Remote workers are not paying local income taxes, but at some level they are benefiting from the services provided by local income taxes. Immigration policies restrict foreign workers in part to protect local workers, and tenuously you are still competing with other remote workers in the same country. Immigration policy as a whole has multiple, often conflicting goals, and digital nomads are an afterthought.

Tourists don't pay local taxes but benefit from services like roads or police assistance, and they're welcome because they do bring income to a country when their hotel/restaurant/souvenir shop pays taxes. I think remote workers should be seen similarly.

> I think remote workers should be seen similarly.

And by all means talk to your congressman about passing such laws

I for one will be not paying my income tax this year, as I bring income to the country when my landlord/restaurant/cinema pays taxes.

Part of it is the law hasn't caught up yet (and smart nomads can fly under the radar), the other part is there is very little benefit for allowing remote workers in your country. Maybe they contribute a bit in consuming local services and housing before moving on, but if things go wrong (ie you're stranded because some idiot's business failed without contingency plans), those benefits get wiped out.

From the government's perspective, it's a razor thin margin policy endeavor. For you as a digital nomad, you think it's a great deal for them. For a government, they'll just work towards more tourism instead (which nets them greater ROI; way more tourists in the world compared to remote workers).

How do the benefits to the host country get wiped out? The person is not allowed to legally work in the host country, and an appropriate visa specifically for this remote-work situation should become invalid once they were unemployed -- so they would just go, or get sent, back to their home country. The cost of the flight-home could be even part of the visa application fee!

You answered your own question (as I'm not aware of any visa application fees that include a one way ticket back to someone's home country as of today). Some types of visas require showing financial assets and the ability to support yourself, tourist visas (which digital nomads travel on) do not.

I'm not arguing about what the current state of the laws are regarding tourist visas. I'm arguing against "there is very little benefit for allowing remote workers in your country." With a reasonably constructed visa program specifically for remote workers, a host country could see a lot of benefits from allowing remote workers with what seem like minimal risks.

> With a reasonably constructed visa program specifically for remote workers, a host country could see a lot of benefits from allowing remote workers with what seem like minimal risks.

I somewhat agree with you, depending on the circumstances (as always, "it depends"). I'm pointing out where we are today. Be the change, sell it to countries if you want to see it implemented.

I'm confused. Part of temporary visa requirements are that you show a ticket to go back home. Put that requirement and you are done.

I mean how does disallowing remote workers in your country make any sense.

A country is seen like a household. You get to allow or disallow whoever you like, based on how you want your country to be run. That's called sovereignty.

It doesn't even matter if by coming in they'd made you more money, you could very well not want to get more money that way, but instead e.g. prefer your peace, cultural coherence, and lack of Starbucks.