Connect with us

News

Countries wooing corporate digital nomads hope to make them stay

Published

on

Countries wooing corporate digital nomads hope to make them stay

“Digital nomad” visas are increasingly being used by countries to attract remote corporate workers, according to tax experts, as governments seek to outbid each other in a global war for talent.

More countries have introduced a form of digital nomad visa — allowing a person to live in a country and work remotely — since the pandemic increased demand from employees to “work from anywhere”.

The notion of a “digital nomad” has tended to suggest footloose freelancers backpacking across countries or working on beaches from their laptops.

But self-employed digital nomads make up a relatively small slice of the total community. While their numbers have grown by more than 50 per cent since the pandemic, according to figures from MBO Partners, they were not the main group governments are trying to attract, global mobility experts told the FT.

“The ‘nomad’ visa is ironically not done for nomads,” said Gonçalo Hall, CEO of NomadX, a remote work consultancy, who advises governments on how to launch digital nomad communities.

Advertisement

“Most governments are seeing [nomad visas] as a way to attract remote workers with the clear intention of getting them to stay and become permanent residents in their countries.”

Gonçalo Hall, the Portuguese founder of a digital nomad village in Madeira © Goncalo Hall
Images from Goncalo Hall’s Instagram promoting work as a digital nomad © Goncalo Hall/Instagram

The total number of US digital nomads hit 17.3mn in 2023, according to MBO Partners, of which just 6.6mn were self-employed. The survey only tracks Americans, thought to be the largest group of digital nomads by nationality. Remote salaried workers are not taking jobs from locals and their consumer activity contributes to their host economy.

Countries were jumping on the “buzzword” of digital nomads, but really the visas “should be called remote worker visas”, Hall said.

Italy last month became the most recent country to introduce a digital nomad visa, joining several European countries, including Portugal, Estonia, Greece, Malta and Spain, that are trying to attract a growing global remote workforce.

Pallas Mudist at Enterprise Estonia, a government agency, said: “Estonia’s digital nomad visa is specifically designed to attract not just entrepreneurs and freelancers but also salaried remote workers.”

The visas are only open to non-Europeans, with about 600 issued since the scheme launched in August 2020. But overall the government estimates that 51,000 digital nomads visited Estonia in 2023, including Europeans who do not need a visa.

Advertisement

Similar programmes have also been introduced in Barbados, Brazil, Cape Verde, Costa Rica, Mauritius and the UAE among others. While there are no official figures on the number of countries that have introduced the visas, tax experts point to sources compiled by digital nomads such as nomadgirl.co, which says there are now 58 countries offering them.

You are seeing a snapshot of an interactive graphic. This is most likely due to being offline or JavaScript being disabled in your browser.

Daida Hadzic, a global mobility tax expert at KPMG, said that ageing societies was one reason governments were seeking to attract remote corporate employees using digital nomad visas. If such employees settle permanently in the country, they will contribute their skills and labour over the longer term too.

“The driving force behind digital nomad visas is that these countries are in competition with each other over labour,” she said.

Giorgia Maffini, tax expert at PwC UK, said countries offering digital nomad visas tended to be “a bit less competitive” at attracting foreign workers, citing Costa Rica, Croatia and Indonesia as examples.

Steve King, researcher at US-based workforce consultancy MBO Partners, said countries with digital nomad visa programmes often preferred salaried employees.

Advertisement

“Many countries see digital nomads with traditional jobs as tourists on steroids who will spend money locally, but won’t take local jobs or be a burden on local social services,” he said.

You are seeing a snapshot of an interactive graphic. This is most likely due to being offline or JavaScript being disabled in your browser.

Marta Aguilar, who lives in Spain, said she spent almost half the year travelling the world while working for Coverflex, a flexible compensation company based in Portugal.

The company has no offices and employees work fully remotely, with a €1,000 a year remote working budget.

“I don’t like winter. So, I haven’t had winter for two years. I just skipped it,” said Aguilar.

However, the international tax system is often difficult to navigate for remote workers as the rules were not designed for a more mobile workforce.

