First, Joaquim Miranda Sarmento is not the Portuguese Prime Minister, but the Minister of Finance.
Second, the tax breaks were removed at the end of last year because of a widespread feeling in the general populace that these were deeply unfair policies that were understood at the root cause of gentrification and unreasonable real estate valuations. The median house price in Lisbon and Porto metro areas, are now above what the p95 Portuguese salary can pay. So yes, speculation and wealthy foreigners are an issue, as it's not Portuguese salaries propping these values.
Third, the party in power does not have a majority in parliament. This means they'll need support from other parties to approve this deeply divise tax break. While I'm sure they'll get the support from the Liberal party, I'm seriously doubtful they'll get it from the other parties. It's also quite likely that we'll have new elections in the next 12 months and the party in power, despite many populistic policies in the last 4 months since they won by a few thousand votes the election, has not yet been able to gain a wider trust from the voters since then. I doubt this tax break will see the light of day anytime soon.
Fourth and finally, there has been zero talks about this in Portuguese media. I feel this is more of a politician talking out of his ass without double/triple checking with the prime minister.
> The median house price in Lisbon and Porto metro areas, are now above what the p95 Portuguese salary can pay. So yes, speculation and wealthy foreigners are an issue, as it's not Portuguese salaries propping these values.
The second sentence doesn’t necessarily flow from the first. The same is true in major cities in Canada, New Zealand, England, etc etc, and this has little to do with foreign visitors and much to do with interest rates and availability and quantum of credit.
Wealthy foreigners bring money from the outside into Portugal, so they are net positive. And not only money, but also knowledge, culture and diversity. Local restaurants are happy, local landlords are very happy, who is not happy is local renters. Maybe the tax should be imposed on the landlords' windfall profits instead?
What I see in comment sections of articles like this is a perfect example of why EU is set to lose in the coming decades: mindset.
I’d say most Americans understand the value of highly skilled migration. It’s how America stays #1, it’s how they have the best companies, and bring the most value to their nation.
Meanwhile in EU, any move to attract talent is seen as net-negative, unfair and detrimental to the culture and livability. Their negativity is a self fulfilling prophecy, but it will be a very costly and hard pill to swallow, just like the UK is seeing after Brexit.
It's a complex issue. When so many "skilled workers" move to your neighborhood that your rent doubles and that you can't afford to do grocery shopping in your neighborhood, it makes sense to be angry.
The US top 1% are number 1, the US bottom 10% have it worse than most or even almost all people from western Europe.
> It’s how America stays #1, it’s how they have the best companies, and bring the most value to their nation.
As always, it's relative. Granted, I'm one of these loser EU residents who has a different mindset, that chasing #1 position in terms of GDP generated per resident isn't the be all end all. Instead, people's happiness is on the top of my mind, and taking care of as many people as possible.
And with that mindset, the US is very far from the top, and there are so many countries that are better for "living", but maybe not the best if your entire life revolves around finding the best place for "working".
We all have different focuses in life, and that's OK. But to say that some places are "better" on a absolute scale feels like a mindtrap if anything.
No I think most countries value high skilled migrants. In most countries its the only way you can migrate. The difference is whether they should get tax breaks.
In fact the USA is probably the hardest country in the world to work as a digital nomad - you can only work legally here if an employer sponsors you. And you definitely wont get a tax break.
It's not just that but also the mindset of entrepreneurship and growth versus stagnation and la dolce vita, which, while nice in the short term, is untenable in the long term.
Pieter Levels of NomadList fame talks about this often [0][1][2], he is Dutch, not American, so it's not like he's biased for America but he notes that it is disheartening for him to see Europe slip into mediocrity over time.
Maybe this approach would have made sense if the area were an established hub in whatever craft those immigrants are specializing in, but in case of Portugal what I can see is a country with (formerly?) cheap CoL trying to attract immigrants who keep working remotely, paying taxes elsewhere and contributing whatever little consumption tax they pay into the local economy. There's no established competitive IT industry or academia. This isn't how you build high-tech economy, it's how you become a suburban wasteland for rich people.
That is why they did make that law in the first place.
The problem is what they expected was something like "highly skilled migration contributing directly or indirectly to Portugal".
