4 ms·

> upend the local economy and pay no taxes I understand that taxes are important to maintain local infrastructure, but up to a certain point, isn't it beneficia

by tifik 4y ago

> upend the local economy and pay no taxes I understand that taxes are important to maintain local infrastructure, but up to a certain point, isn't it beneficial having a few people literally bringing in foreign money to pay for the same products and services other locals pay for? There are places that officially encourage that behavior. I understand how that might eventually upend the local economy - it's called gentrification and while digital nomads certainly contribute to it, it surely can't be fully blamed on them. Places where people want to live at will eventually get gentrified in some shape or form. The logic behind labeling digital nomads as illegal immigrants completely eludes me. I genuinely don't understand why you would make that assumption.

paxys 4y ago
> The logic behind labeling digital nomads as illegal immigrants completely eludes me. I genuinely don't understand why you would make that assumption. Close to 100% of them are on tourist visas and are explicitly not allowed to work in the country. What else do you think an illegal immigrant is?
- panzagl 4y ago
  Usually it means work in the country you're visiting- I can't go to Mexico for a week and wait tables, but if I vacation there I still get paid by my employer.
  - UncleMeat 4y ago
    Vacation sure. But if you want to work from these countries then you can't be on a tourist visa.
    - tifik 4y ago
      It comes down to how you define 'working from a country'. Doesn't it mean 'being employed by a local company and paying income taxes' there? If I go on a vacation and respond to a few work-related emails, am I breaking any laws because I'm working on a tourist visa? Yes, that is ad absurdum, but I'm trying to point out that it's not as clear cut. There is a line that international treaties define, and staying someplace (sometimes even up to 6 months) and working there doesn't necessarily have any income tax implications for you or your employer.
      - triceratops 4y ago
        > If I go on a vacation and respond to a few work-related emails Law isn't code. Reasonable people (judges, normally) are able to decide what is "actually working" and "incidentally working while on vacation".
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
  - triceratops 4y ago
    The two examples you gave are not equivalent. It's not about whether you're working for a Mexican employer or not when you're in Mexico. It's about whether you're working at all.
    - tifik 4y ago
      > It's about whether you're working at all. Yes, but 'work' also has a legal definition. My research mostly involves Canada, so I will cite from the IIRC [1]: "What kind of activities are not considered to be “work”? An activity which does not really 'take away' from opportunities for Canadians or permanent residents to gain employment or experience in the workplace is not “work” for the purposes of the definition. ... - long distance (by telephone or Internet) work done by a temporary resident whose employer is outside Canada and who is remunerated from outside Canada; ... We recognize that there may be overlap in activities that we do not consider to be work and those activities which are defined as work not requiring a work permit in R186. However, the net effect (no work permit required) is the same." So yes, you can work remotely from Canada, while on a tourist visa, for a foreign (non-Canadian) employer. A lot of OECD countries have treaties (look up 'double-taxation treaty between A and B'), that govern this. 1 - https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/publications-manuals/operational-bulletins-manuals/temporary-residents/foreign-workers/what-is-work.html https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/co...
      - triceratops 4y ago
        > This section contains policy, procedures and guidance used by IRCC staff. It is posted on the department’s website as a courtesy to stakeholders. My point, which I also made in another comment in this thread, is that law isn't code. If you spend 3-6 months every year on a tourist visa in Canada working for your US employer, Canada's going to cotton on eventually and take action. If you do it a few weeks a year, you'll likely be fine. Their test is "are you directly or indirectly competing with a Canadian worker?". If your employer is really ok with you being abroad 3-6 months/year then they should, presumably, also be ok with hiring Canadians or legal permanent residents to do the same work 12 months/year from Canada.
- tifik 4y ago
  > Close to 100% Can you share the source for this data? I find it exceptionally difficult to believe. I do not condone people doing anything illegal. But you can maintain the lifestyle of a 'digital nomad' while not breaking any laws whatsoever. I definitely do not believe that 'close to a 100%' of people would risk their jobs, the wrath of the tax man and potential prison time by not abiding by the relevant legislature, especially given that there are usually many available options.
  - 0x457 4y ago
    Well, say you're working for US company, and you're US citizen. You move somewhere else and still working for that US company. Now, try to get a work visa or work permit in this case. What are you going to do? Got to country X consulate and say "I want to work for the US company while I stay in your country, can I haz visa?" But it entirely depends on local laws. Canada allows you to work for non-Canadian company that has no business in Canada. Things, a bit more complicated when you sell goods and services in Canada, though. Spain has new digital-nomad visas that allow working in company that aren't in EEA. Before that, like many others EEA countries, they didn't allow working on tourist visa.
    - maerF0x0 4y ago
      > "I want to work for the US company while I stay in your country, can I haz visa?" Yes. As we've been learning for 20+ years from the music industry. If you restrict easy access to what people want or make unrealistic demands, then people just side step you. But if you make it easy and accessible people happily pay. Obviously the details vary, but frequently the terms are as egregious as 1. Regardless of length of stay we now want a % of your annual earnings 2. The process involved takes orders of magnitude longer than your stay 3. The typical legal fees involved is orders of magnitude greater than what you'll even earn in the time period, meaning your best alterative to "No" is actually to take time off, paid or unpaid 4. You're literally bringing them an opportunity so it feels unjust to be barred. An opportunity to have tourist income -- something that many countries _pay_ to compete for. There will be a massive upside for the first country to have a safe desirable location, with fantastic internet, and visa policies that make sense in the above rubric.

