> When people only pay taxes indirectly, they are tourists. Digital nomads pay _much_ less tax overall than other people, because people who pay income tax pay indirect taxes as well

Bad argument, as the alternative is the DN (just as the tourist) simply not coming to the island. If a DN spends 2000€ a month, that is 2000€ taxable income for someone else. If the DN doesn't come someone else makes 2000€ less of income. This does not compare to people living in the place, as they are there no matter what. Every cent of foreign money flowing into your economy ON TOP is a bonus. It is only bad if it removes someone else who would spend that money, but that is not the case.

And if you would argue that the economy does not need more foreign money and you do not want productivity and wealth increase and have stay things as they are, you are advocating socalism - look at cuba, venezuela or argentina how that worked out.

▲

leononame 3 days ago | parent [-]

Well, that only counts if you see the DN as a net positive. Similar to tourists, a lot of people see DN as a net negative because they spend some money, sure, but they also raise rent and hospitality prices. This can harm local communities and economies because it may benefit few people over many or change where people have to go live.

Places relying on tourism as economic activity are very susceptible to economic crisis and it can even go as far as suppressing generation of jobs in other sectors and people leaving because you only find jobs in tourism or you can't afford to live in the city because Digital Nomads live there already. This is obviously exaggerated to make a point, but I think the point still stands in smaller scale.

Foreign money flowing in does not need to be a bonus. DN have the potential to change the microeconomy and in ways that affect your macroeconomy much more than just money flowing in.

Take a place like Barcelona, a famous example for people not being able to live there anymore due to high prices. On top of that, a lot of digital nomads don't interact much with local culture. When people start leaving, is the influx of DN money really still a net positive? Especially considering some of them don't even pay income tax?

I don't want to demonize immigration, but people moving somewhere and treating it like a cheaper version of their hometown is not a positive in any way, culturally or economically.

I am not arguing for socialism by saying that people coming and spending some money (not even that much) is not a sustainable way to do economy. I've got no problem with foreign investors building things that are actually valuable to the economy by building up industry, creating jobs or whatever. Cuba, Venezuela and Argentina have a whole lot of different problems and the reasons they are in the positions they are are much more nuanced than "socialism bad".

▲

littlecranky67 3 days ago | parent [-]

> Take a place like Barcelona, a famous example for people not being able to live there anymore due to high prices.

I always hear this bullshit "People can't afford to live there anymore". That is complete nonsense, because unless there are deserted buildings and empty apartments, people DO live there and people CAN afford it. Just not you.

▲

leononame 3 days ago | parent [-]

I feel like either you're really dense or you're misunderstanding me on purpose.

It's exactly my point that mist people can't afford to live their because they're being priced out by foreigners. Most people native to such an area see that as a net negative, regardless of how much you want to dress it up as people coming and spending their money.

▲

littlecranky67 3 days ago | parent [-]

I understand you perfectly clear, but to me you are spreading socialist ideas. If prices are high for a given scarce resource, it is because of high demand. Now you want to basically cut off demand (less foreigners, DNs) for prices to go down. But you do need the high price signal in order to create an incentive to create more of that resources.

In the case of the EU (I'm a german EU citizen living in another EU state) we are all equal in terms of freedom of movement. There are no "locals" that have for some reasons more rights to any resources than anyone else. Giving "locals" preferential rights is completely unfair, as this would be excercising some kind of birth right.

I myself getting priced out of vintage german sportscars myself, could we please cut the rights for non-germans to buy up those cars so I can afford one again? You can see how ridicioulous that would sound.

	▲	leononame 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		I think there's multiple things coming together. I'm in no way arguing to forbid immigration, I'm just pointing out that I don't think Digital Nomads are a net positive and that there are real economic consequences beyond "they spend money so it's good". I also specifically said I don't have a problem with anyone coming. You're welcome. I expect people that come to to a country to pay income tax there (as is usually required by law), but I'm in no way arguing to "cut off demand". Arguing that someone who would want to close borders and stop immigration (both of which policies I don't support at all, btw) is socialist is a bit far fetched. As I said, I welcome immigrants. Immigration brings with it a whole class of problems that need be addressed, but that doesn't mean it should be forbidden. And lastly, there's also a big difference between housing a vintage cars. One is an essential need, the other is not. You getting priced out of vintage cars, a luxury item, is not nearly as bad as you getting priced out of housing. That is a real problem that is actually happening in a lot of places, not some weird fantasy.