But that isn't exactly how it played out, which is why they removed tax brakes. I mean think about it. Just attracting talented people to be in your country and paying some tax isn't enough. You also need to be able to capitalize on them. E.g. by them working for your companies, them creating companies in your country, them settling in your country, etc. But AFIK that didn't really happen in case of Portugal.
> any move to attract talent is seen as net-negative,
not really
moves to attract talent are very common, through often focused with different dynamic then the US
through you might confuse the sentiment with the negative sentiment wrt. people coming as refuges instead of immigrants which are often perceived as not being skilled and just taking advantage of social systems etc., the same way it's commonly the case in the US (e.g. wrt. people from Mexico). Just to be clear I say perceived, because enough refuges are quite skilled/qualified just their qualifications are often not recognized due to bureaucratic reasons
---
As a side not IMHO/AFIK the huge raise on apartment rent/buy cost in Lisbon is likely _not_ majorly related to the previous tax break programs. Mainly such raises can be observed in most relevant western (and beyond) Capitals around the world, driven by the most wealthy of mainly the western world (but also beyond, e.g. Saudi Arabia) using them as money banks and very term investments. The moment many do it will (did) also drive speculative investment. Which can lead to somewhat of a looping effect. Or in other words it's a side effect of the past ~10 years of (especially western) world economics.
When the americans will be displaced by the skilled migrants, it will be an even harder pill to swallow. And it will be too late too. This movie it's not done yet.
Any kind of forced population relocation, it's bad. Before, it was done with guns, now it's done with money. The results are the same.
Current day skilled migration is popular today, because companies get fully educated people, without having to pay taxes for education, day care, health. You get only the best, whithout having to paying anything. Not even parental leave for their parents.
The question is, should the people let companies, aka the rich, decide how the country will look like in 50, 100 years?
Also skilled migration is very bad for origin countries too. They loose all the best while having to suport all the liabilities. Like the pensions of the parents of the skilled labor that left and now it's not contributing anything.
You are comparing two things that are not actually the same. America is the top destination by far for actually skilled migrants who can pump up the economic engine and build highly profitable businesses. America has fine-tuned its entire system to integrate and take advantage of skilled migrants, its tech/research industry being built on this, and its reputation, physical and logistical infrastructure helps to take the cream from the crop.
It's easy to talk about highly skilled immigration when you are the one taking all the best part of it. Those highly skilled productive individuals who can move to America will.
Mass import of unskilled migrants, especially young military aged men, is indeed net-negative, unfair and detrimental to the culture and livability.
Ridiculous. This is not a "friendly to migration" policy but a welcome mat to wealthy nomads to move to Portugal and pay less tax than the locals. That's not even being welcoming, it's throwing your own population under the bus.
Most EU countries have no issue with skilled migration when needed. Denmark has a solid migration policy and thus relative consensus on keeping it as it is. Other EU countries have passed policies that ruined their own local population in favor of low skill migration or in this case, high skill migrants hoping to avoid high taxes. This not attracting "the best", it's attracted a lot of amoral individuals who just want to move to Lisbon to party and enjoy the weather.
> any move to attract talent is seen as net-negative, unfair and detrimental to the culture and livability
The biggest barrier to attract talent in the EU is language. It's not culture, it's not incentives, it's not tax breaks... it's language. The US only needs to learn a single language, english. For Europe you would need at least 3 languages to be marketable since EU citizens are learning multiple languages since born in most cases.
There's a difference though between importing talent to work for the local economy and having people who work for foreign companies. Maybe some digital nomads transition from the latter to the former, but given local wages it must be rare.
Then it's a tradeoff between whether the extra tax revenue/spending is worth the potential social issues those rich foreigners can bring.
I agree with you but I will also add that the “new world” is much more geared towards turning those immigrants into actual Americans, Canadians, and Australians than the EU is turning the nomads into Europeans.
But that’s just one more contributing factor to what you described.
I agree with you on that one; I am still in favour of the EU and one of the last countries I would want to live is the US (it's a nice country (parts of it) to vacation in though), but yes, the EU has issues (in my opinion) that would be good and positive for 'the people' IF there would be an abundance of money coming from somewhere (there isn't); a) language (let's ffs speak english everywhere; I'm dutch, i speak dutch, german, french, portuguese and spanish, but it's just easier to have english as the first language, as as the common high value business language in the world) b) regulatory; small companies should be exempt from regulations and that should change per milestone the company reaches c) make it easy, cheap and attractive to start a company; as point b), start getting annoying when it grows beyond certain milestones, but not too annoying so it will leave d) make taxation so that it's attractive to invest in here e) boost our electronics, military and space faring research/development/manufacturing across the board; that brings jobs, money, investment and innovation.
