Hacker News Reader

> do most of any nomads actually pay the same taxes that a local would in the places they visit?

No, of course not. The rub is that 0 nomads are employed by companies in the places they visit. If they’re American, they’re still paying US tax (although there is a set aside for your first 100k if you spend 330/365 days outside of the us).

Incentivized visas are becoming more widespread, but you haven’t really presented a clear case that nomads _should_ be paying tax. It’s by-and-large legal to not pay tax on the income you earn while on vacation in a foreign country and there are clear prohibitions against working for local companies.

If the country your passport is from doesn’t require you to pay income tax when you aren’t residing there, then you haven’t met the requirements for tax in any country that you visited this year.

It's a solved problem, it's just only gets applied to sports stars and other high-earning people: https://www.mondaq.com/canada/tax-authorities/968614/how-doe...

Now you could argue that it makes sense for a baseball player to be income taxed in Canada when playing there (as his job is to play the game that is being played in Canada) but it wouldn't make sense for the laptop jockey who could work from anywhere.

I'm not trying to present any case, I'm just asking a question. I'm genuinely curious.

As an employer, I am legally in hot water if my employee works for a majority of their employment outside of the legal jurisdiction in which I'm employing them. I'm not an expert on US tax law (nor am I American) but I would imagine that I'm remitting employment income tax on behalf of an employee in a given state and they are claiming spending 330/365 days out of the country that an auditor would be very interested in speaking with both of us.

I'm not aware of any scenario where you can simultaneously be employed in a given county and also never present in it. Maybe this is an American thing?

You are vastly overcomplicating this. There is no difference between a "digital nomad" and someone who goes on vacation and happens to check and respond to a lot of email while they're traveling. In both cases the purpose of the travel is to enjoy the visit to the other country - it's not like digital nomads are going to the other country because they are setting up in-person business meetings with the locals.

There is a massive difference: the purpose of the visit. Being on a vacation, doing a business visit, visiting friends/family, and working normally while visiting the country are all different purposes. There is no reason to assume that the immigration and tax laws of any specific country should treat them in the same way.

Incidentally, setting up in-person business meetings with the locals is more likely to make your income not taxable in a random country you are visiting. It looks like a business visit, which are often treated in the same way as tourism. If you are simply staying in the country and earning money, immigration and tax authorities are more likely to assume that you are living and working there, unless you can prove otherwise.

Where do you draw the line, then? There are lots of people I know that are fully remote employees. They love travelling, so they'll spend about 2 months in a particular locale, making about 3 trips a year.

Note the purpose of the trip is exactly the same as a tourist: they want to explore a foreign country, take in the sights, meet people, etc. There is literally 0 difference from this, and the one time I had an ill-timed week long trip to Cancun right before a big deadline so I ended up working most of the trip, than the length of stay.

The only lever that governments can really use to differentiate between this and most tourism is different visas based on the length of stay, unless they want to decimate their tourism industries.

Like in most other legal matters, you don't draw a line. There are situations where you are unambiguously a visitor, situations where you are unambiguously a resident, and situations where your legal status is ambiguous. If you are in an ambiguous situation, you are taking a personal risk. The risk may be minimal, and it may be worth it, but your immigration and tax situation is uncertain and cannot be known in advance.

Also, it's not up to you to determine the purpose of your visit. Immigration and tax authorities determine it by any means they want. If you disagree with them, you are wrong unless you can prove otherwise according to the criteria they use.

As a non-citizen in a foreign country, immigration and tax law are often areas where you are guilty until proven innocent. You don't have the same rights you are used to in your home country. It's up to you to prove that you are following the law, rather than for the authorities to prove that you are breaking it.

Some countries encourage tourism by not enforcing their laws. As long as you are a nice harmless tourist doing nice harmless touristy things, the authorities ignore you. But if they have a reason to dislike you, it turns out you are illegally in the country, because you didn't follow some overcomplicated process to the letter.

> have a designated home for tax purposes, regardless of questionable haven-status

I have a designated tax home in Florida where I do have a vacation home/investment property where we stay around 3-4 months per year.

> In either case... a tourist? Leaving aside the nomads who do have some permanent tax residency, regardless of whether or not it is questionable, do most of any nomads actually pay the same taxes that a local would in the places they visit?

Every hotel I stay at adds on legally mandated government fees for tourists. Blame the government if they aren’t passing laws that require AirBnbs to pay those same fees and/or Airbnb that goes out of their way to support illegal short term rentals.

I’m mostly staying in the US. But we stay exclusively at hotels and pay we pay whatever government mandated tourist fees when we stay internationally

I’m not sure if there’s even a way to easily pay taxes for a foreigner. Nor there are proper visa’s for such kind of travel. I think it’s relatively a very new thing and everyone is just figuring it out.

I'm not sure I follow. I've had visas that classify me as a permanent resident for tax purposes. Even if I spent a minority of time there, I'd still need to file taxes, dual file and be able to prove my income was taxed in a jurisdiction having a tax treaty.

Working on a tourist visa is typically not allowed. At least in my experience it has always been strictly forbidden. So, I agree there are not proper visas for this, because it's not generally permissable.

Digital nomads almost always have a home base in some domain which has tax laws. Since we're on a US site, I'll assume many people here are American. And as Americans, we are required to file US taxes regardless of where we live in the world. And depending on local taxes we may pay, we may also have some tax burden in the US even if we're not living in the US at the time.

This "tax dodging" thing you talk about is either misinformed or just not applicable. The US is one of two countries in the world which tax its citizens on income earned while living abroad. For citizens of other countries, such as the Netherlands (where I live now), they can live abroad and pay no taxes to the Netherlands... legally.

The catch is that a lot of countries do not allow you to work while visiting them, or if you do they require you to pay taxes as a resident. If you work "illegally" while staying in their countries, then yes you are dodging taxes.

That's the letter of the law. But in the spirit of the law, if you are working for a foreign company and spending some of your income in a remote place, you are not cheating the local country out of tax revenue, but you are providing additional economic input.

Sure, but then you're simply a tourist. What purpose does the distinction serve?