by tifik 4y ago

paxys 4y ago

> The logic behind labeling digital nomads as illegal immigrants completely eludes me. I genuinely don't understand why you would make that assumption. Close to 100% of them are on tourist visas and are explicitly not allowed to work in the country. What else do you think an illegal immigrant is?

panzagl 4y ago
Usually it means work in the country you're visiting- I can't go to Mexico for a week and wait tables, but if I vacation there I still get paid by my employer.
- UncleMeat 4y ago
  Vacation sure. But if you want to work from these countries then you can't be on a tourist visa.
  - tifik 4y ago
    It comes down to how you define 'working from a country'. Doesn't it mean 'being employed by a local company and paying income taxes' there? If I go on a vacation and respond to a few work-related emails, am I breaking any laws because I'm working on a tourist visa? Yes, that is ad absurdum, but I'm trying to point out that it's not as clear cut. There is a line that international treaties define, and staying someplace (sometimes even up to 6 months) and working there doesn't necessarily have any income tax implications for you or your employer.
    - triceratops 4y ago
      > If I go on a vacation and respond to a few work-related emails Law isn't code. Reasonable people (judges, normally) are able to decide what is "actually working" and "incidentally working while on vacation".
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
- triceratops 4y ago
  The two examples you gave are not equivalent. It's not about whether you're working for a Mexican employer or not when you're in Mexico. It's about whether you're working at all.
  - tifik 4y ago
    > It's about whether you're working at all. Yes, but 'work' also has a legal definition. My research mostly involves Canada, so I will cite from the IIRC [1]: "What kind of activities are not considered to be “work”? An activity which does not really 'take away' from opportunities for Canadians or permanent residents to gain employment or experience in the workplace is not “work” for the purposes of the definition. ... - long distance (by telephone or Internet) work done by a temporary resident whose employer is outside Canada and who is remunerated from outside Canada; ... We recognize that there may be overlap in activities that we do not consider to be work and those activities which are defined as work not requiring a work permit in R186. However, the net effect (no work permit required) is the same." So yes, you can work remotely from Canada, while on a tourist visa, for a foreign (non-Canadian) employer. A lot of OECD countries have treaties (look up 'double-taxation treaty between A and B'), that govern this. 1 - https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/publications-manuals/operational-bulletins-manuals/temporary-residents/foreign-workers/what-is-work.html https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/co...
    - triceratops 4y ago
      > This section contains policy, procedures and guidance used by IRCC staff. It is posted on the department’s website as a courtesy to stakeholders. My point, which I also made in another comment in this thread, is that law isn't code. If you spend 3-6 months every year on a tourist visa in Canada working for your US employer, Canada's going to cotton on eventually and take action. If you do it a few weeks a year, you'll likely be fine. Their test is "are you directly or indirectly competing with a Canadian worker?". If your employer is really ok with you being abroad 3-6 months/year then they should, presumably, also be ok with hiring Canadians or legal permanent residents to do the same work 12 months/year from Canada.
tifik 4y ago
> Close to 100% Can you share the source for this data? I find it exceptionally difficult to believe. I do not condone people doing anything illegal. But you can maintain the lifestyle of a 'digital nomad' while not breaking any laws whatsoever. I definitely do not believe that 'close to a 100%' of people would risk their jobs, the wrath of the tax man and potential prison time by not abiding by the relevant legislature, especially given that there are usually many available options.
- 0x457 4y ago
  Well, say you're working for US company, and you're US citizen. You move somewhere else and still working for that US company. Now, try to get a work visa or work permit in this case. What are you going to do? Got to country X consulate and say "I want to work for the US company while I stay in your country, can I haz visa?" But it entirely depends on local laws. Canada allows you to work for non-Canadian company that has no business in Canada. Things, a bit more complicated when you sell goods and services in Canada, though. Spain has new digital-nomad visas that allow working in company that aren't in EEA. Before that, like many others EEA countries, they didn't allow working on tourist visa.
  - maerF0x0 4y ago
    > "I want to work for the US company while I stay in your country, can I haz visa?" Yes. As we've been learning for 20+ years from the music industry. If you restrict easy access to what people want or make unrealistic demands, then people just side step you. But if you make it easy and accessible people happily pay. Obviously the details vary, but frequently the terms are as egregious as 1. Regardless of length of stay we now want a % of your annual earnings 2. The process involved takes orders of magnitude longer than your stay 3. The typical legal fees involved is orders of magnitude greater than what you'll even earn in the time period, meaning your best alterative to "No" is actually to take time off, paid or unpaid 4. You're literally bringing them an opportunity so it feels unjust to be barred. An opportunity to have tourist income -- something that many countries _pay_ to compete for. There will be a massive upside for the first country to have a safe desirable location, with fantastic internet, and visa policies that make sense in the above rubric.