But it's hard to balance with culture and liveability; I would never live in the US for fear of dropping from the few top % by some accident getting into extreme poverty. Here i'm not really scared of that (and i've been there in the distant past).
The EU does not have the cultural means to adapt to immigration the way the US does. The US removed the native population, so all cultural in the US is adaptation; adding more into the mix isn't such a problem.
There are many things were America is not number one. Provide living wages and Universal Health care and you will be at the baseline at least 80% of European countries achieved 50 years ago...
So are you saying what USA and states should do is to give very large tax breaks for H-1B visa holders to make them more competitive against native and allow them higher living standards?
I dislike these policies (despite benefiting from the Dutch equivalent for a short time). Why should existing tax payers effectively subsidise lower taxes for new arrivals? Both receive the same state benefits and both earn the same income.
Also, I'm not sure they're actually effective overall. For every tax break you give to a new arrival earning say over 100k, there's surely an existing resident earning the equivalent whom you are effectively encouraging to leave with such a discriminatory policy.
And indeed, according to headlines like this "As Digital Nomads Flock to Lisbon, Portugal’s Youth Are Leaving in Droves"[1], it seems to be playing out this way.
Like the annoying business practice of offering steep discounts for new customers, it relies on the inertia of your existing customer base (in this case citizens). The problem is that the "digital nomads" you are trying to attract are the least "sticky" type of resident (after tourists) and are far less likely to fully engage is civil society and contribute at that level (often never bothering to even speak the local language). While if you drive one of your own citizens to relocated in another EU country, the net loss is greater.
Having lived and worked in Dublin for a long period, I was interested when a Dutch-style seven year rule was proposed by the government a few years ago. There was immediate, widespread vocal opposition and the proposal was dropped quickly.
How does this make any sense in light of Lisbon being now "one of the world’s most unlivable cities"? Seems like it can't possibly be good for the native Portugese.
Economic stagnation and population decline is bad too. Highly skilled immigrants are especially good for the economy and for the tax base, which pays for social services. Rising housing costs are indeed a problem. Is there a part of town that can accommodate sky-scrapers?
It doesn't directly, on net though, the average tech nomad is coming in with a salary that's 4-5x the average domestic worker, so that 20% goes a lot farther. Add to that nomads are far more likely to need to buy crap (26% vat), and best of all, leave once full freight taxes hit avoiding any long term dependence on the state.
Sucks for housing prices, but it's not a giveaway that it often gets suggested as.
This is a fair argument that's often brought up but I never see actual raw data backing it up. Housing is fucked in several places around the world, including a bunch of countries in Europe that don't have any tax breaks for specialized labor. I would love to look at some metrics like
- How many units of housing are built each year
- How many units are rented and to what demography (Portuguese families, immigrants sharing rooms, students, etc)
- How many migrants (legal and ilegal)
- How many specialized migrants each year and the % of them that eventually buy a home
- How many units are bought up by funds and other financial entities
- How much taxes and social security contributions are collected per year for specialized migrants and how that money is reinvested
- etc
I known that's basically impossible to have an accurate picture since those numbers are way too "politically loaded".
Politics and facts don't mix very well so we just default to who yells the loudest (specially true in Portugal, unfortunately)
Of course it doesn’t benefit the Portuguese. That’s not how Portugal is governed. It’s cynical, but that’s really how it is; learned helplessness on a national scale.
“The country’s Prime Minister Joaquim Miranda Sarmento” he is not the prime minister. That’s Luis Montenegro. Sarmento is the economy/finance minister.
Portugal isn't (just) Lisbon. I'd be curious to know what the situation is in Porto, Lagos, and other areas further out. If I were a digital nomad I'd probably be living there now, but in Nazaré, or maybe Coimbra or Faro.
Persuading 'digital nomads' with established businesses isn't the same as encouraging and promoting home grown Portuguese businesses.
