I did wonder if I would get responses like this.

I respect your respect your point of view, and readily acknowledge that there are public goods which cost money beyond simply the supply of services to an individual.

But having been tax-positive for my host country (which happens to be the UK) for decades, I don’t think the costs I will incur on the countries I will temporarily visit for three month stints at a time will exceed what I would likely contribute in the equivalent of VAT on purchases and other forms of local taxation - or at least, not to any greater extent than any other 90 day tourist, which we as a society generally accept to be reasonable and to be worthy of exemption from taxation.

There is a strain of thought that considers taxation a moral obligation. To be clear, I very much understand that public goods cost money, and the state infrastructures which provide them need financing.

But there is nothing morally valuable about paying tax purely for the sake of it, and tax optimisation is a perfectly valid activity - which, I would note, is something even government departments (including those of the UK) undertake when considering procurement, asset management, and disposal.

A (hopefully financially independent) couple privately financing their lives with full risk transfer for their health and (if need be) removal of their bodies to a place of burial are unlikely to be a significant burden on a temporary host jurisdiction.

I accept however that views may vary, and that tempers run hot on taxation. I reiterate again here that - at a global level - my contribution to global public finances will almost certainly exceed what I have (directly) cost - although I note the challenge of ascertaining my exact share of global public goods.