> Those private health insurances are subsidized by the public healthcare because they piggyback off of the public healthcare system.
Most nomads I know have insurance that is either global or based in their home country. If I had been injured in my host country I would have been required to pay full price for my medical services, which is why I bought insurance in my own country. If you're at the point that you've purchased insurance in the place you are living, are you really a nomad anymore?
> The amount of taxes avoided by the poor majority in such countries don't compare to the taxes avoided by the rich white collars.
Do you have any evidence of this, or are you just speculating? I've read about this with regards to South America and what I took away from it was that the informal economy is largely made up of low wage laborers, not white collar professionals. In either case, this is kind of irrelevant to the discussion because any taxes the nomads pay represent revenues that the host would not otherwise have had. As a nomad you aren't going to be consuming more in services than you're spending unless you're camping in a tent and end up breaking a leg.
> They don't. People think that but neither tourists nor nomads nor short term-renters (whatever the kind) bring money into the economy:
I spent more on rent in 3 months in my host country than most people spend in a year. I ate out at restaurants almost every night I was there, and took taxis every day. These aren't normal consumption patterns where I was living. Your point might hold if you're talking about Europe; but if we accept that it does, we would then have to ask how it's possible for nomads to be driving rents up.
> Those few businesses make bank even as other businesses in the same neighborhood rot.
Does the economy improve or does it not?
> And those few businesses that benefit don't buy dozens of employees to make up for the added workload - they hire one or two and everyone works harder and that's it.
This is pure speculation on your part and there's no compelling reason to think that it occurs.
> Most nomads I know have insurance that is either global or based in their home country.
I don't think any really 'global' insurance exists as it would be unmanageable as it would bankrupt the 'global' firm. All such insurances probably pass through some local subsidiary or intermediary firm. And where I am, all nomads have to buy local private insurance as that is the one that they can legally prove having. And that means they use the public healthcare system when they have anything serious.
> If you're at the point that you've purchased insurance in the place you are living, are you really a nomad anymore?
Purchasing private insurance that you can confirm is obligatory to get DN visa here.
> Do you have any evidence of this, or are you just speculating?
Speculation is unnecessary as numbers are public. The amount of taxes that the nomads pay is at most ~24% even in the popular European spots. That is if they actually pay anything because most of them use the 180 day rule to avoid having to be resident in those countries. If they exit schengen in the 180th day and stay somewhere else for what, some ~3 months, they can reset the duration and stay another 180 days in that country without becoming a resident and paying taxes. Then there are the assholes that stay more than that but dodge taxes by using Delaware corporations, other shell companies etc.
In contrast to this, wherever they cram into, they cause a 20% to 30% rent and housing price increase every year. When you consider that the income of the average nomad is $5000/month according to statistics, even if they actually pay their taxes what they pay amounts to something like $1000 per person/month on average and does not do sh*t to make up for the CoL increase they cause. Especially the rent and housing.
Its bad, really. The intention for the DN visa here was to stimulate the information technology sector. But it ended up as a scheme in which mainly the US companies dump their healthcare and housing costs onto the locals while still getting the labor of the nomad. So it is not the local technology market that is benefiting from this at all. If anything, it is getting harmed because the CoL increase makes the local companies' employees suffer and the companies cant raise salaries to keep up.
> As a nomad you aren't going to be consuming more in services than you're spending unless you're camping in a tent and end up breaking a leg.
Merely the extra load they cause in the public healthcare system would be enough to consume more, even before talking about the CoL and local economic issues above.
> I spent more on rent in 3 months in my host country than most people spend in a year. I ate out at restaurants almost every night I was there, and took taxis every day. These aren't normal consumption patterns where I was living.
Yes, and those raise the CoL. All landlords in your region will now be jacking up prices and will try to rent their spaces to foreigners - which will also bring in the private investment plundererers who will start buying up the local housing to do it themselves instead. There are cases in my country where foreign individuals rent the housing they bought in my country and rent it to nomads without setting foot in the country or any locals getting involved. They pay a pretty meager property tax, and all their income tax goes to their own country because they reside there.
> Does the economy improve or does it not?
Abso-fkin-lutely not. Im in one of the major hotspots, and not even the worst, but people cant afford housing, they don't have jobs and there doesn't seem to be anything that is stimulated. If you don't count American investment corps and 'investor' individuals coming in and starting to scoop entire neighborhoods - which exacerbates the crisis even more.
> This is pure speculation on your part and there's no compelling reason to think that it occurs
That is exactly what we see happening. The economic numbers confirm the same reality. Higher CoL and no change in jobs even in the supposedly boosted 'information technology' sector.
Most nomads I know have insurance that is either global or based in their home country. If I had been injured in my host country I would have been required to pay full price for my medical services, which is why I bought insurance in my own country. If you're at the point that you've purchased insurance in the place you are living, are you really a nomad anymore?
> The amount of taxes avoided by the poor majority in such countries don't compare to the taxes avoided by the rich white collars.
Do you have any evidence of this, or are you just speculating? I've read about this with regards to South America and what I took away from it was that the informal economy is largely made up of low wage laborers, not white collar professionals. In either case, this is kind of irrelevant to the discussion because any taxes the nomads pay represent revenues that the host would not otherwise have had. As a nomad you aren't going to be consuming more in services than you're spending unless you're camping in a tent and end up breaking a leg.
> They don't. People think that but neither tourists nor nomads nor short term-renters (whatever the kind) bring money into the economy:
I spent more on rent in 3 months in my host country than most people spend in a year. I ate out at restaurants almost every night I was there, and took taxis every day. These aren't normal consumption patterns where I was living. Your point might hold if you're talking about Europe; but if we accept that it does, we would then have to ask how it's possible for nomads to be driving rents up.
> Those few businesses make bank even as other businesses in the same neighborhood rot.
Does the economy improve or does it not?
> And those few businesses that benefit don't buy dozens of employees to make up for the added workload - they hire one or two and everyone works harder and that's it.
This is pure speculation on your part and there's no compelling reason to think that it occurs.