Also non-English speaking countries that set up an internet-based business are at an immediate disadvantage to the US and UK, unless their business is English-first. The US immediately has a market of 300m. The UK, 70m. The enough-English-to-get-by speaking 'West' / Europe is about 350m (of 700m) people. So, 700m Western English speakers in 'first world' economies.
> countries with schemes are Austria (2 regimes), Belgium, Cyprus (3), Denmark, Finland (2), France, Greece
(2), Ireland (2), Italy (5), Luxembourg, Malta (2 in 1), Netherlands, Portugal (2), Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom.
4
Belgium: Foreign executives’ regime, Finland: 32% rule regime, Sweden: Expert tax regime, Ireland: Non-remittance regime.
Spain has special tax regime applicable to high qualified workers (in any region) and nomads (in some regions currently) who haven’t been tax resident in Spain for last 5 years (ie relocated recently). It’s 24% flat (under 600k per year) IRPF tax for 5 years.
Also, capital gains outside of Spain sourced income are not taxed in Spain.
Social security contributions are paid in full same as usual tax residents.
Tax treaty doesn’t apply for such tax residents though and it complicates taxes in general.
The Netherlands have/had a tax-break for all expats, but it's going away (has gone away?) now.
Sadly even centrists are conservative now and destroying the country in the name of, what... preserving culture?
Examples: Attempts to limit the number of tourists. Limiting number of flights from Schiphol. A ban on building new hotels. Removal of the expat tax-break. Limiting the number of foreign student in the universities. Mandating that less university classes are thaught in English and the list goes on and on.
I mean who in their right mind would say yes to more skilled labor and cash inflow into the local economy. Surely no-one! :rolls-eyes:
[+] [-] devuo|1 year ago|reply
Second, the tax breaks were removed at the end of last year because of a widespread feeling in the general populace that these were deeply unfair policies that were understood at the root cause of gentrification and unreasonable real estate valuations. The median house price in Lisbon and Porto metro areas, are now above what the p95 Portuguese salary can pay. So yes, speculation and wealthy foreigners are an issue, as it's not Portuguese salaries propping these values.
Third, the party in power does not have a majority in parliament. This means they'll need support from other parties to approve this deeply divise tax break. While I'm sure they'll get the support from the Liberal party, I'm seriously doubtful they'll get it from the other parties. It's also quite likely that we'll have new elections in the next 12 months and the party in power, despite many populistic policies in the last 4 months since they won by a few thousand votes the election, has not yet been able to gain a wider trust from the voters since then. I doubt this tax break will see the light of day anytime soon.
Fourth and finally, there has been zero talks about this in Portuguese media. I feel this is more of a politician talking out of his ass without double/triple checking with the prime minister.
[+] [-] voisin|1 year ago|reply
The second sentence doesn’t necessarily flow from the first. The same is true in major cities in Canada, New Zealand, England, etc etc, and this has little to do with foreign visitors and much to do with interest rates and availability and quantum of credit.
[+] [-] EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] thiagoperes|1 year ago|reply
I’d say most Americans understand the value of highly skilled migration. It’s how America stays #1, it’s how they have the best companies, and bring the most value to their nation.
Meanwhile in EU, any move to attract talent is seen as net-negative, unfair and detrimental to the culture and livability. Their negativity is a self fulfilling prophecy, but it will be a very costly and hard pill to swallow, just like the UK is seeing after Brexit.
[+] [-] FrenchDevRemote|1 year ago|reply
The US top 1% are number 1, the US bottom 10% have it worse than most or even almost all people from western Europe.
[+] [-] diggan|1 year ago|reply
As always, it's relative. Granted, I'm one of these loser EU residents who has a different mindset, that chasing #1 position in terms of GDP generated per resident isn't the be all end all. Instead, people's happiness is on the top of my mind, and taking care of as many people as possible.
And with that mindset, the US is very far from the top, and there are so many countries that are better for "living", but maybe not the best if your entire life revolves around finding the best place for "working".
We all have different focuses in life, and that's OK. But to say that some places are "better" on a absolute scale feels like a mindtrap if anything.
[+] [-] rr808|1 year ago|reply
In fact the USA is probably the hardest country in the world to work as a digital nomad - you can only work legally here if an employer sponsors you. And you definitely wont get a tax break.
[+] [-] satvikpendem|1 year ago|reply
Pieter Levels of NomadList fame talks about this often [0][1][2], he is Dutch, not American, so it's not like he's biased for America but he notes that it is disheartening for him to see Europe slip into mediocrity over time.
