gains (as you pointed out), they are still pretty unsteady as an income stream. But obviously it’s a different story with bonds, pensions, rentals, SSA funds etc., those are definitely more “steady and constant”. I really thought showing 1 year of savings account statements or something would be proof that the money is there, has been there for a while and not going anywhere. Ah well, I guess not.