Bringing money to UK for investment purposes
Transfers of money to the UK for any purpose are not generally taxed, so you can just transfer it here and invest. Once the money is here, you'll be taxed on the business activity like anyone else - the company will have to pay corporation tax, and depending on your own residency you might have to pay income tax on any distributions from the company.
"Perhaps in a pendantic sense, it is useless. But likewise the number of people that work for them is irrelevant here as well.  What matters is the portion of GDP generated across company size, and the means by which some of that is recaptured by the people to (a) repay for the investment in the economic infrastructure that allowed the companies to make that money in the first place, and (b) invest in future infrastructure that is of benefit to companies, ultimately all of which is done for the purposes of betterment of the people of the country.  The relevance then is what portion of the GDP is generated by which while size category of business. If we just take large versus small and medium enterprise (SME), with the boundary being 500 employees or fewer, and we excluding farming (which the stats seem to universally do), U.S. GDP is generated by [50.7% non-farm SMEs](http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11f0027m/11f0027m2011070-eng.pdf) (compared to 54.7% in Canada). They also appear to employ more than 50% of all private workers.  Of additional importance is the dynamic effect. That is, if large companies can grow faster because of lower effective taxation, that means SMEs will tend to fall further and further behind not out of a fair and open marketplace, but because of unfair taxation.  Generally speaking, the reverse is preferred. Because diversity of competition brings huge value for innovation (the same as in crop breeding techniques), as well as the poor economic performance of monopolies and oligopolies, you want to hinder large companies from becoming too large and instead break them up in to many smaller components. Hence incentives should work the reverse of the above, meaning larger companies should be paying a higher percentage tax than the SMEs, not to mention the ""too big to fail"" problem, and all for the good of the people." I believe the appropriate recourse in this scenario is to bring a court case for breach of contract.   The 1p repricing issue has been admitted as an error out of scope of the purpose of the software. In addition to the other excellent answers here, check out Mr. Money Mustache's site, it's based in the US but the basics still hold here in the UK. Another great site is the Monevator which is UK based and gives some great information on passive investing. Well done on getting to this point at your age - you've got plenty of time for the miracle of compound interest to work for you. EDIT: Once you have any existing debts paid off, take a look at passive/index investing. This could be a good way to make your £150 work for you by capturing the gains of the stock market. Invest it long-term (buy and hold) to make the most of the compound interested effect and over time that money will become something substantial - especially if you can increase payments over time as your income increases. You could also look at reducing your outgoings as recommended on the Mustache site linked above so you can increase your monthly investment amount. "A dividend is a cash disbursement from the company.  The value of the company goes down the same amount of the dividend, so it is analogous to having money in a savings account and taking a withdrawal every month.  Obviously you are going to have less in the end than if you just kept the money in the account. suppose that I own 10 different stocks, and don't reinvest dividends, but keep them on account, and each month or two, as I add more money to invest, either in one of my existing stocks, or perhaps something new, I add whichever dividend amount is currently available in cash to my new purchase, would this strategy provide the same results? Roughly, yes.  Reinvesting dividends is essentially buying more stock at the lower price, which is a net zero effect in total balance.  So if you invested in the same stocks, yes you'd be in the same place.  If you invested in different stocks, then you would have a performance difference depending on what you invested in. The risk is the temptation to take the cash dividend and not reinvest it, but take it in cash, thereby reducing your earning power. That is, is there some particular reason that the brokers are recommending automatically reinvesting dividends as opposed to reinvesting them manually, perhaps not always in the same item? I'd like to think that they're looking after your best interest (and they might be), but the cynical part of me thinks that they're either trying to keep your business by increasing your returns, or there's some UK regulation I'm not aware of that requires them to disclose the effect of reinvesting dividends.    £100 invested in the UK stock market since 1899 would have grown into just £177 after adjusting for inflation. This figure seems ludicrous to me.  