[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.

[closewith]

> 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.

[techcode]

While I agree that appeals to authority are suspicious - no idea how "I know a thing or two about tourism" could be interpreted as claiming "authority on the economic impact of tourism".

So far your views/opinions seem to be very "black and white". And beyond stating them - I'm yet to see anything to support or even just explain/elaborate them.

[techcode]

I'm not C-suite - I gave up on management track long time ago.

I'm still waiting to see how/why my order of who's using public infrastructure is wrong/opposite.

Care to explain?

[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.

[FirmwareBurner]

>I am saying that over their lifetime - they use much less of the societal services

If you put it like that, other groups of people also use less societal services. Why aren't they getting the same tax exemptions too?

[techcode]

That's something for regulators, politicians and society overall to figure out.

Personally - I'm happy for my taxes money to be used for police or firefighters (and other things) and I still hope I never really use/need them.

At the same time. If The Netherlands hadn't had 30% tax ruling for expats, wife and I would've went back after my initial 12 months contract.

Back in 2010/2011 - even with software engineer salary, until 30% tax rule was granted for me - we were chipping away money we saved up living in Serbia.

Back in <=2010 wife and I were earning €1500~€1750 in Belgrade. Saving at least a third of that. In the NL the ~€45k gross (before 30% tax rule was granted) was not enough for rent, food and other normal (no car, not eating out ...etc.) costs.

But Dutch had 30% ruling, so even with one newborn we could still make ends meet. And 15 years later The Netherlands has 2 adult tax payers (at 0 prior cost for NL), and 2 children (born there, so same societal/taxpayer cost as any other NL citizen/child).

[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?