Wealthy Americans are buying second passports as a 'plan B'
businessinsider.com
businessinsider.com
We can't afford these investment visas, but because of our fear that gay marriage rights may be repealed [0], my husband and I are exploring the possibility of Spanish citizenship via descent. It's unclear if we can even apply before my dad gets it or become citizens without at least a year of residency, but when my dad emailed a major consulate recently, they had an automated message saying there's a 5 day wait for return emails. Their listed phone number also had no response and went to voicemail with no automated message. My in laws are also looking into Mexican citizenship by descent.
I am curious how many folks are fleeing states or looking into it, also. We've checked with our workplaces about relocating out of state (Texas). That seems a lot easier than figuring out visas, but we are really dreading about how far things are going to go.
We're hoping for the best, preparing for the worst. I am sure it is not just UHNW individuals who are preparing.
[0] See:
https://nitter.net/NoLieWithBTC/status/1521912691824148482
https://nitter.net/BrynnTannehill/status/1521481078376181760
and Google around for some op-eds. There's a lot of debate around this and whether stare decisis will outweigh the court's extreme views, but ultimately there's a lot of uncertainty.
For example, could you have a car here in the us and owned by your llc, or even a friends, and “rent it from them” and drive it around Mexico?
https://www.mexperience.com/bringing-foreign-plated-cars-int...
Anecdotal: Mt friend had two housekeepete from Mexico who were saving to buy air BNB so they could go back to Mexico.
They visited Mexico and were found dead executed on the side of the road.
Sorry to hear that. Visiting where?
The housekeepers were immigrants and saving up to open AirBnB properties in Mexico as their next salary/profession/business.
They were going down to check on what they were investing in or actually buy the properties or something similar to that.
I don't know where it was. It was probably close to one of the vacation areas which are supposed to be safer. Not sure if it was their home town / area or not.
And then there are stories like this:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/shooting-mexico-beach-resort-2-...
I suppose you can point to killings in the US and turf wars and the like, but ... the vacation areas are supposed to be more heavily policed / controlled since they are such huge profit centers.
I'm curious about this too. Are there any past examples or studies about similar situations and migration (segregation, interracial marriage, "legal" pot, gun laws, etc)? I couldn't find anything in a quick search. Just in my personal experience it seems very few people actually move and just talk about it, especially if they talk about leaving the country, like with a specific president winning an election.
Moving out of state might also work of course, and it will hopefully over time send a strong message to states like Texas.
Good Luck one way or the other.
PS: btw if you do leave the state, send a quick email to all your reps and perhaps those on the other side of the isle to let them know why you are leaving and how much you contributed to the local economy in order to send a strong message. Might help those left behind in Texas who are in a similar situation to you but have less means to move.
Taxes? Annual reporting of some such?
What happens if your American passport expires, can you fly on whatever foreign one you have only? Or do you need to present your US passport when leaving the US and your foreign one when arriving some place?
Can you fly back into the US only using your Spanish passport?
Would you have to reveal at the border that you are a US citizen? Or just show your foreign one and not mention US citizenship?
US citizens are required to report all worldwide income for taxation. Elsewhere, requirements to pay tax generally depend on residing in the country for some number of days per year.
> do you need to present your US passport when leaving the US and your foreign one when arriving some place?
Yes.
> Would you have to reveal at the border that you are a US citizen?
At the US border, yes. If, say, you have a European passport and you're entering Europe, you present the European one.
As long as you don't fly to the US. US citizens need a valid US passport to enter the US, even if they also have another passport[1]. Entering the US is literally the only thing I use my US passport for and the only reason I get it renewed.
[1] I guess you can try to lie on your visa/ESTA application and hope they don't notice, but I wouldn't recommend it.
If those "dudes" are multi billionaires is still impressive.
(I wish I was joking)
If joe “regulars” <$250k net worth are jumping ship, and needing to work their situation - not an army of lawyers/assistants - it’s much different than bill billionaire doing anything…
Majority of government income tax revenue comes from the 1%. If you count corporate taxation, same would hold true + a lot of influence.
It's the case for US, India, and a bunch more big countries.
1.) The change in requests is statistically significant when put in the context of the total number of such individuals
2.) Tax avoidance is the primary driver of this activity
3.) The individuals do not just acquire the passport, but actually move
High-Income Taxpayers Paid the Majority of Federal Income Taxes[1]
[1] https://taxfoundation.org/publications/latest-federal-income...
From your link it is ~40% - you copied the wrong number!
“The top 1 percent paid a greater share of individual [federal] income taxes (38.8 percent) than the bottom 90 percent combined (29.2 percent).”
Residence permit for investment activity. USA. 2019: 65. 2020: 75. 2021 numbers don't seem up yet.
You may be interested in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25367731 , in which @bildung and I discuss German migration to the US over the past 30 years (including 2019 data) as compared to US migration to Germany, and how the German government's statistical office blatantly manipulates data to make Germany look good. As is so often in such cases lately, Trump is involved.
>The one thing they all have in common: deep-rooted fear about the future of American society, he said.
