I believe digital nomadism is the trend of the future, and AI is making solo businesses increasingly complete and efficient.
Digital nomads make landlords and property owners richer so there's a high chance the system will be allowed indefinitely since a lot of Croatians are property owners so they directly or indirectly benefit from this gentrification.
The system will only be challenged in politics once enough young Croatian voters find themselves priced out of their own cities like in Barcelona or Lisbon.
Speaking as someone living in Austria ATM, that's the worst kind of industry you want to boost if you want more money in the community, as it only creates dead-end low wage unskilled jobs(often taken by seasonal immigrants who send that money home) and is rife with cash-driven tax evasion, leading to more wealth and income disparity. If you get more and richer tourists, you won't get better paid baristas or waiters with better pension plans, but wealthier business owners who will buy more properties and flashy cars while still hiring the cheapest most desperate labor possible from abroad.
As a government, you should do the opposite, focus on attracting or creating highly skilled innovation jobs (like NL or Sweden did) and the hospitality jobs will follow naturally.
There's a reason countries where the tourism industry is a big part of the GDP, are low income countries.
Unreal that you can't see the obvious logical flaw in this argument.
Outside of the direct coastal areas that already struggle with this issue from tourism, the brain drain that followed the 90s Independence War still left a sizable amount of empty real estate just sitting around.
And even in the direct coastal areas... a place to live is cheap. In doubt, just buy it, usually young people pool together some cash from relatives and some from bank loans to get started. Or they build it piece by piece, floor by floor, just like my grandparents did. Work a few years in a good job abroad, return to the homeland, build a house.
With what money? Doesn't matter, just buy it bro!
>young people pool together some cash from relatives
Where's my cash from my relatives? Guess I should have picked better parents.
>Or they build it piece by piece, floor by floor, just like my grandparents did.
Yes I'm sure building a house today is like in the 1950s. Same rules and regulations. I buy a small piece of land in the city and can just start laying bricks after work and then live in them.
Work in Germany, set aside money, go back to Croatia. Land and construction costs are really cheap compared to Germany. It's a common thing in Croatia.
> Yes I'm sure building a house today is like in the 1950s. Same rules and regulations. I buy a small piece of land in the city and can just start laying bricks after work and then live in them
You still can do that today and extend an existing structure after the initial permit/inspection. All you need is the lower stories be solid enough statically, and you can't use that to get around zoning limitation on building height/story count. And yes, you can even do that in the motherhood of bureaucracy that's colloquially called Germany.
So why isn't anyone doing it?
I've been working remote for 8 years now and it's never been easier and the amount of options worldwide is unreal.
‘There’s an arrogance to the way they move around the city’: is it time for digital nomads like me to leave Lisbon?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jul/27/lisbon-portuga...
I know the guardian can be very hand wringy, but digital nomads are going to get swept up in the general anti-migration narrative that most populaces are now feeling. Anti-mass-migration in most populations, anti-tourist in Venice, anti-nomad in Portugal.
Locals are feeling betrayed by their politicians and foreigners are an easy target to point at and say "why is this happening". The Lisbon example is especially egregious, with the digital nomads being taxed less than locals. Locals are subsidizing their lifestyles.
Can you name one digital nomad visa that has been scrapped in the last year or two?
I can name a few dozen that have been implemented.
When I started in 2017 there was maybe 3 or 4 places you could move on Earth with a six figure USD salary as a remote worker, it was always a grey zone to go places on tourist visas but that's how people rolled and countries knew how good a deal it was for them compared to raising/educating/supporting locals so let it slide. There's over 70 legal valid options now for remote workers in 2025.
The easily proven evidence doesn't stack up with the narrative people and newspapers likes the Guardian are trying to push for clicks.
I personally couldn't care less if locals don't like me. My own countrymen are jealous about me having a good paying remote job too.
Same feelings towards non-nomadic Expats in The Netherlands - because of the "30% tax free for Expats".
Meanwhile the truth is that some 15-20 years ago - Dutch government introduced that "30% tax rule" as a cost saving measures.
Previously expats in The Netherlands would collect bills/receipts for expatriation related expenses (e.g. language classes, international school for kids, differences in cost of living/housing ...etc).
And processing those tax claims was so much bureaucracy that Dutch government realized just giving expats 30% of gross income tax free for 10 years (reduced to 8 and then 5 years) is both less money than actual expenses used to be, and much less paperwork/cost.
And let's not forget that (definitely for non-nomadic expats, though arguably also for digital nomads) country didn't need to pay their birth/growing up, education ...etc.
And (especially for digital nomads) might not need to cover the costs for their old age health, retirement and such.
Also, many countries are "tightening down" their golden visa programs or removing them entirely. I have a friend who works for a golden visa consultancy, and they're already in the process of pivoting because of so many changes.
Assumed it was somewhere in that region because my European friends usually talk about it. Personally find it bizarre because the few thousand digital nomads are barely moving the needle compared to tourism or normal migration. It comes across as people getting very upset about a minor issue because they have rigid ideological views that prevent them from touching the main one. A convenient scapegoat but nothing will change in the slightest if the Portugese DN visa is scrapped.
