3 ms·

> 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 c

> 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.

bombcar 4y ago
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-does-canada-tax-non-resident-pro-athletes-a-canadian-tax-lawyer39s-analysis 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.
xyzzy_plugh 4y ago
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?

bombcar 4y ago

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-does-canada-tax-non-resident-pro-athletes-a-canadian-tax-lawyer39s-analysis 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.

xyzzy_plugh 4y ago

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?