5 ms·

I'm not the person you're replying to but my personal issue with a lot of "digital nomadism" in Asia specifically is that it depends on lax enforcement of visa

by spats1990 6y ago

I'm not the person you're replying to but my personal issue with a lot of "digital nomadism" in Asia specifically is that it depends on lax enforcement of visa laws. A lot of people working remotely in Asian countries are on three month tourist visas that explicitly prohibit work. Doing endless visa runs and not paying any tax to the host country, in fact not providing any value beyond what you consume, even while taking advantage of tax funded public infrastructure, seems wrong to me. In most of East Asia at least, visas for foreigners are tight in the sense that visas allowing you to live in the country and do whatever work you choose are hard to come by. Most visas for foreigners allow a specific type of work only and prohibit others. I busted my ass to get a three-year visa in Korea that would allow me to be self employed so these people's blind certainty that they are in the right/reliance on western privilege* to avoid being caught bugs me a bit. When challenged they fall back on letter of the law vs spirit of the law prevarication: "so what if I came here on holiday and happened to do some urgent remote work for my company back home, would that be illegal?" Well, you aren't in that situation; you have an apartment and a cellphone number and you're on your third tourist visa in a row. *by which I mean, less intense scrutiny at the border, which seems to be a privilege of westerners (I am one) in these countries vs. say, south east asians.

robocat 6y ago
> in fact not providing any value beyond what you consume, even while taking advantage of tax funded public infrastructure, seems wrong to me I would expect the economic benefit to the country to be significantly positive: 1. Every dollar spent is foreign income 2. Limited future costs to governmen: no retirement (huge cost), no unemployment benefits, no health (tourists should be insured - foreign income if actually need to use health services), no education. 3. Taxation still occurs (sales tax, wages of anyone working in a business the tourist uses). edit: 4. If the working tourist wasn’t in the country, the country would see zero of that income... It is marginal income. edit: In New Zealand for example: 1/2 of NZ government spending is on social welfare and education; another 1/4 is on finance; and Sales tax is 12.5%. We should encourage foreigners to work here as there’s no way their spending wouldn’t help the country, especially if they are earning a lot and spending a lot. Working visas allow people to take jobs from locals, which not what “digital nomads” are doing.
- spats1990 6y ago
  Yeah, for sure. I was including sales tax etc in "what you consume". And there's actually a good argument to be made that countries that are popular digital nomad destinations could benefit greatly from setting up a specific visa class for remote workers. Most visa laws do not take remote work into account, or else unenforceably prohibit other sources of income, and a country that took a careful look at the up and downsides and set something up accordingly could reap serious benefits. Morally it's a bit hazy at the moment. But if we think we'd be OK with someone living in our own country in three month chunks, while all the income they generate that is not spent on local goods/services essentially goes offshore, then no problem I guess. Add to that the fact that for the analogy to be accurate, our hypothetical person would likely speak our country's language at an extremely basic level, or not at all. edit: just saw your edit and now I will have to edit accordingly >_< edit: >Working visas allow people to take jobs from locals, which not what “digital nomads” are doing. This is getting into slightly different ground than my OP. In the Asian countries I'm familiar with, almost all visas for foreigners do not take jobs from locals--they are for jobs locals can't do for whatever reason. I agree with some of what you wrote about NZ and digital nomads' spending generally, but I still think it's reasonable to expect tax revenues from someone who is employed and in a country longer than 180 days. That's when the NZ government starts to consider NZ citizens as NZ tax residents--after 180 days in country. "Wanna stick around? Gotta contribute." is just my basic view I think, but thanks for your input.
  - robocat 6y ago
    I did a quick squiz at numbers. GST and income tax are about equal sources of revenue to the NZ government[1], and social services plus education is about 1/2 of government expenditure. NZ export income is ~40 Billion, with 5 million inhabitants (USD4000 each). So anyone from a first world country earning overseas income and spending it here is a massive win for NZ, even without income tax (which pays for things they don’t get: social services and education)... So long as NZ can send them home if they stop spending, send them home if they can’t pay for expensive or chronic healthcare services, or send them home if it is causing significant negative social externalities. Even retirees from other countries should be welcome if they are spending savings. The Thailand example is more complicated and I did look at some of the economic numbers. I would struggle to see how getting significant foreign earnings could be anything but economically positive for Thailand - so long as the “digital nomads” are spending above say USD10000 per year and are not causing significant social harm.
csomar 6y ago
While I don't agree with breaking your Visa terms; I think you are not in the same boat as these guys. Doing Visa runs is exhausting, there is a price for stability and thus these guys are paying it accordingly. Also most of these countries (ie: Thailand) rely a lot on direct taxation and provide no services for foreigners. So they are not really leaching that much on government expense.