[0] https://x.com/search?lang=en&q=Europe%20(from%3Alevelsio)&sr...
[1] https://x.com/levelsio/status/1784943280171467260
[2] https://x.com/BolognaFishMD/status/1771695080862085211
[+] [-] igor_akhmetov|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] stratocumulus0|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] switch007|1 year ago|reply
So we have to be careful when discussing "skilled migration"
[+] [-] dathinab|1 year ago|reply
That is why they did make that law in the first place.
The problem is what they expected was something like "highly skilled migration contributing directly or indirectly to Portugal".
But that isn't exactly how it played out, which is why they removed tax brakes. I mean think about it. Just attracting talented people to be in your country and paying some tax isn't enough. You also need to be able to capitalize on them. E.g. by them working for your companies, them creating companies in your country, them settling in your country, etc. But AFIK that didn't really happen in case of Portugal.
> any move to attract talent is seen as net-negative,
not really
moves to attract talent are very common, through often focused with different dynamic then the US
through you might confuse the sentiment with the negative sentiment wrt. people coming as refuges instead of immigrants which are often perceived as not being skilled and just taking advantage of social systems etc., the same way it's commonly the case in the US (e.g. wrt. people from Mexico). Just to be clear I say perceived, because enough refuges are quite skilled/qualified just their qualifications are often not recognized due to bureaucratic reasons
---
As a side not IMHO/AFIK the huge raise on apartment rent/buy cost in Lisbon is likely _not_ majorly related to the previous tax break programs. Mainly such raises can be observed in most relevant western (and beyond) Capitals around the world, driven by the most wealthy of mainly the western world (but also beyond, e.g. Saudi Arabia) using them as money banks and very term investments. The moment many do it will (did) also drive speculative investment. Which can lead to somewhat of a looping effect. Or in other words it's a side effect of the past ~10 years of (especially western) world economics.
[+] [-] GoToRO|1 year ago|reply
Any kind of forced population relocation, it's bad. Before, it was done with guns, now it's done with money. The results are the same.
Current day skilled migration is popular today, because companies get fully educated people, without having to pay taxes for education, day care, health. You get only the best, whithout having to paying anything. Not even parental leave for their parents.
The question is, should the people let companies, aka the rich, decide how the country will look like in 50, 100 years?
Also skilled migration is very bad for origin countries too. They loose all the best while having to suport all the liabilities. Like the pensions of the parents of the skilled labor that left and now it's not contributing anything.
[+] [-] 127|1 year ago|reply
It's easy to talk about highly skilled immigration when you are the one taking all the best part of it. Those highly skilled productive individuals who can move to America will.
Mass import of unskilled migrants, especially young military aged men, is indeed net-negative, unfair and detrimental to the culture and livability.
[+] [-] kranke155|1 year ago|reply
Most EU countries have no issue with skilled migration when needed. Denmark has a solid migration policy and thus relative consensus on keeping it as it is. Other EU countries have passed policies that ruined their own local population in favor of low skill migration or in this case, high skill migrants hoping to avoid high taxes. This not attracting "the best", it's attracted a lot of amoral individuals who just want to move to Lisbon to party and enjoy the weather.
[+] [-] braiamp|1 year ago|reply
The biggest barrier to attract talent in the EU is language. It's not culture, it's not incentives, it's not tax breaks... it's language. The US only needs to learn a single language, english. For Europe you would need at least 3 languages to be marketable since EU citizens are learning multiple languages since born in most cases.
[+] [-] Leherenn|1 year ago|reply
Then it's a tradeoff between whether the extra tax revenue/spending is worth the potential social issues those rich foreigners can bring.
[+] [-] anovikov|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] FredPret|1 year ago|reply
But that’s just one more contributing factor to what you described.
[+] [-] anonzzzies|1 year ago|reply
But it's hard to balance with culture and liveability; I would never live in the US for fear of dropping from the few top % by some accident getting into extreme poverty. Here i'm not really scared of that (and i've been there in the distant past).
[+] [-] 39896880|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] belter|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] snowpid|1 year ago|reply
Did you know that more Americans move to Germany than Germans move to America despite lower wages.
Maybe life quality attracts talents more.
