> They aren't part of the community, they dont pay taxes
So not much different than tourists that are welcome to spend their money in countries?
So not much different than tourists that are welcome to spend their money in countries?
Tourists tend to stay in highly taxed hotels or short-term rentals. Nomads might do that, but they also couch surf, camp, live in vans, etc.
Tourists dine out more than a typical resident, which in most places is taxed higher than groceries.
And simply based on length of stay, a nomad is more likely to consume expensive services like medical care.
With all that said, there should be a way for people to work wherever they want (and pay appropriate taxes while doing so).
Traditional tourists may spend more money, but nomads still likely spend more than locals do.
But, in a higher income area? I doubt it. A single mid-career developer in the US is going to pay somewhere around 20% in income taxes (combined federal, state/local, FICA, after 401k contributions and taking standard deduction).
A nomad living in my area (DC metro) would have to consume a lot of stuff to make up for that tax shortfall.
edit: Estonia is the only one that I know of that explicitly considers the position of being employed by a company located in a foreign country. https://e-resident.gov.ee/nomadvisa/
Absolutely agree. I'm not anti-nomad - I'd love to do it myself. But, the hurdles of doing are too high to make the leap. Hell, even doing it within the US isn't easy because of state taxes. And I'd want to visit places for more than the typical 90-day tourist visa - probably more like a year at a time.
There may be a state or local payroll tax shortfall, because those have different standards, but usually directly fund benefit programs for which the nomad worker isn't eligible as a result of the same rules, so its a wash.
I would gladly get a visa and pay taxes to enroll in the healthcare system... but it's quite difficult. That's another discussion, though.
That's the main complaint I've heard - nomads don't pay local income taxes, but consume services more like a local than a tourist.
Don't be so sure about this. Link?
E.g: Sweden 2020, income taxes 31% vs VAT 22% of total tax revenue.
Nomads are great. They drop by in prime productive age, stay for a bit and generate tax revenue. Only stay as long as they have money, no social security costs. Have medical insurance.
? How do you calculate to get them to be net negative to your society ?
For a resident with $100,000 income... $31,000 in income taxes. Assuming no savings and all consumption taxed at 22%, that's ~$15k in consumption taxes. Total tax burden ~$46k.
For a US-based nomad with $100k income, paying US income taxes (~20% fed/state combined), that's $80k to spend and <$18k in total taxes.
$28,000 delta. That $28k is being spent on something (military, police, whatever). Maybe the nomad isn't using any services that the $28k delta is funding. I don't know. But, just on the rough math, a nomad pays less in tax than a resident.
I guess the real question is does a nomad use services more like a short-term tourist or more like a long-term resident? And does the consumption taxes paid end up as a positive or a negative? How long does a nomad have to reside in an area to consume enough services to need to pay income tax? I don't know the answer - I only know the nomad is absolutely paying less in total tax burden than a resident.
Unlikely. Age distribution of tourists is significantly older than nomads. Younger people require significantly less medical expenditure than older. Older people also take longer than average vacations.
Regardless, both nomads and tourists are generally covered by medical insurance.
Tourists do things during the day, they dont sit behind a laptop all the time. They spend a lot of money each day then go home after a week or two.