11 ms·

Is there any location that likes having nomads living with them? They aren't part of the community, they dont pay taxes, they usually get paid a lot more than t

by zz865 5y ago

Is there any location that likes having nomads living with them? They aren't part of the community, they dont pay taxes, they usually get paid a lot more than the locals but dont spend it locally. Dont get me started on van-life nomads who really are parasites on any community they descend on - adding nothing and enjoying everything.

dewey 5y ago
> They aren't part of the community, they dont pay taxes So not much different than tourists that are welcome to spend their money in countries?
- zz865 5y ago
  Tourists aren't that welcome anymore. Tourists do things during the day, they dont sit behind a laptop all the time. They spend a lot of money each day then go home after a week or two.
- alistairSH 5y ago
  Unlike nomads, tourists aren't earning income while on vacation, so there's no income tax to be paid. Nomads earn income but don't pay local income tax (hopefully they at least pay it in the their "home" jurisdiction). Tourists tend to stay in highly taxed hotels or short-term rentals. Nomads might do that, but they also couch surf, camp, live in vans, etc. Tourists dine out more than a typical resident, which in most places is taxed higher than groceries. And simply based on length of stay, a nomad is more likely to consume expensive services like medical care. With all that said, there should be a way for people to work wherever they want (and pay appropriate taxes while doing so).
  - bogwog 5y ago
    Unless they're doing some shady things, it doesn't seem to me like a city/community will lose money on a nomad. They still need to pay for goods and services, housing, travel, etc. Local business makes money, and government taxes it. Traditional tourists may spend more money, but nomads still likely spend more than locals do.
    - alistairSH 5y ago
      In a lower income area, that's certainly possibly. But, in a higher income area? I doubt it. A single mid-career developer in the US is going to pay somewhere around 20% in income taxes (combined federal, state/local, FICA, after 401k contributions and taking standard deduction). A nomad living in my area (DC metro) would have to consume a lot of stuff to make up for that tax shortfall.
      - andrewzah 5y ago
        This is moreso a failing of states to capitalize on remote workers. Plenty of people would just get a visa if possible. But it's very complex for most countries, and especially the USA. edit: Estonia is the only one that I know of that explicitly considers the position of being employed by a company located in a foreign country. https://e-resident.gov.ee/nomadvisa/ https://e-resident.gov.ee/nomadvisa/
        alistairSH 5y ago
        This is moreso a failing of states to capitalize on remote workers. Plenty of people would just get a visa if possible. But it's very complex for most countries, and especially the USA. Absolutely agree. I'm not anti-nomad - I'd love to do it myself. But, the hurdles of doing are too high to make the leap. Hell, even doing it within the US isn't easy because of state taxes. And I'd want to visit places for more than the typical 90-day tourist visa - probably more like a year at a time.
      - dragonwriter 5y ago
        A nomad that isn't also a criminal tax evader doesn't have an income tax shortfall to make up in most US jurisdictions, since most US jurisdictions with an income tax levy it on all income earned while in the jurisdiction. There may be a state or local payroll tax shortfall, because those have different standards, but usually directly fund benefit programs for which the nomad worker isn't eligible as a result of the same rules, so its a wash.
    - andrewzah 5y ago
  - netjiro 5y ago
    > And simply based on length of stay, a nomad is more likely to consume expensive services like medical care. Unlikely. Age distribution of tourists is significantly older than nomads. Younger people require significantly less medical expenditure than older. Older people also take longer than average vacations. Regardless, both nomads and tourists are generally covered by medical insurance.
postsantum 5y ago
They pay VAT at the very least
cblconfederate 5y ago
Everyone who works in the digital economy is avoiding taxes because of its nature. Nomads do it themselves, while big tech corporates do it for their workers.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> They aren't part of the community, they dont pay taxes If they buy things, they pay consumption taxes. If they rent accommodations, they pay (indirectly) property taxes, and (depending on the particular accommodations) potentially extra short-term residency taxes. Unless they are scofflaws, they probably also pay any applicablr income taxes, which most taxing jurisdictions levy on any income earned in the jurisdiction (which nomads are, for the duration of their stay).