robocat 6y ago

> in fact not providing any value beyond what you consume, even while taking advantage of tax funded public infrastructure, seems wrong to me I would expect the economic benefit to the country to be significantly positive: 1. Every dollar spent is foreign income 2. Limited future costs to governmen: no retirement (huge cost), no unemployment benefits, no health (tourists should be insured - foreign income if actually need to use health services), no education. 3. Taxation still occurs (sales tax, wages of anyone working in a business the tourist uses). edit: 4. If the working tourist wasn’t in the country, the country would see zero of that income... It is marginal income. edit: In New Zealand for example: 1/2 of NZ government spending is on social welfare and education; another 1/4 is on finance; and Sales tax is 12.5%. We should encourage foreigners to work here as there’s no way their spending wouldn’t help the country, especially if they are earning a lot and spending a lot. Working visas allow people to take jobs from locals, which not what “digital nomads” are doing.

spats1990 6y ago
Yeah, for sure. I was including sales tax etc in "what you consume". And there's actually a good argument to be made that countries that are popular digital nomad destinations could benefit greatly from setting up a specific visa class for remote workers. Most visa laws do not take remote work into account, or else unenforceably prohibit other sources of income, and a country that took a careful look at the up and downsides and set something up accordingly could reap serious benefits. Morally it's a bit hazy at the moment. But if we think we'd be OK with someone living in our own country in three month chunks, while all the income they generate that is not spent on local goods/services essentially goes offshore, then no problem I guess. Add to that the fact that for the analogy to be accurate, our hypothetical person would likely speak our country's language at an extremely basic level, or not at all. edit: just saw your edit and now I will have to edit accordingly >_< edit: >Working visas allow people to take jobs from locals, which not what “digital nomads” are doing. This is getting into slightly different ground than my OP. In the Asian countries I'm familiar with, almost all visas for foreigners do not take jobs from locals--they are for jobs locals can't do for whatever reason. I agree with some of what you wrote about NZ and digital nomads' spending generally, but I still think it's reasonable to expect tax revenues from someone who is employed and in a country longer than 180 days. That's when the NZ government starts to consider NZ citizens as NZ tax residents--after 180 days in country. "Wanna stick around? Gotta contribute." is just my basic view I think, but thanks for your input.
- robocat 6y ago
  I did a quick squiz at numbers. GST and income tax are about equal sources of revenue to the NZ government[1], and social services plus education is about 1/2 of government expenditure. NZ export income is ~40 Billion, with 5 million inhabitants (USD4000 each). So anyone from a first world country earning overseas income and spending it here is a massive win for NZ, even without income tax (which pays for things they don’t get: social services and education)... So long as NZ can send them home if they stop spending, send them home if they can’t pay for expensive or chronic healthcare services, or send them home if it is causing significant negative social externalities. Even retirees from other countries should be welcome if they are spending savings. The Thailand example is more complicated and I did look at some of the economic numbers. I would struggle to see how getting significant foreign earnings could be anything but economically positive for Thailand - so long as the “digital nomads” are spending above say USD10000 per year and are not causing significant social harm.

csomar 6y ago

While I don't agree with breaking your Visa terms; I think you are not in the same boat as these guys. Doing Visa runs is exhausting, there is a price for stability and thus these guys are paying it accordingly. Also most of these countries (ie: Thailand) rely a lot on direct taxation and provide no services for foreigners. So they are not really leaching that much on government expense.