Advertisement

For companies, a key risk when employees work remotely is that the country they are in can be deemed a de facto business branch, or “permanent establishment” of the employer for tax purposes. That imposes tax reporting requirements on the business and means some of the business’s profits are potentially liable for tax in the country in which the employee is working.

Remote workers can also expose themselves to income and social security taxes on earnings generated while working abroad and potentially end up liable for tax in multiple places, also exposing the employer to liability.

Several intergovernmental bodies, including the EU, OECD and UN, are examining ways to make it easier for businesses and countries. In February, the European Economic and Social Committee recommended the taxation of remote employees take place in the country of the employer’s residence, with some tax revenue shared with the employee’s resident country.

Column chart of Number of US digital nomads (mn) showing Digital nomads have increased since the pandemic but growth has slowed

Experts also warn that some countries risk losing tax revenues as workers relocate — particularly if they move to lower-taxed jurisdictions.

“The problem with, say, the UK is we are so dependent on labour, and our weather is not great. [The trend for more remote working] may well lead to a lot of people going to, say, Greece, and undermining our tax base,” said Grant Wardell-Johnson, global tax policy leader at KPMG International.

These risks are thought to be small, for now. Rough estimates by the IMF in 2022 found that increased remote working reallocates about $40bn of the income tax that workers pay globally. This represents roughly 1.25 per cent of the global income tax base. The potential revenue either lost or gained across countries was found to be between 0.1 and 0.2 per cent of GDP.

Advertisement

Small emerging market economies “with below-average tax rates and good remote work capability” typically gain the most from the trend, the research found — underlying the potential for tax winners and losers. 

Dino Jangra, a partner at Crowe, said: “In most countries, payroll wage tax is the biggest take. If you start to see a lot of people leaving your country, that becomes a problem.”

However, growth in remote working has slowed of late. According to MBO, the numbers of US digital nomads rose by just 2 per cent last year.

“I don’t think the digital nomad concept has so far quite turned out how people thought it would. There’s definitely been a wave of ‘get your bums back to the office’ happening all around the world,” said Jangra.

Advertisement

News

Supreme Court blocks redrawing of New York congressional map, dealing a win for GOP

Published

on

Supreme Court blocks redrawing of New York congressional map, dealing a win for GOP

The Supreme Court

Win McNamee/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Win McNamee/Getty Images

The Supreme Court on Monday intervened in New York’s redistricting process, blocking a lower court decision that would likely have flipped a Republican congressional district into a Democratic district.    
  
At issue is the midterm redrawing of New York’s 11th congressional district, including Staten Island and a small part of Brooklyn. The district is currently held by a Republican, but on Jan. 21, a state Supreme Court judge ruled that the current district dilutes the power of Black and Latino voters in violation of the state constitution.  
  
GOP Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, who represents the district, and the Republican co-chair of the state Board of Elections promptly appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the justices to block the redrawing as an unconstitutional “racial gerrymander.” New York’s congressional election cycle was set to officially begin Feb. 24, the opening day for candidates to seek placement on the ballot.  
  
As in this year’s prior mid-decade redistricting fights — in Texas and California — the Trump administration backed the Republicans.   
 
Voters and the State of New York contended it’s too soon for the Supreme Court to wade into this dispute. New York’s highest state court has not issued a final judgment, so the voters asserted that if the Supreme Court grants relief now “future stay applicants will see little purpose in waiting for state court rulings before coming to this Court” and “be rewarded for such gamesmanship.” The state argues this is an issue for “New York courts, not federal courts” to resolve, and there is sufficient time for the dispute to be resolved on the merits. 
  
The court majority explained the decision to intervene in 101 words, which the three dissenting liberal justices  summarized as “Rules for thee, but not for me.” 
 
The unsigned majority order does not explain the Court’s rationale. It says only how long the stay will last, until the case moves through the New York State appeals courts. If, however, the losing party petitions and the court agrees to hear the challenge, the stay extends until the final opinion is announced. 
 
