[derriz]

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.

[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2023-10-28/companies...

[sgift]

While I agree with your comment I'd like to point out that the reason the youth is leaving is not this policy, but that there are no jobs for them. At least none that you really want to live on. That's a problem "digital nomads" are expected to not have: They have their job somewhere else, so who cares if the local job market is garbage? Though I don't think this will work out in the long term.

[robxorb]

> Why should existing tax payers effectively subsidise lower taxes for new arrivals?

Because new arrivals inject new money into the local economy. A new arrival buys products, pays for services etc. Their foreign dollars often also go further - meaning they can inject more vs a local, who - by nature of the problem - can't hence the need.

You could argue a tax break for locals would do the same thing, but it's not quite the same, as locals paying less tax may tend to choose saving any extra cash rather than change their spend-habits. Foreigners are bringing new money with existing habits.

[JetSpiegel]

Do they? The point of digital nomads is to live anywhere, so they won't be attached to their location.

It's the Danegeld, why should we want to attract those people?

[gizmo]

Digital nomads don’t settle but other digital nomads will take their place if the country has enough on offer. When a city is able to attract educated, intelligent and motivated people through a simple tax policy change you can expect all sorts of positive downstream externalities. Ambitious people don’t want to live in dying cities. Anything that stops brain drain is good. Whatever politicians can do to attract talent is going to be net positive, even when that means tax cuts for digital nomads who don’t employ anybody and who have no loyalty to their host country.

[WWWMMMWWW]

It's the same rational companies apply when they pay new hires more than existing staff for the same job.

Both the governments and the companies are counting on the underlings to stay put.

While it is harder to switch country than it is to switch employer, the optimal strategy for the citizen/employee is the same in both cases: Hop to the better deal as soon as there is one available - show no loyalty, you'll never get any in return.