3 ms·
As a relatively poor country (for European standards) with, crucially, a lot of debt, it is very difficult to go for massive public spending projects as would b
by andrepd 4y ago
As a relatively poor country (for European standards) with, crucially, a lot of debt, it is very difficult to go for massive public spending projects as would be construction of enough public housing to bring it to the aforementioned 20% goal (there are actually proposals to this effect in Parliament), even though this would (1) help control the housing crisis and (2) actually easily turn up a profit in the mid-long run.
The EU could change all of this and go for true European cohesion with Eurobonds under the blue/red proposal... but that's another story ;)
> Generally, having all these big money foreigners trying to come to your country is a good thing. It sure beats having no industry and you can crank up the tax heat on them as high as you want since nonresident-noncitizens don't vote.
Well but do they? Where is the evidence that golden-visa/NHR recipients have actually helped create jobs, invest, create industry...? In fact, there appears to be evidence to the contrary: https://www.publico.pt/2021/12/25/economia/noticia/vistos-gold-nove-anos-programa-deu-origem-241-empregos-1989872 https://www.publico.pt/2021/12/25/economia/noticia/vistos-go... (translated: "Golden visa: in nine years, the program created 241 new jobs. Investments which led to the residency permits since 2012 amount to 6000 million euro, the vast majority of which went to real estate")
- dougmwne 4y agoTo your second point, that’s a policy problem. You can tax these golden visa real estate investors at any rate. You can have a different tax rate for nonresidents and an extremely high rate to penalize non-occupancy. The country might be poor and in debt overall, but somebody is getting rich off this real estate bubble and it is within the government’s power to make them share.