Requiring proficiency in the language is reasonable, but requiring everyone to be richer than the average member of the population and have enough money banked to live off of for 30 years seems insane. That goes well beyond simply making sure that people are able to care for themselves.
> requiring everyone to be richer than the average member of the population
In the UK, only 47% are net tax contributors. I can't find what the same statistic is for Japan. I don't believe it's wrong for there to be an expectation that they be a net contributor.
> Across the UK, 53.3% of people lived in households that were net recipients in FYE 2024. This means that they lived in households that received more in benefits (cash and benefits in kind) than they paid in taxes (direct and indirect).
Most countries need both VAT and income tax to fund their budget. Importing well off immigrants means they subsidize the VAT part only and likely do not generate income from Japan salaries. This is basically same problem as with digital nomads: they use the infrastructure which they do not fund proportionally compared to regular citizens.
A digital nomad is still economically positive when a) their money circulates locally, eg at cafes and restaurants and b) comes from outside the region. That’s because they’re bringing wealth generated elsewhere (ie, at their employer) into the region.
While you’re correct the state misses out on income taxes, they get taxes on further spending, eg, when those digital nomad supplied dollars are used to pay wages at the cafe.
Not specifically about digital nomads, but Amazon used to estimate their salary dollars induce $2.5 of additional local economic activity — as Amazon employees bought from local stores, the store employees did in turn, etc.
>when those digital nomad supplied dollars are used to pay wages at the cafe
Nations whose economies depend on foreign tourist coming to spend their money there, are some of the worst developed out there, have a disproportionately high low wage sector, and some of the highest wealth inequalities out there with the lowest opportunities for upwards mobility. Basically a dutch disease. Nobody wants their economy to be like that if they can avoid it.
Countries aren't gonna be improved by you moving to buy 2$ lattes there while you gentrify the locals in the process and making life more expensive for them, trapping them in perpetual indentured servitude catering to the digital nomad/tourist industry with little to no possibility of moving up the value chain. The only ones who will be happy you do this will be landlords and business owners in the hospitality industry but no developed economy is built with those two as its pillars.
Developed nations want an export economy of products and services aided by imported skilled workers to stay as long term residents and contribute in income taxes, not in latte purchases, and maybe even become citizens so they can become eligible for the draft in case shit were to hit the fan. Digital nomads are like locusts by comparisons, they come to treat your country like and amusement park in a race to the bottom while the going is good, but leave at the slightest inconvenience if now the 2$ latte now has to be 3$ due to increased labor protections, when the impoverished country next door sells it for 2.50$.
> Digital nomads are like locusts by comparisons, they come to treat your country like and amusement park in a race to the bottom while the going is good, but leave at the slightest inconvenience if now the 2$ latte now has to be 3$ due to increased labor protections, when the impoverished country next door sells it for 2.50$.
This assumes they come just to geoarbitrage. Many actually do actually want to experience a country for its nature, food, culture, people etc.
I work remotely/seasonally while traveling the world to learn local languages, learn about traditional culture, see nature out away from cities (I'm a bikepacker), etc. It is rare that I meet other digital nomads interested in those things; the vast majority really do come just to geoarbitrage. When I meet other foreigners deeply invested in the specifics of the country, they are more likely to be students, pensioners, or the independently wealthy, not DNs.
> While you’re correct the state misses out on income taxes, they get taxes on further spending, eg, when those digital nomad supplied dollars are used to pay wages at the cafe.
This only works to some extent, because, again, you can't subsidize budget with VAT only. And a person who is a bona fide employed immigrant still pays more tax in place of "just" a nomad.
They don’t get VAT only, but also income taxes on wages to support that activity and additional rounds of VAT.
Yes — people who emigrate to work there pay more in taxes, but they generally also consume more: the job they’re working displaces a local, they benefit from social medicine, etc. Digital nomads bring jobs from elsewhere to spend locally, while not benefiting from (eg) local healthcare or schools.
> They don’t get VAT only, but also income taxes on wages to support that activity and additional rounds of VAT
They would get the same wages earned on the workload surplus coming from employed immigrants in place of nomads. That's the whole point discussed here.
That stat is bogus though when used in this context. The least payed workers contribute the most to every day life of society in my opinion and pay the least tax.
If we consider outright slavery, would that statistic count a slave as a "non-contributing" member of society? After all, they must be fed, and housed, but pay no taxes. What a burden they are!
I do. It's like needing a credit check to get a job. It's a horrible death spiral: Japanese jobs can decrease wages from more supply, which can out you under the line, which makes it harder for you to contribute to the economy.
Isn’t this just a reflection of wealth inequality though? A “net negative” tax payer is just working a job that makes one of the net positive payers richer thus still bringing in more income for the country.
You've missed the original point. Someone can be working a job and realistically pulling their own weight, but the system we have distributes that money to the owners and investors, who then pay tax and give some part back to the worker through welfare.
The country is better off having this person even if they are receiving welfare. Of course that's not the situation for all people on welfare, but the idea that the top percent of earners are doing all the work while the majority of people sit around getting stuff for free is obviously untrue.