I haven't actually measured what the historical returns on the ""UK market"" are, but that would mean an annualized return (adjusted for inflation) of just 0.5%.  Either UK stocks pay a ridiculous amount of dividends or there's something wrong with the math. EDIT I still have not found a definitive source for the real UK market return, but according to this inflation calculator, £100 in 1899 would equate to almost £12,000 today, for an average inflation rate of 4.14 percent, which would put the CAGR of the UK market at about 4.9%, which seems reasonable.  The CAGR with dividend reinvestment would then be about 9.1%, making dividend reinvestment a no-brainer in the UK market at least." Income and Capital are taxed separately in the uk.  You probably can't get dividends paid  gross even in ISA's you pay the basic rate of tax on dividends only higher rate tax payers get tax benefit from dividends. What you could do is invest in splits (Spilt capital investment trusts ) in the share class where all the return comes as capital and use up some of your yearly CGT allowance that way. Use a remitting service such as Ria Money Transfer. Almost all these services allow you to transfer upto $2999 at a time. So, you would be able to transfer the entire amount of $4500 within 2 business days(There is a monthly limit too, but it will definitely be more than $4500). There are no fees to use these services, but they do scrape off a bit on the currency rate. As of today you are getting 624 GBP for $1000 whereas the market rate is $641.95. You still save roughly $17 and 4 transactions, which adds up to more than $100. Here is a link to Ria's website. Other services, include Xoom, Western Union, Money Dart and Money Gram. "What about the escudo balance in my checking account in Cabo Verde?   Are the escudos that I held for months or years, before eventually   deciding to change to dollars, considered an investment? Don't know. You tell us. Investment defined as an activity taken to produce income. Did you put the money in the checking account with a full expectation of profits to be made from that? Or you only decided that it is an investment in retrospective, after the result is known, because it provides you more tax benefit? To me it sounds like you have two operating currencies and you're converting between them. Doesn't sound like an investment. Generally, from my experience, bank accounts are not considered investments (even savings accounts aren't). Once you deposit into a CD or bond or money market - you get a cash-equivalent which can be treated as an investment. But that's my personal understanding, if there are large amounts involved, I'd suggest talking to a US-licensed CPA/EA specializing on expats in your area. Pub 54 is really a reference for only the most trivial of the questions an expat may have. It doesn't even begin to describe the complexity of the monstrosity that is called ""The US Tax Code for Expats and Foreigners""." "No.  This is too much for most individuals, even some small to medium businesses.  When you sell that investment, and take the cheque into the foreign bank and wire it back to the USA in US dollars, you will definitely obtain the final value of the investment, converted to US$. Thats what you wanted, right?  You'll get that.  If you also hedge, unless you have a situation where it is a perfect hedge, then you are gambling on what the currencies will do. A perfect hedge is unusual for what most individuals are involved in. It looks something like this:  you know ForeignCorp is going to pay you 10 million quatloos on Dec 31.  So you go to a bank (probably a foreign bank, I've found they have lower limits for this kind of transaction and more customizable than what you might create trading futures contracts), and tell them, ""I have this contract for a 10 million quatloo receivable on Dec 31, I'd like to arrange a FX forward contract and lock in a rate for this in US$/quatloo.""  They may have a credit check or a deposit for such an arrangement, because as the rates change either the bank will owe you money or you will owe the bank money. If they quote you 0.05 US$/quatloo, then you know that when you hand the cheque over to the bank your contract payment will be worth US$500,000.  The forward rate may differ from the current rate, thats how the bank accounts for risk and includes a profit. Even with a perfect hedge, you should be able to see the potential for trouble.  If the bank doesnt quite trust you, and hey, banks arent known for trust, then as the quatloo strengthens relative to the US$, they may suspect that you will walk away from the deal.  This risk can be reduced by including terms in the contract requiring you to pay the bank some quatloos as that happens.  If the quatloo falls you would get this money credited back to your account.  This is also how futures contracts work; there it is called ""mark to market accounting"".  Trouble lurks here.  Some people, seeing how they are down money on the hedge, cancel it.  It is a classic mistake because it undoes the protection that one was trying to achieve.  Often the rate will move back, and the hedger is left with less money than they would have had doing nothing, even though they bought a perfect hedge."