3 ms·

> driving up the cost of living for locals. That means they are spending a lot of money they earn on the local economy itself no? So even if their taxes are h

> driving up the cost of living for locals. That means they are spending a lot of money they earn on the local economy itself no? So even if their taxes are higher, if they are creating value in the economy, the locals do end up seeing those benefits imo. From the perspective of a someone in country that loses a lot of talented/educated citizens to brain drain, If i were in charge of a country to which high skilled immigrants flock to - even if it is for a limited time, I'd try to see what I can do to convert them to permanent residents. It is a tricky thing to balance because the locals shouldn't feel like second class citizens in their own lands. But at the same time, if skilled people are migrating away - that's a lot of missed potential/opportunity.

izacus 3y ago
What kind of money are they spending? Besides money directly transferred to wealth land owners via rents, some service owners, the rest goes back to savings to be spend after leaving the country. How are most netherlanders actually benefiting here?
- ouroborosidiots 3y ago
  Land owners do end up paying tax on all the money they earn no? And if people are living in a country, they still tend to spend at least 50-60% of it in the local economy itself. (Anecdotal numbers based on expat friends' spending there). So the expats spend their home country resources for 20-25 years to get educated and be qualified enough to leave it and contribute to a different country's economy, taxes. Now the host country didn't spend any of it's resources in it's education, nor will it contribute to their healthcare - which typically becomes a burden only once they are older, by when they'd have left the country. Still seems like a net positive to me. Just can't put a number on it though. (wrt the 30% tax benefit).
  - izacus 3y ago
    So basically you're making living for locals unaffordable to trade of for tiny amount of taxes from expats and tiny amount of landowner taxes (which are avoided if possible via tax avoidance schemes)? Sounds like a terrible tradeoff, isn't it? I also don't get your focus on education, this is Europe, not US where college costs 200.000EUR per person, the aggregate education costs don't even come close to tax breaks.
    - ouroborosidiots 3y ago
      > So basically you're making living for locals unaffordable to trade of for tiny amount of taxes from expats and tiny amount of landowner taxes (which are avoided if possible via tax avoidance schemes)? Living for locals getting expensive is because of higher paying jobs - whether or not it is the immigrants who are helping build those industries - no? What is stopping local realtors building more affordable housing for more people? Imo. these immigrants are just accelerating the process of those industries being built. And I meant more than just taxes. Expat friends of mine are spending 50-60% of their income in the local economy itself. So even if they are getting taxed at 20-30% lower rate for the first 5 years, they probably spent a lot more than the missing 20-30% taxes to gain the skills needed to move there. Do keep in mind that the employers won't be hiring them and moving them from elsewhere if they are not generating more revenue than they are taking in.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

izacus 3y ago

What kind of money are they spending? Besides money directly transferred to wealth land owners via rents, some service owners, the rest goes back to savings to be spend after leaving the country. How are most netherlanders actually benefiting here?

ouroborosidiots 3y ago
Land owners do end up paying tax on all the money they earn no? And if people are living in a country, they still tend to spend at least 50-60% of it in the local economy itself. (Anecdotal numbers based on expat friends' spending there). So the expats spend their home country resources for 20-25 years to get educated and be qualified enough to leave it and contribute to a different country's economy, taxes. Now the host country didn't spend any of it's resources in it's education, nor will it contribute to their healthcare - which typically becomes a burden only once they are older, by when they'd have left the country. Still seems like a net positive to me. Just can't put a number on it though. (wrt the 30% tax benefit).
- izacus 3y ago
  So basically you're making living for locals unaffordable to trade of for tiny amount of taxes from expats and tiny amount of landowner taxes (which are avoided if possible via tax avoidance schemes)? Sounds like a terrible tradeoff, isn't it? I also don't get your focus on education, this is Europe, not US where college costs 200.000EUR per person, the aggregate education costs don't even come close to tax breaks.
  - ouroborosidiots 3y ago
    > So basically you're making living for locals unaffordable to trade of for tiny amount of taxes from expats and tiny amount of landowner taxes (which are avoided if possible via tax avoidance schemes)? Living for locals getting expensive is because of higher paying jobs - whether or not it is the immigrants who are helping build those industries - no? What is stopping local realtors building more affordable housing for more people? Imo. these immigrants are just accelerating the process of those industries being built. And I meant more than just taxes. Expat friends of mine are spending 50-60% of their income in the local economy itself. So even if they are getting taxed at 20-30% lower rate for the first 5 years, they probably spent a lot more than the missing 20-30% taxes to gain the skills needed to move there. Do keep in mind that the employers won't be hiring them and moving them from elsewhere if they are not generating more revenue than they are taking in.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]