3 ms·

I think 'spending [money] there' is maybe not quite enough. Taxes pay for infrastructure maintenance, law enforcement, fire, public safety concerns, etc. If y

I think 'spending [money] there' is maybe not quite enough. Taxes pay for infrastructure maintenance, law enforcement, fire, public safety concerns, etc. If you're not being paid by a local entity and do not put the money in a local bank account, it's really hard (for the local gov) to figure out/prove how much you should pay in taxes. Basically you might be a drain on resources and the community if you don't pay taxes, even if you're spending some money there. That's likely what they are trying to avoid.

devoply 10y ago
Well tourists are similarly a "drain" on the economy. Yet they are welcome. Logically speaking, they are as much as drain a "digital nomads". For the period they are there they use as much infrastructure as digital nomads. Yet no one thinks about taxing tourists.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- ska 10y ago
  You are oversimplifying things. The two are only equivalent if the average daily spend on tourism related activities is the same. After all, taxes, fees, and jobs (and hence taxes at one remove) are generated in these activities with a specific eye to counterbalancing the "drain". The goal is a net positive effect. If you are minimizing the amount of money you spend while doing remote work, you may well be on the "wrong" side of this balance, from a revenue point of view.
  - devoply 10y ago
    Back packers are a similar category. They live in hostels and spend minimum amount on tourism. They are still tourists by every definition of the word.
    - ska 10y ago
      Obviously - that's what I meant about a "net positive". It's reasonable to expect you can find individual tourists who use more in infrastructure than they contribute to the local economy - the system doesn't break down so long as the average case means overall it is significantly net positive. If "digital nomads" are net negative, then I expect you'll see eventually constraints arise. Assuming long enough for a) local governments to figure this out and b) that it's a big enough impact to care about. It's also plausible that "digital nomads" remain such a small number of people that nobody is really fussed about the impact, and the legalities of what they are doing remaining fuzzy is only used as a justification to refuse visa/entry to anyone who has proved annoying to the people who issue same.
- allendoerfer 10y ago
  > Yet no one thinks about taxing tourists. German speaking countries do tax tourists. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ortstaxe https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ortstaxe

devoply 10y ago

Well tourists are similarly a "drain" on the economy. Yet they are welcome. Logically speaking, they are as much as drain a "digital nomads". For the period they are there they use as much infrastructure as digital nomads. Yet no one thinks about taxing tourists.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
ska 10y ago
You are oversimplifying things. The two are only equivalent if the average daily spend on tourism related activities is the same. After all, taxes, fees, and jobs (and hence taxes at one remove) are generated in these activities with a specific eye to counterbalancing the "drain". The goal is a net positive effect. If you are minimizing the amount of money you spend while doing remote work, you may well be on the "wrong" side of this balance, from a revenue point of view.
- devoply 10y ago
  Back packers are a similar category. They live in hostels and spend minimum amount on tourism. They are still tourists by every definition of the word.
  - ska 10y ago
    Obviously - that's what I meant about a "net positive". It's reasonable to expect you can find individual tourists who use more in infrastructure than they contribute to the local economy - the system doesn't break down so long as the average case means overall it is significantly net positive. If "digital nomads" are net negative, then I expect you'll see eventually constraints arise. Assuming long enough for a) local governments to figure this out and b) that it's a big enough impact to care about. It's also plausible that "digital nomads" remain such a small number of people that nobody is really fussed about the impact, and the legalities of what they are doing remaining fuzzy is only used as a justification to refuse visa/entry to anyone who has proved annoying to the people who issue same.
allendoerfer 10y ago
> Yet no one thinks about taxing tourists. German speaking countries do tax tourists. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ortstaxe https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ortstaxe