You've created the easiest pathway to a EU passport and then wonder why the planet flocks there.
The simple solution here is to build enough housing to meet demand.
What AI is doing very effectively is allowing tax authorities to identify digital nomads illegally working in jurisdictions without registering for tax.
This contrasts with, for example, Ireland, where not only does a digital nomad's income become subject to local tax on day 1, so does their company (if they are the beneficial owner).
Croatia's approach is excellent if you want many wealthy (compared to local standards) people to bring an influx of hard currency into your economy, at the cost of inflation. Eventually the benefits outweigh the costs and the government begins to subject digital nomads to local taxation and stricter visa rules.
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.
Personally, though, I think they should be subject to local taxes and I'm glad they are in my country.
Which? How did they "do well?
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.
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.
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.
I'm still waiting to see how/why my order of who's using public infrastructure is wrong/opposite.
Care to explain?
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.
So what? Public/societal services aren't pay-as-you-go.
For example, I also never used any public schools in my current country nor do I have kids of my own who use them, but I still pay for them via my income taxes because that's what's necessary for a functioning society. You're not exempt from paying taxes just because you use less public services.
So why should digital nomads be exempt from contributions to the society they enjoy living in?
I am saying that over their lifetime - they use much less of the societal services in their "remote/nomadic" locations compared to lifetime-permanent/locals.
And governments calculated that in.
If you put it like that, other groups of people also use less societal services. Why aren't they getting the same tax exemptions too?
Personally - I'm happy for my taxes money to be used for police or firefighters (and other things) and I still hope I never really use/need them.
At the same time. If The Netherlands hadn't had 30% tax ruling for expats, wife and I would've went back after my initial 12 months contract.
Back in 2010/2011 - even with software engineer salary, until 30% tax rule was granted for me - we were chipping away money we saved up living in Serbia.
Back in <=2010 wife and I were earning €1500~€1750 in Belgrade. Saving at least a third of that. In the NL the ~€45k gross (before 30% tax rule was granted) was not enough for rent, food and other normal (no car, not eating out ...etc.) costs.
But Dutch had 30% ruling, so even with one newborn we could still make ends meet. And 15 years later The Netherlands has 2 adult tax payers (at 0 prior cost for NL), and 2 children (born there, so same societal/taxpayer cost as any other NL citizen/child).
Then .... we agree?
>At the same time. If The Netherlands hadn't had 30% tax ruling for expats, wife and I would've went back after my initial 12 months contract.
With all due respect, working for Booking in NL you were not a Digital Nomad, you were a local resident and local worker.
While you did get the tax reduction during that time, a local company in NL made use of your labor and not some foreign company like in the case of digital nomads.
It's apples to oranges
And while digital nomads and expats are indeed apples and oranges. It seems you're missing the parts where they are the same?
Both digital nomads and expats didn't cost the country anything while those nomads/expats were growing up, got education ...etc.
Perhaps it's USA centric vs the rest of more "socialistic" countries POV?
Outside of USA - (specifically in Croatia, but also many other countries) child birth, subsequent parental leave, daycare, school, college/university and children healthcare are subsidized or even "free". Of course "free" means paid by all the taxpayers of that country.
And yes - I think that bringing in expats (implying there being more local business/employers, more corporate and income taxes) is better for a country/economy than bringing in digital nomads.
However when economy is heavily relying on seasonal tourism (and it seems like most of countries with digital nomad visa programs are), they also tend not to be the most suitable for other types of services/innovation/manufacturing/etc business.
They usually still need to spend more money on building office spaces, change the laws to make it more attractive for business to incorporate there...etc. And overall not feel like a ghost town outside of tourist season.
Perhaps Croatia (and other countries with digital nomad visas) are counting on digital nomads leading to more office space being built, some of nomads staying and starting a business, etc
Yes. Then why should expats pay taxes and digital nomads not? Especially given that digital nomads will be the first to leave the moment the shit hits the fan and go to another country, while expats are more likely to stick around for various reasons like family, community, kids, familiarity, etc. It feels like the incentives are totally backwards unless your goal is more wealth inequality for the locals, more expensive housings, etc. You're screwing over the people who contribute the most while giving tax breaks to those who will leave on a whim.
Also, regarding your previous comment, your example with NL is an outlier in the EU. There's no way other countries here could give expats tax breaks and not collapse their welfare systems which are built on the socialist principles of having people constantly paying in the system, so they can't just do what NL does without going through a revolution.
The example is also survivorship bias since plenty of other people moved to NL to work on poverty wages initially lower than in their home countries, and then left because they didn't get to those magic six figure Booking wages. So the expats and the NL government got scammed, and the only winners were are the NL corporations exploiting cheap labor selling them the dream of potential future high wages that might not happen. Not exactly a society I dream of.
>Perhaps it's USA centric vs the rest of more "socialistic" countries POV?
What does this have to do with the USA? I'm talking from an EU point of view on what other EU countries are doing.
