It seems the ever-popular Brian in Jeollanam-do has been keeping up with my humble blog / Twitter feed. Not too long ago, I wrote a

modest proposal for changing the restrictions on visas for foreign language teachers (that's an E-2 to anyone already here), and sent a copy to the Korea Times for their Opinion section. Some weeks later, Brian tweeted about it before I even realized it was up on the Korea Times, and had a few things to say:

I'm not a big fan of the restriction on E-2 visa holders, and think that visa portability, or even the less-drastic suggestions Chris made, would benefit the foreign teachers holding these visas and the industry as a whole by making it harder for shitty schools to keep foreigners locked into year-long contracts. According to quite a few teachers, the issue of visa portability should have been the first thing ATEK went after when they launched, rather than coming out swinging at drug tests and background checks.

But the question Chris'd have to ask next is: what reason is there for the system to accommodate E-2 visa holders? Or, more specifically: what reason is there for the system to accommodate English teachers on E-2 visas? Don't forget the E-2 visa is for foreign teachers of foreign languages, not simply English teachers. [emphasis mine]

Seeing as how English teachers make up neither the cream of the crop, the richest foreigners in Korea, or the ones with the best reputation, it's a fair question to ask - but definitely not an easy one to answer. That said, I'll give it a go.

Change often comes as a result of the status quo being less preferable than the proposed alternative. At the risk of sounding cynical, the status quo works for the people that matter the most; without enough forward-thinking people in high-enough places, there's little incentive to change what works. So what reason is there for the system to accommodate E-2 visa holders? I offer three:

Financial - any money being made, theoretically speaking, has an obligation to be taxed according to the laws of the country in question. Fair enough - but money made illegally isn't going to be taxed because no one's going to report it. Teaching privates 'off the books'? Sure, you may sure an extra million won a month - but to report it legitimately jeopardizes your visa status, your lifestyle, and the like. When you legalize or legitimize it, you also begin to remove the mindset that teaching privates is 'bad', 'illegal' or needs to be hidden in some way. Perhaps this is the same argument about legalizing marijuana in the U.S., and certainly there are some similarities between the two - an illegal thing that's done by the masses anyway.

-- WARNING - guesswork and assumptions at play --

Let's assume there are 20,000 E-2 visa holders (for what it's worth, Gusts of Popular Feeling says 21,498 were here in July 2009). Let's say 25% teach privates illegally - a guess, admittedly. At an average going rate of, say, 35,000 won an hour, and perhaps, say, three hours of private lessons a week, that's 105,000 won per week per teacher. Again, these are all guesstimates - but there are no official stats whatsoever to go on.

105,000 won per week x 4 weeks = 420,000 won per month per teacher.

420,000 won x 5,000 teachers illegally teaching privates = 210,000,000 won a month in untaxed income. Assuming a 16.5% flat tax rate imposed on expats according to korea4expats.com, that's 34,650,000 won tax revenue a month, or 415,800,000 won tax revenue per year.

Bear in mind that's only E-2 visa holders, and only 'illegal' lessons - if legitimized there would almost surely be an increase. Simply put, there's more money to be made taxing a legitimate service than fining the few you catch doing something illegal.

Competition - gotta keep up with the other countries. Lo and behold, Japan has...(Read whole news on source site)

If there's anything that...(Read whole news on source site)