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.
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?
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.
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.
> I was highly skilled migrant/expat, now "naturalized Dutch", and work for Booking.com -
Interesting. We may know each other. Are you C-suite?
> so I know a thing or two about tourism (beyond just traveling myself).
Appeals to authority are always suspect, but it takes staggering arrogance to claim employment at Booking.com as your authority on the economic impact of tourism. But you know the old saying about making a person understand something when their pay cheque depends on them not doing so.
> Tourists least, digital nomads a bit more, and expats even more - use public infrastructure.
You have this order exactly backwards, with tourists using proportionately the most public infrastructure, and residents the least.
>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?
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.
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.