Even within the US, there's been something of a crackdown on out-of-state work from a tax perspective. Though it has been pretty inconsistent from what I've seen even if companies are starting to use auditors to track via expense reports--though, somewhat weirdly, they don't always follow state laws that are often set up around professional athletes and entertainers. Obviously most people have a right to work out-of-state but they may have to file appropriate tax returns.

▲

lotsofpulp 2 days ago | parent [-]

> Obviously most people have a right to work out-of-state but they may have to file appropriate tax returns.

Which US resident would not have the right to work wherever they want in the US?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_Unit...

▲

ghaff 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

I don't know. Weasel word :-) I could hypothesize court orders for whatever reason.

▲

eesmith 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Working out-of-state is different from freedom of movement.

For example, if you live in New Jersey and work in New York you are obligated to file tax returns to both states.

See also the "Jock tax", https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jock_tax, "the jock tax is the colloquially named income tax levied against visitors to a city or state who earn money in that jurisdiction".

▲

lotsofpulp 2 days ago | parent [-]

>Working out-of-state is different from freedom of movement.

It is the same in the US. I do not see how having to pay taxes prevents anyone from working in a place.

Tax policy and the legal right to work somewhere are two different things. As far as I know, no non-federal jurisdiction in the US can officially say people of xyz characteristics cannot work here. At least not yet.

Also, the jock tax is just income tax.

The only reason it has a name is because it is more difficult to audit and prove tax evasion for most other people that work in various locales, but do not pay income tax they are legally required to, whereas the public nature of the work of entertainers and large incomes makes it easy for a government to prove tax was owed. Which the wikipedia link says:

>Since a state cannot afford to track the many individuals who do business on an itinerant basis, the ones targeted are usually high profile and very wealthy, namely professional athletes. Not only are the working schedules of famous sports players public, so are their salaries. The state can compute and collect the amount with very little investment of time and effort.

▲

eesmith 2 days ago | parent [-]

Absolutely nothing prevents anyone from working in a place. I don't see anyone in this thread saying otherwise.

ghaff's comment - the one you replied to - included "there's been something of a crackdown on out-of-state work from a tax perspective".

As you correctly point out, that's a different thing than the right to work somewhere.

▲

lotsofpulp 2 days ago | parent [-]

> I don't see anyone in this thread saying otherwise.

ghaff wrote:

> most people have a right to work out-of-state

Which means some people do not. I was interested in who that would be.

	▲	ghaff 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		There may be state-related licensure requirements. Smaller companies, especially, may not be set up to have the legal provisions in place to handle employees living in all states. There may be other things but I'm not an employment lawyer. So people can move but they may not continue to be employed across state lines. Yes, in many cases, people can commute across state lines to do their actual work. But the companies often still need a legal entity in that person's state to pay them. I'll leave aside edge cases related to custodial matters and so forth.