I think I heard a crazy high number for how many in the u.s. use foodstamps? 12.3% according to this: <a href="https://usafacts.org/answers/how-many-people-receive-snap-benefits-in-the-us-every-month/country/united-states/" rel="nofollow">https://usafacts.org/answers/how-many-people-receive-snap-be...
That doesn't necessarily mean recipients are unemployed. It could mean taxpayers are subsidizing low-wage employers through public assistance to their employees, with a minimum wage that hasn't increased since 2009.
Haha reminds me of the postal worker hinting that a lot of welfare cheques go to some affluent neighborhood in Vancouver. The business owns the house and the Lexus!
autoexec · · focus · HN ↗
e2le · · focus · HN ↗
In the UK, only 47% are net tax contributors. I can't find what the same statistic is for Japan. I don't believe it's wrong for there to be an expectation that they be a net contributor.
PorciiVorbesc · · focus · HN ↗
47% of what? Of the immigrants coming in the UK are net tax contributors or 47% of the total population including locals?
e2le · · focus · HN ↗
<a href="https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/bulletins/theeffectsoftaxesandbenefitsonhouseholdincome/2024" rel="nofollow">https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personal...
> Across the UK, 53.3% of people lived in households that were net recipients in FYE 2024. This means that they lived in households that received more in benefits (cash and benefits in kind) than they paid in taxes (direct and indirect).
y-curious · · focus · HN ↗
[dead]
TheOtherHobbes · · focus · HN ↗
It's a straightforward subsidy for employer profits.
nicoburns · · focus · HN ↗
cromka · · focus · HN ↗
Am I missing something here?
zmgsabst · · focus · HN ↗
A digital nomad is still economically positive when a) their money circulates locally, eg at cafes and restaurants and b) comes from outside the region. That’s because they’re bringing wealth generated elsewhere (ie, at their employer) into the region.
While you’re correct the state misses out on income taxes, they get taxes on further spending, eg, when those digital nomad supplied dollars are used to pay wages at the cafe.
Not specifically about digital nomads, but Amazon used to estimate their salary dollars induce $2.5 of additional local economic activity — as Amazon employees bought from local stores, the store employees did in turn, etc.
PorciiVorbesc · · focus · HN ↗
Nations whose economies depend on foreign tourist coming to spend their money there, are some of the worst developed out there, have a disproportionately high low wage sector, and some of the highest wealth inequalities out there with the lowest opportunities for upwards mobility. Basically a dutch disease. Nobody wants their economy to be like that if they can avoid it.
Countries aren't gonna be improved by you moving to buy 2$ lattes there while you gentrify the locals in the process and making life more expensive for them, trapping them in perpetual indentured servitude catering to the digital nomad/tourist industry with little to no possibility of moving up the value chain. The only ones who will be happy you do this will be landlords and business owners in the hospitality industry but no developed economy is built with those two as its pillars.
Developed nations want an export economy of products and services aided by imported skilled workers to stay as long term residents and contribute in income taxes, not in latte purchases, and maybe even become citizens so they can become eligible for the draft in case shit were to hit the fan. Digital nomads are like locusts by comparisons, they come to treat your country like and amusement park in a race to the bottom while the going is good, but leave at the slightest inconvenience if now the 2$ latte now has to be 3$ due to increased labor protections, when the impoverished country next door sells it for 2.50$.
myaccountonhn · · focus · HN ↗
This assumes they come just to geoarbitrage. Many actually do actually want to experience a country for its nature, food, culture, people etc.
TFNA · · focus · HN ↗
myaccountonhn · · focus · HN ↗
Maybe depends on where you choose to go?
cromka · · focus · HN ↗
This only works to some extent, because, again, you can't subsidize budget with VAT only. And a person who is a bona fide employed immigrant still pays more tax in place of "just" a nomad.
Sorry, but your logic is flawed here.
zmgsabst · · focus · HN ↗
Yes — people who emigrate to work there pay more in taxes, but they generally also consume more: the job they’re working displaces a local, they benefit from social medicine, etc. Digital nomads bring jobs from elsewhere to spend locally, while not benefiting from (eg) local healthcare or schools.
cromka · · focus · HN ↗
They would get the same wages earned on the workload surplus coming from employed immigrants in place of nomads. That's the whole point discussed here.
nikau · · focus · HN ↗
rightbyte · · focus · HN ↗
kevhito · · focus · HN ↗
rightbyte · · focus · HN ↗
johnnyanmac · · focus · HN ↗
Gigachad · · focus · HN ↗
rendang · · focus · HN ↗
[dead]
techno-beetle · · focus · HN ↗
pojzon · · focus · HN ↗
bluefirebrand · · focus · HN ↗
throwitaway222 · · focus · HN ↗
Gigachad · · focus · HN ↗
The country is better off having this person even if they are receiving welfare. Of course that's not the situation for all people on welfare, but the idea that the top percent of earners are doing all the work while the majority of people sit around getting stuff for free is obviously untrue.
sellmesoap · · focus · HN ↗
techdmn · · focus · HN ↗
throwitaway222 · · focus · HN ↗
sellmesoap · · focus · HN ↗
kelseyfrog · · focus · HN ↗
sva_ · · focus · HN ↗