>when economy is heavily relying on seasonal tourism
Maybe it shouldn't. Because that only leads you into the tourist trap branch of Dutch diseases. Maybe it's best to build an economy on more tangible things that have some trick down effect, and not that only benefits landlords and hospitality business owners.
> digital nomads leading to more office space being built
How many digital nomads do you know who travel the world only to work in the same office spaces they try to escape from, and not from cafes and beaches?
That's by design of our employment laws. We are the ones whose social security system will have to pay up when the employer closes down shop or fires their remote employees over night, and we are the ones whose health system has to take care when people burn out from being overworked, so we demand that employers create a local subsidiary with people and bank accounts we can hold accountable when laws are being violated.
Oh, and we also want to make sure that people and companies pay their taxes.
You can contract with companies wherever you want as a company but you can only have an employment contract with a company based where the employment laws of your country applies.
It's not that complicated. The rules are relatively easy: as soon as you're embedded into the organization of the client (aka, you get laptops/desktops from them, get directed by their staff what you have to do) and/or the dominant part of your time / income is one single client, the assumption is that the client only does "contracting" to avoid the obligations (in wages, social security contributions and employee protection laws) that regular employment would bring with it.
The only issue that I have with the current regulatory framework is that the individual "sole proprietors" are held financially accountable for the social security contributions, not those who actually profit from this kind of abuse.
People should be free to contract if they want. Obviously that means they are now acting company-like and have to pay social contribution like a company would but that should be on the contractor not on the client. That’s how things work everywhere in Europe I had to deal with contracting.
Germany really is a puzzling country.
It's specific for "sole proprietor" contractors. Multi-person operations, consultancies and bodyshops are exempt as long as the employees get their contributions paid.
> Obviously that means they are now acting company-like and have to pay social contribution like a company would but that should be on the contractor not on the client.
That is possible, indeed, you can voluntarily pay pension contributions (and that's the stuff that the pension fund claws back). You can also voluntarily contribute to the unemployment benefits.
As long as you at least pay the pension contributions, you're fine. The unemployment benefits is voluntary, no penalties if you don't pay these, but also, no payouts when you gotta close down shop.
The problem is, good luck finding a client willing to pay appropriate rates - too much unfair competition from those who just hope that neither they nor the client end up in a colonoscopy-level tax audit in 10 years (the time frame in which the statute of limitations for tax crimes expires), and the sad reality is that this gamble often enough pays off.
The main goal is to prevent contracting with a single client as means for companies to get rid of employees and their social security responsabilities.
Anyone contracting with a single client can eventually go to court and demand to be employed by the client, proving that the relationship has been one of employee/employeer, even though the contract was a freelance one.
The only way a country should approach digital nomads is to charge them massive flat fees and change the law to allow local planners to zone them out of most accommodation.
So punish the people wanting to travel instead of the greed that leads to this?
In my experience, the local starbucks is crowded with tourists and their laptops (or tablets with keyboards), but these folks are not DNs, they are just waiting for their plane or airbnb to get ready.
Regarding property price and high rent, this discussion is pretty stupid. Every country wants richer-than-average people to come and pay taxes and/or spend their money. I often hear the bogus argument that DNs don't pay taxes which is bullshit, because even DNs pay taxes indirectly, as every amout they spend is someone elses taxable income (this includes rent). If they don't come, those incomes won't exist and no taxes be paid.
Most places in Europe bring in millions of poor immigrants, while some countries (most prominently spain) the people complain about rich immigrants...
And the tax thing is not a bogus argument. 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. If the digital nomads don't come, they also wouldn't raise rent and café prices for everyone around them. You come here, register yourself as a freelancer and pay income tax? You're very welcome in my book. But if you come to the country to leech off its cheap prices but don't pay income tax, you can go back where you came from.
We bring in millions of poor immigrants for various reasons: It's the human thing to do, these immigrants do cheap and hard labor that a lot of natives won't do (think construction, food delivery, etc.) and as such even provide benefits to us.
Digital Nomads mostly aren't immigrants. They come for a limited time, don't provide much to the local economy outside spending some money (and even then it's not that much because a lot of them come to cheap countries to live for cheap and save money) and then leave again. It's not really comparable.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
Ehh??? Sorry this is wholly untrue. Landlords get easy, often zero-deposit mortgages on houses and then let them out to make money. Of course this affects local house prices, because it absorbs housing stock.
Particularly in long-established, geographically bounded, attractive European towns and cities where there is no possibility of growing the housing stock fast enough to compete.
More to the point, the reason we know the arrival of digital nomads will drive up house prices is that they absolutely already have done, everywhere they have been courted.
So yeah, I'm sure it's possible to find remote work from Croatia, especially in Europe cause it's a bit less hassle to employ someone across borders between EU countries. But I do think the chances of finding even a remote job are higher if you're based in a country with plentiful employers.
The advantage is you (worker and company) usually pay less taxes, but there are a few disadvantages that put most people off - need to deal with taxes, may need to pay your own social insurance, banks may make it harder to get mortgages. The 'protections' of employment at the end of day means nothing in most EU countries.
(Been working like this for well over a decade - never going back to a job with required office hours again)