by zz865 5y ago

dewey 5y ago

> They aren't part of the community, they dont pay taxes So not much different than tourists that are welcome to spend their money in countries?

zz865 5y ago
Tourists aren't that welcome anymore. Tourists do things during the day, they dont sit behind a laptop all the time. They spend a lot of money each day then go home after a week or two.
alistairSH 5y ago
Unlike nomads, tourists aren't earning income while on vacation, so there's no income tax to be paid. Nomads earn income but don't pay local income tax (hopefully they at least pay it in the their "home" jurisdiction). Tourists tend to stay in highly taxed hotels or short-term rentals. Nomads might do that, but they also couch surf, camp, live in vans, etc. Tourists dine out more than a typical resident, which in most places is taxed higher than groceries. And simply based on length of stay, a nomad is more likely to consume expensive services like medical care. With all that said, there should be a way for people to work wherever they want (and pay appropriate taxes while doing so).
- bogwog 5y ago
  Unless they're doing some shady things, it doesn't seem to me like a city/community will lose money on a nomad. They still need to pay for goods and services, housing, travel, etc. Local business makes money, and government taxes it. Traditional tourists may spend more money, but nomads still likely spend more than locals do.
  - alistairSH 5y ago
    In a lower income area, that's certainly possibly. But, in a higher income area? I doubt it. A single mid-career developer in the US is going to pay somewhere around 20% in income taxes (combined federal, state/local, FICA, after 401k contributions and taking standard deduction). A nomad living in my area (DC metro) would have to consume a lot of stuff to make up for that tax shortfall.
    - andrewzah 5y ago
      This is moreso a failing of states to capitalize on remote workers. Plenty of people would just get a visa if possible. But it's very complex for most countries, and especially the USA. edit: Estonia is the only one that I know of that explicitly considers the position of being employed by a company located in a foreign country. https://e-resident.gov.ee/nomadvisa/ https://e-resident.gov.ee/nomadvisa/
      - alistairSH 5y ago
        This is moreso a failing of states to capitalize on remote workers. Plenty of people would just get a visa if possible. But it's very complex for most countries, and especially the USA. Absolutely agree. I'm not anti-nomad - I'd love to do it myself. But, the hurdles of doing are too high to make the leap. Hell, even doing it within the US isn't easy because of state taxes. And I'd want to visit places for more than the typical 90-day tourist visa - probably more like a year at a time.
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      A nomad that isn't also a criminal tax evader doesn't have an income tax shortfall to make up in most US jurisdictions, since most US jurisdictions with an income tax levy it on all income earned while in the jurisdiction. There may be a state or local payroll tax shortfall, because those have different standards, but usually directly fund benefit programs for which the nomad worker isn't eligible as a result of the same rules, so its a wash.
  - andrewzah 5y ago
- netjiro 5y ago
  > And simply based on length of stay, a nomad is more likely to consume expensive services like medical care. Unlikely. Age distribution of tourists is significantly older than nomads. Younger people require significantly less medical expenditure than older. Older people also take longer than average vacations. Regardless, both nomads and tourists are generally covered by medical insurance.

postsantum 5y ago

They pay VAT at the very least

cblconfederate 5y ago

Everyone who works in the digital economy is avoiding taxes because of its nature. Nomads do it themselves, while big tech corporates do it for their workers.

dragonwriter 5y ago

> They aren't part of the community, they dont pay taxes If they buy things, they pay consumption taxes. If they rent accommodations, they pay (indirectly) property taxes, and (depending on the particular accommodations) potentially extra short-term residency taxes. Unless they are scofflaws, they probably also pay any applicablr income taxes, which most taxing jurisdictions levy on any income earned in the jurisdiction (which nomads are, for the duration of their stay).