It's they stay that short, how much do they tend to rely on taxable benefits?

Someone who stays a few years at the peak of above average earnings might well be highly economically beneficial even at a steep tax discount.

I don't think governments ought to compete on tax in general, but this is one where it might both be a net benefit and there is the arguable case that most tax systems are geared towards people in working age overpaying to compensate for the cost of caring for children and the elderly.

Someone who comes temporarily during working age without a discount will get the downside without the benefit.

This will be a bigger problem for the competitive ability in places with comprehensive social support mechanisms.

Given dropping birth rates, trying to offset that to be an attractive place to immigrate to may well be worth it even if most leave again - especially as long as it's profitable too.

But if your concern is that it doesn't attract people who will stay, maybe there are ways to incentivise that too. E.g. let people earn a discount where a portion does not pay out unless they stay longer.

Having a foreigner stay in the long term could be worse, economically. Five years of taxation on highly-paid individuals - who are presumably producing far more than their salary to the companies paying them - is essentially free money for the country. You did not spend tax money on their education so far and are reaping all the benefits.

Now, if they stay permanently, you will have to pay their pensions and healthcare, which are very expensive.

> You did not spend tax money on their education so far and are reaping all the benefits

That is one possibility.

Another is that the foreigner may have got the job instead of it going to a local. It's also possible that as a result of that the local may be unemployed and hence costing the country money.

In my experience Europe has a dramatic shortage of highly skilled workers, in technology and healthcare in particular. There are simply not enough qualified workers.

I also believe that the economy is not a zero sum game where there is a finite number of jobs. If the Netherlands suddenly absorbed 20k Silicon Valley workers, they would not simply replace 20k local workers. One of them might even create a company that ends up employing that amount of people.

>Another is that the foreigner may have got the job instead of it going to a local.

The birth rate is falling and well below replacement level already, and talent shortages are well-known to be a problem. It's too late to worry about protecting the jobs of locals.

> It's too late to worry about protecting the jobs of locals

What does one offer to locals to show them that they matter? Remember that all locals - even if they are poor or unemployed - have a vote.

If one washes one's hands of an entire group one should not be surprised the next time an election comes round if the outcome is a form of protest.

The Netherlands already voted for a Eurosceptic, invoking similar rhetoric as you here - "replacement" of locals by foreigners, taking their jobs, etc. Interestingly, as is almost always the case in Europe, the places with fewer immigrants voted more harshly against them.

The question we should ask is whether this is rational or not. I think not. If the Dutch want to vote themselves into a Brexit, then so be it - the foreigners will go elsewhere, trade barriers will be erected to "protect" the local economy, and time will tell who will be ahead economically and culturally.

> If the Dutch want to vote themselves into a Brexit, then so be it - the foreigners will go elsewhere, trade barriers will be erected to "protect" the local economy, and time will tell who will be ahead economically and culturally.

And plenty of locals will go elsewhere too. I for one. The morons that effected Brexit should be enough of an example that any other EU country that wants to go the same route has been amply warned about what that will do your country. It's amazing that so many people are utterly blind but then again, live long enough and nothing really surprises you any more.

Exactly where would you go? It's not like there's a lot of nice, developed nations on par with Netherlands that you can just pick up and move to. Perhaps some other EU nations, but many of those are electing similar people lately.

> as is almost always the case [..] the places with fewer immigrants voted more harshly against them

Well, the very opposite of that happened in the UK regarding the Brexit referendum:

"More than 50 per cent of the population growth in Lincolnshire in the last decade has been caused by immigration. Across the county, population growth has been 57,999, with 30,568 due to immigration - a total of 52.7 per cent."

https://www.lincolnshirelive.co.uk/news/local-news/new-figur...

"More than three quarters of the people of Boston, in the county of Lincolnshire in the East Midlands of England, voted to leave the EU. According to the most recent U.K. census in 2011, Boston also has the highest proportion of eastern European immigrants of anywhere in the U.K., after an influx of EU workers to the area’s agricultural sector, earning it the label of Britain’s “most divided town.” Between 2004 and 2014, the town’s migrant population grew by 460%, and the proportion of residents of the Borough of Boston born in EU accession countries such as Lithuania, Poland and Latvia, stands at around 12%."

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/28/in-boston-britains-most-pro-...

> The question we should ask is whether this is rational or not.

To vote a particular way in the hope of change? Why wouldn't that be rational?

Hope of change isn't rational because it more than likely will be change for the worse, not change for the better. The idea that a demagogue is going to come along and as a strong man solve all of your problems is infantile at best and irresponsible at worst. Those that vote in wannabe dictators will get exactly what they deserve.

The main issue with populism and why people fall for it is a reliance on narratives over facts. If we discuss consolidated data instead of an anecdote, the conclusion is quite clear, and it shows that you are wrong: https://theconversation.com/hard-evidence-how-areas-with-low...

> To vote a particular way in the hope of change? Why wouldn't that be rational?

There are plenty of historical examples of people voting for "change" that ended up backfiring wildly. I think you could find quite a few of those in the same ideological spectrum of people like Wilders.