[closewith]

No, that's not the case for the most part. For example, the Croatian digital nomad residence permit that this article is about provides an exemption to income tax for earned income while working for a foreign company and living in Croatia. This means that most digital nomads can work tax-free in Croatia.

This contrasts with, for example, Ireland, where not only does a digital nomad's income become subject to local tax on day 1, so does their company (if they are the beneficial owner).

Croatia's approach is excellent if you want many wealthy (compared to local standards) people to bring an influx of hard currency into your economy, at the cost of inflation. Eventually the benefits outweigh the costs and the government begins to subject digital nomads to local taxation and stricter visa rules.

[oytis]

What's the benefit to have rich people in your country if they don't pay taxes and don't create any meaningful amount of jobs?

[closewith]

The benefit is similar to remittances - you get a huge influx of hard currency as digital nomads freely spend their high salaries. That does create jobs and raises tax revenue through consumption taxes and downstream employment. It's very similar to tourism - digital nomads are effectively semi-permanent tourists.

However, like tourism, it causes inflation, prices out locals, and can detract from more sustainable, natural economic growth (the so-called tourism curse). So like tourism, developed economies inevitably place limits on digital nomads.

That can take the form of stricter visas, capped numbers, or by implementing tax reforms.

[FirmwareBurner]

Since digital nomads use the same public infrastructure and amenities as the people who live and work there, why shouldn't they also pay the same taxes?

[techcode]

Nomads and even more permanent expats use less of the infrastructure and amenities.

Not just for periods before and after they are living there - also during their stay.

For example. If they (nomads) lose their (remote) job - they won't get social benefits payments like the "locals".

They (nomads) also don't accrue retirement/pension which is usually part of income taxes.

And of course they pay all the other "taxes".

If they rent/buy anything - there's VAT. If they drive around in their car - they pay registration, insurance, road tax, highway tolls.

Pretty sure they also need to purchase some sort of health insurance.

[closewith]

I think it's pretty clear that digital nomads, like tourists, use _more_ taxpayer resources because they use public infrastructure much more than the locals, who like most people globally live simpler lives mostly at home.

[techcode]

It's not clear to me.

Perhaps we have different ideas about what "taxpayer resources" and/or "public infrastructure" is?

I was highly skilled migrant/expat, now "naturalized Dutch", and work for Booking.com - so I know a thing or two about tourism (beyond just traveling myself).

Tourists least, digital nomads a bit more, and expats even more - use public infrastructure.

But over lifetime, locals use order of magnitude more than expats.

[FirmwareBurner]

>Nomads and even more permanent expats use less of the infrastructure and amenities.

So what? Public/societal services aren't pay-as-you-go.

For example, I also never used any public schools in my current country nor do I have kids of my own who use them, but I still pay for them via my income taxes because that's what's necessary for a functioning society. You're not exempt from paying taxes just because you use less public services.

So why should digital nomads be exempt from contributions to the society they enjoy living in?

[techcode]

I'm not saying that digital nomads should be completely exempt from contributions.

I am saying that over their lifetime - they use much less of the societal services in their "remote/nomadic" locations compared to lifetime-permanent/locals.

And governments calculated that in.

[closewith]

I think it's up to each country. Some jurisdictions have done very well from allowing digital nomads.

Personally, though, I think they should be subject to local taxes and I'm glad they are in my country.

[FirmwareBurner]

>Some jurisdictions have done very well from allowing digital nomads.

Which? How did they "do well?