5 ms·
The benefit is similar to remittances - you get a huge influx of hard currency as digital nomads freely spend their high salaries. That does create jobs and rai
by closewith 1y ago
The benefit is similar to remittances - you get a huge influx of hard currency as digital nomads freely spend their high salaries. That does create jobs and raises tax revenue through consumption taxes and downstream employment. It's very similar to tourism - digital nomads are effectively semi-permanent tourists.
However, like tourism, it causes inflation, prices out locals, and can detract from more sustainable, natural economic growth (the so-called tourism curse). So like tourism, developed economies inevitably place limits on digital nomads.
That can take the form of stricter visas, capped numbers, or by implementing tax reforms.
- FirmwareBurner 1y agoSince digital nomads use the same public infrastructure and amenities as the people who live and work there, why shouldn't they also pay the same taxes?
- closewith 1y agoI think it's up to each country. Some jurisdictions have done very well from allowing digital nomads. Personally, though, I think they should be subject to local taxes and I'm glad they are in my country.
- FirmwareBurner 1y ago>Some jurisdictions have done very well from allowing digital nomads. Which? How did they "do well?
- techcode 1y agoNomads and even more permanent expats use less of the infrastructure and amenities. Not just for periods before and after they are living there - also during their stay. For example. If they (nomads) lose their (remote) job - they won't get social benefits payments like the "locals". They (nomads) also don't accrue retirement/pension which is usually part of income taxes. And of course they pay all the other "taxes". If they rent/buy anything - there's VAT. If they drive around in their car - they pay registration, insurance, road tax, highway tolls. Pretty sure they also need to purchase some sort of health insurance.
- closewith 1y agoI think it's pretty clear that digital nomads, like tourists, use _more_ taxpayer resources because they use public infrastructure much more than the locals, who like most people globally live simpler lives mostly at home.
- techcode 1y agoIt's not clear to me. Perhaps we have different ideas about what "taxpayer resources" and/or "public infrastructure" is? I was highly skilled migrant/expat, now "naturalized Dutch", and work for Booking.com - so I know a thing or two about tourism (beyond just traveling myself). Tourists least, digital nomads a bit more, and expats even more - use public infrastructure. But over lifetime, locals use order of magnitude more than expats.
- closewith 1y ago> I was highly skilled migrant/expat, now "naturalized Dutch", and work for Booking.com - Interesting. We may know each other. Are you C-suite? > so I know a thing or two about tourism (beyond just traveling myself). Appeals to authority are always suspect, but it takes staggering arrogance to claim employment at Booking.com as your authority on the economic impact of tourism. But you know the old saying about making a person understand something when their pay cheque depends on them not doing so. > Tourists least, digital nomads a bit more, and expats even more - use public infrastructure. You have this order exactly backwards, with tourists using proportionately the most public infrastructure, and residents the least.
- techcode 1y agoI'm not C-suite - I gave up on management track long time ago. I'm still waiting to see how/why my order of who's using public infrastructure is wrong/opposite. Care to explain?
- techcode 1y agoWhile I agree that appeals to authority are suspicious - no idea how "I know a thing or two about tourism" could be interpreted as claiming "authority on the economic impact of tourism". So far your views/opinions seem to be very "black and white". And beyond stating them - I'm yet to see anything to support or even just explain/elaborate them.
- jurking_hoff 1y ago[dead]