> That's a bold face lie, unless by majority you mean less that 50%.

Ok, fair, I mis-spoke. It was not intentional. What I meant is that taxes on goods and services take a largest absolute % of government revenue. Which is was 37.8% in 2020.

The point I am trying to make is that no matter who is living in the country, they'll be using goods and services, which are taxed, and then the revenue flows to the government coffers. Arguably, people with more money, will spend more money on goods and services, and thus pay more into the coffers in absolute terms.

Meanwhile personal taxes made up just 19.8% of the government revenues.

> The injustice is simple: "digital nomad" earning pays VAT and minimum income tax

1. It is not "minimum", but a flat 20% rate.

2. In absolute terms they pay more though, than the average Portuguese citizen. Public goods are paid for, by the governmetn, in absolute fiat amounts (EUR), not in the percentage of income paid to the government.

> but leeches off roads

How are they leeching off the roads? They paid their share of the tax, and even more (in absolute amounts) as income tax.

> socialized healthcare

The vast majority of expats and digital nomads that I know have private insurance, which is also taxed, and goes back into the coffers, and provides jobs.

And besides, again, they have paid already more in absolute terms, than an average citizen.

> our nice climate

How can you leech off of a nice climate? If a digital nomad (with NHR) enjoys the climate, does it become less joyful for you?

> A citizen earning the same wages for the same job pays VAT and income tax, subsidizing the tax leech.

A person NHR status pays VAT and income tax too. Just income tax is capped at 20%.

> Meanwhile, the immigrants with low wages are treated like criminals, but they don't even get that special tax rate, because they don't pay income tax!

I think this is not on topic.

Anyone who fits into the NHR classification can claim NHR. It's not limited to "expats" or "wealthy" or "immigrants" or "non-immigrants" some limited class of people. In fact, even a Portuguese citizen could have claimed it, if they have not been a tax payer for the past 5 years (e.g. living elsewhere and returning).

The classifications are wide and abundant. Anyone with a profession in demand could have gotten the status.

Immigrants or not, people with no education or experience cannot expect to get the same treatment. Why would that be fair? You can extrapolate the same arguemnt then and say that anyone should be getting the same salary, no matter your education or qualification. That's not how the market works. There's the basic law of supply and demand.

What NHR was doing is simply incentivizing (with a temporary tax break) professional people the government deemed the country needed at the time. I also think this list has been adjusted multiple times, as requirements changed. If you know a better ways of incentivizing people to move to Portugal, I'd love to hear them and perhaps propose this to Portuguese government.

> Why should a poor country like Portugal subsidize immigrants from rich countries

I don't think Portugal is a poor country by any stretch of imagination. It might be "poor" in relative terms to other countries in Europe, but it's not poor in absolute terms.

Should or not, is entirely up to the citizens of Portugal to decide. In the past the citizens have elected officials that represented them and have made that decision, because, perhaps there was a benefit at the time. Then the decision was reversed, because, perhaps it no longer benefits the country?

> The Americans that want socialized medicine and maintained roads can spend the money on their own country, our pay their fair share like other people living here.

And I think they do. Portuguese people, represented by the officials they have elected, have decided that 20% is a fair share for new or returning residents to pay, so incentivize them to move to the country.

Otherwise, these people had many other opportunities and would not want to move to Portugal.

I don't know historically why this has been decided, but my speculation was that perhaps aging population and younger population moving away from the country was a big factor. This kind of outflow is simply not sustainable for long term. Who's going to pay the taxes needed to sustain aging population?