(To be honest my comment is very cheeky but so this is the comment above . EU is big . Germany is big and even cities have considerable differences. )
[+] [-] Ekaros|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] duegreg|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] derriz|1 year ago|reply
Also, I'm not sure they're actually effective overall. For every tax break you give to a new arrival earning say over 100k, there's surely an existing resident earning the equivalent whom you are effectively encouraging to leave with such a discriminatory policy.
And indeed, according to headlines like this "As Digital Nomads Flock to Lisbon, Portugal’s Youth Are Leaving in Droves"[1], it seems to be playing out this way.
Like the annoying business practice of offering steep discounts for new customers, it relies on the inertia of your existing customer base (in this case citizens). The problem is that the "digital nomads" you are trying to attract are the least "sticky" type of resident (after tourists) and are far less likely to fully engage is civil society and contribute at that level (often never bothering to even speak the local language). While if you drive one of your own citizens to relocated in another EU country, the net loss is greater.
Having lived and worked in Dublin for a long period, I was interested when a Dutch-style seven year rule was proposed by the government a few years ago. There was immediate, widespread vocal opposition and the proposal was dropped quickly.
[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2023-10-28/companies...
[+] [-] A_D_E_P_T|1 year ago|reply
How does this make any sense in light of Lisbon being now "one of the world’s most unlivable cities"? Seems like it can't possibly be good for the native Portugese.
https://blogs.mediapart.fr/jacobin/blog/040922/real-estate-s...
[+] [-] Gimpei|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] abofh|1 year ago|reply
Sucks for housing prices, but it's not a giveaway that it often gets suggested as.
[+] [-] fhe|1 year ago|reply
[1] Japan Introduces New Visa for Digital Nomads https://www.japan.travel/en/ca/news/digital-nomad-visa/
[+] [-] tardy_one|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] ed_balls|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] ignoreusernames|1 year ago|reply
- How many units of housing are built each year
- How many units are rented and to what demography (Portuguese families, immigrants sharing rooms, students, etc)
- How many migrants (legal and ilegal)
- How many specialized migrants each year and the % of them that eventually buy a home
- How many units are bought up by funds and other financial entities
- How much taxes and social security contributions are collected per year for specialized migrants and how that money is reinvested
- etc
I known that's basically impossible to have an accurate picture since those numbers are way too "politically loaded". Politics and facts don't mix very well so we just default to who yells the loudest (specially true in Portugal, unfortunately)
EDIT: Format bullet points
[+] [-] ttoinou|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] JamesLefrere|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] hugodan|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] jeanlucas|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] gcanyon|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] 4ad|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] DrBazza|1 year ago|reply
Also non-English speaking countries that set up an internet-based business are at an immediate disadvantage to the US and UK, unless their business is English-first. The US immediately has a market of 300m. The UK, 70m. The enough-English-to-get-by speaking 'West' / Europe is about 350m (of 700m) people. So, 700m Western English speakers in 'first world' economies.
[+] [-] uxhacker|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] fulafel|1 year ago|reply
> countries with schemes are Austria (2 regimes), Belgium, Cyprus (3), Denmark, Finland (2), France, Greece (2), Ireland (2), Italy (5), Luxembourg, Malta (2 in 1), Netherlands, Portugal (2), Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom. 4 Belgium: Foreign executives’ regime, Finland: 32% rule regime, Sweden: Expert tax regime, Ireland: Non-remittance regime.
[+] [-] sazor|1 year ago|reply
Also, capital gains outside of Spain sourced income are not taxed in Spain.
Social security contributions are paid in full same as usual tax residents.
Tax treaty doesn’t apply for such tax residents though and it complicates taxes in general.
[+] [-] petesergeant|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] pelorat|1 year ago|reply
Sadly even centrists are conservative now and destroying the country in the name of, what... preserving culture?
Examples: Attempts to limit the number of tourists. Limiting number of flights from Schiphol. A ban on building new hotels. Removal of the expat tax-break. Limiting the number of foreign student in the universities. Mandating that less university classes are thaught in English and the list goes on and on.
I mean who in their right mind would say yes to more skilled labor and cash inflow into the local economy. Surely no-one! :rolls-eyes:
[+] [-] unknown|1 year ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] ChrisArchitect|1 year ago|reply
Portugal to reintroduce tax breaks for skilled foreigners https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40894527