Dissenting from the decision were Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Writing for the three, Sotomayor  said that  if nonfinal decisions of a state trial court can be brought to highest court, “then every decision from any court is now fair game.” More immediately, she noted, “By granting these applications, the Court thrusts itself into the middle of every election-law dispute around the country, even as many States redraw their congressional maps ahead of the 2026 election.” 

Monday’s Supreme Court action deviates from the court’s hands-off pattern in these mid-term redistricting fights this year. In two previous cases — from Texas and California — the court refused to intervene, allowing newly drawn maps to stay in effect.  
  
Requests for Supreme Court intervention on redistricting issues has been a recurring theme this term, a trend that is likely to grow.  Earlier last month  the high court allowed California to use a voter-approved, Democratic-friendly map.  California’s redistricting came in response to a GOP-friendly redistricting plan in Texas that the Supreme Court also permitted to move forward. These redistricting efforts are expected to offset one another.     
   
But the high court itself has yet to rule on a challenge to Louisiana’s voting map, which was drawn by the state legislature after the decennial census in order to create a second majority-Black district.  Since the drawing of that second majority-black district, the state has backed away from that map, hoping to return to a plan that provides for only one majority-minority district.    
     
The Supreme Court’s consideration of the Louisiana case has stretched across two terms. The justices failed to resolve the case last term and chose to order a second round of arguments this term adding a new question: Does the state’s intentional creation of a second majority-minority district violate the constitution’s Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments’ guarantee of the right to vote and the authority of Congress to enforce that mandate?    
Following the addition of the new question, the state of Louisiana flipped positions to oppose the map it had just drawn and defended in court. Whether the Supreme Court follows suit remains to be seen. But the tone of the October argument suggested that the court’s conservative supermajority is likely to continue undercutting the 1965 Voting Rights Act.   

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Map: Earthquake Shakes Central California

Published

on

Map: Earthquake Shakes Central California

Note: Map shows the area with a shake intensity of 3 or greater, which U.S.G.S. defines as “weak,” though the earthquake may be felt outside the areas shown.  All times on the map are Pacific time. The New York Times

A minor earthquake with a preliminary magnitude of 3.5 struck in Central California on Monday, according to the United States Geological Survey.

The temblor happened at 7:17 a.m. Pacific time about 6 miles northwest of Pinnacles, Calif., data from the agency shows.

As seismologists review available data, they may revise the earthquake’s reported magnitude. Additional information collected about the earthquake may also prompt U.S.G.S. scientists to update the shake-severity map.

Source: United States Geological Survey | Notes: Shaking categories are based on the Modified Mercalli Intensity scale. When aftershock data is available, the corresponding maps and charts include earthquakes within 100 miles and seven days of the initial quake. All times above are Pacific time. Shake data is as of Monday, March 2 at 10:20 a.m. Eastern. Aftershocks data is as of Monday, March 2 at 11:18 a.m. Eastern.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

US says Kuwait accidentally shot down 3 American jets

Published

on

US says Kuwait accidentally shot down 3 American jets

The U.S. and Israel have been conducting strikes against targets in Iran since Saturday morning, with the aim of toppling Tehran’s clerical regime. Iran has fired back, with retaliatory assaults featuring missiles and drones targeting several Gulf countries and American bases in the Middle East.

“All six aircrew ejected safely, have been safely recovered, and are in stable condition. Kuwait has acknowledged this incident, and we are grateful for the efforts of the Kuwaiti defense forces and their support in this ongoing operation,” Central Command said.

“The cause of the incident is under investigation. Additional information will be released as it becomes available,” it added.

In a separate statement later Monday, Central Command said that American forces had been killed during combat since the strikes began.

“As of 7:30 am ET, March 2, four U.S. service members have been killed in action. The fourth service member, who was seriously wounded during Iran’s initial attacks, eventually succumbed to their injuries,” it said.

Advertisement

Major combat operations continue and our response effort is ongoing. The identities of the fallen are being withheld until 24 hours after next of kin notification,” Central Command added.

This story has been updated.

Continue Reading

Trending