alt Hacker NewsOh there will be a lot of issues in the future because Germany says thst your company is in Germany because you work from there. So you have to do taxes in Estonia and in Germany. And prepare for a lot of tax issues if you dont have a good tax advisor.
>Germany says that your company is in Germany because you work from there.
Forgive my ignorance, I have never really thought about this before and I may be missing something very obvious here.
Isn't that kind of true, though? For instance, if I am a citizen of Japan, live there, and run my remote business from there, but the business that I run exclusively makes money from people in Portugal and Brazil, it would be true that my revenue is being generated in those other countries, but in my own life, I am enjoying the benefits and protections of being a Japanese citizen. Right?
It isn't so much that I would want to be taxed in: Portugal, Brazil, and Japan, but rather that, the nature of how I am choosing to operate my business kind of makes the issue my own burden to bare. If I continue to live in Japan for whatever reasons that may tie me there (family, friends, children in school, business isn't stable enough, other commitments, etc.) it seems like there is a kind of debt to pay back some of my earnings to the Japanese government because they have provided me an environment to build and maintain that business within their country even though the profit made is exclusively outside of Japan. That is to say, the government may not have seen the money directly, but they provided me a safe and stable environment in which I was able to run and operate that business; isn't that kind of the fundamental role of government? I.e., to protect the nation and its citizens, so they may do as they will.
Put another way, suppose the top 1,000 richest people in the world all opted to all move to a tiny nation with very low taxes, and continued to run their businesses remotely from that place without being required to contribute anything back to that nation through taxes. That seems wrong to me. It seems good that they would be asked to pay back into the place that they live and reside, regardless of where their revenue is gotten. They have a home, and that home is ultimately defended and it's property rights upheld by the government that recognizes it.
I'd be interested to hear how others see it. Like I said, I haven't really thought about this too much before, and may be missing something more fundamental and obvious.