To be clear, I have never said that freelancers should not pay tax, nor that they are some magical fairies. In fact, I think that they should have registered as

To be clear, I have never said that freelancers should not pay tax, nor that they are some magical fairies. In fact, I think that they should have registered as self-employed entities and pay tax accordingly. Why do you expect (or even insinuate) that I don't know that all countries tax income on residents working there? Of course they do. It actually is a bit more complicated than that, but never mind. For freelancers (or as a small self-employed entities, which is how freelancers often are legalized), tax usually does not amount up to nearly half of their income. For regular employees this isn't all that unusual, but there are clear distinctions between employment and freelancing. I find it hard to believe that a Serbian company would pay employment tax if they hire a freelancer, as you claim. Are you really sure about that? Hiring a freelancer usually means that it is essentially a business-to-business relationship, leaving things like tax, insurance, pension, etc up to the freelancer to take care of. Failing to do that is of course a violation of the tax code, but it doesn't make somebody an employee all of a sudden. I don't think a business is even legally allowed to contract a freelancer unless that person has some kind of legal registration for that. So it would not just be the freelancer that is in violation, but probably also the business contracting them (it could even be an economical crime, for the unfair competitive advantage it might provide). I guess that the crux here is that the Serbian government decided that anyone who didn't register themselves as a legitimate freelancer (agency, in your words), yet still received income from abroad, will now be treated as if this income was from employment. Of course these people should pay tax, no doubt about that. But, unless these people are really actual employees and not freelancers (even if they failed to register appropriately), I don't see why they should (or even can) be charged as if they are employees. Other than "might makes right" and "just because we say so". If all these people calling themselves freelancers are in fact legitimate employees working somewhere abroad, then I completely agree with your logic. However, if that's the case, then there is another snag. The various tax treaties between those countries and Serbia usually dictate that tax will only be charged in one of the involved countries, and usually in the country of employment. But, I'm pretty sure that those foreign companies in most cases did not treat these people as employees (because they'd pay far more) and instead treated them as freelancers. So this likely a moot point. Maybe I'm still seeing this all wrong, but to me it appears that the government is conveniently classifying these people as regular employees, just because that happens to be a group/classification for which they can charge the highest amount of tax. For me it is really odd that a freelancer (legal or illegal) can somehow become a regular employee when they fail to register. If anything, I would expect that they be people who have illegal been operating as an business entity. Dealing with that is whole different matter. Potentially dragging in criminal justice and not just tax code. I suspect the government would quickly shoot itself in the foot with that, so maybe that is why they are taking this route instead? I believe I understood everything you wrote and don't disagree with it (besides what you wrote about a company hiring a freelancer). However, I really don't get how employment and freelancing can somehow be bunched up as if they are the same. But that is what I get from your story and the media. For a company contracting any work force, be that employees or freelancers, it certainly never is.