That tells a lot about the changes that happened in the American society in the recent years.
I wonder if they also try to fight against those changes or they will wait for the situation to degrade more and then leave.
It's not that they genuinely fear the future of American society, it's that they've run out of ideas to protect their wealth and getting a "golden passport" is the next logical step. It's a bit like a regular joe buying one of those "seed backup" (hunk of metal that you write your bitcoin seed phrase on) devices on Amazon.
What are the chances your house will burn down, leaving nothing except this indestructible seed phrase device? I'd say very low. The same can be said for the fears of these billionaires buying foreign passports. The chances of American "turning" is vanishingly small, but when you have money to burn, why not prepare for that scenario too.
Even if I thought the US was 99.5% likely to remain politically stable in my lifetime, I might still think a second passport is a good idea.
Elites leaving is a telltale sign of instability.
The reason why people invest in the US is: legal system, the educated workforce, etc. I think people get it completely twisted about why investors invest (ironically, this notion of a "capitalist's strike" is just pure bait from right-wing people who don't understand how investing works). There is always an excess of capital because economic advantage is not evenly distributed, you are always chasing the limited number of good opportunities. And there is no competitive advantage in money (in theory, not totally true in practice): $100 from X is as good as $100 from Y.
If you believe capital flight exists, you believe that humans don't like money.
The advantage the US has is strengthening and compounding. There is nowhere like it in the world, I don't think anyone is even close.
>If you believe capital flight exists, you believe that humans don't like money.
>If I believe X then I must believe Y. Not really, If I had a lot of Turkish Lira and lived in turkey then I would call moving my ass before the collapse capital flight. And I would have been better off doing so. Same with Venezuela and many other countries that clearly weren't too big to fail.
Wouldn’t a good example be one where the people who left basically ended up doing very poorly in the end?
Short answer: not easily.
Even without the security agreements that Taiwan has, it's ridiculously hard to invade and take over if one does not want to bomb it to pieces: it being an island means it's extremely hard to land troops and supplies for them (Ukraine has shown that even without a navy, it is possible to sink ships or that it's perfectly possible to run an air force even after almost all infrastructure has been destroyed), and a highly motivated population can and will put up a fight.
China is definitely looking at Ukraine - not just on how the Western world reacts at this clear break with any and all international rules on war, but also how a country under siege and its population behaves.
Russia also has nuclear weapons and even she does not use it for this invasion. Nuclear weapons have a great effect on public opinion including domestically as it is clearly a weapon of mass destruction/murder. Actually any form of offensive is faux pas and most beligerants avoid calling it a war. It is always framed as a defense of something, see Russian "special military operation", see American "liberation" of Afghanistan or Iraq. Likewise the Chinese would call it "taking it back" and a mere domestic affair. A nuke is clearly a form of total war.
Dropping nukes is taken in the last resort doctrine, and there is no historical precedent of euphemism in its use.
Speaking of which, a country's nuclear weapon usage doctrines are public so that coexistence can exist and mistakes do not happen. People talk as if commanders can consider nuclear weapons as standard part of the arsenal but that is not so. It is one of the few weapons which likely would lead to the total destruction and thus defeat of a state due to the Mutual assured destruction concept.
A great example is the Pakistani nuclear weapon doctrine[1]. It is so clear that i almost wish all countries would have nuclear weapons. India and Pakistan would have had murderous wars if not for them. Instead they are the stick that allows for softer talk.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_doctrine_of_Pakistan...
But the key differentiator was health care. We have issues that require multiple medications, and while there we needed refills. The person renting to us said to go to the ER, so we did. We were with a doctor in twenty minutes, who asked us why we had come. We said we had double-checked with the landlord and he insisted that was the right course to take. The doctor said they could have been busy and we would have had to wait, but in any case she was happy to write that refills. All up it took under half an hour and cost under $30.
We’ve been to the ER multiple times in the US and never seen a doctor in less than an hour (except when I had a motorcycle accident, but that’s a different circumstance entirely). And of course no ER visit in the US costs less than thousands of $$$.
And filling the prescriptions cost less than the copay in the US.
Retirement is some time away, so I hope the wealthy don’t screw it up for us :-/
Australia
Edit: assume via Singapore also doesn’t work?
De-facto they are preventing citizens from entering but de-jure they are still allowed. But I mean it's China, is anyone surprised here?
"Japan suspends new reservations on all incoming flights" https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-health-japan...
This was a short lived measure but did have the effect of preventing some citizens from returning. It could be argued that they could travel by boat, but I believe most ocean travel was also restricted at the time.
An edge use case - but one I've enjoyed - was visiting Israel and then traveling on to other countries in the region. An Israel entry stamp can cause issues entering other Middle Eastern states but, in my case, I used a different passport when traveling to other ME countries.
My kids will be able to work, travel and settle around the EU which I'd taken for granted when the first was born :(
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unite_the_Right_rally
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_United_States_Capitol_a...
Next time you have, what I imagine you believe to be, a real good comment. Head for a mirror and look at yourself and say these words allowed: “ There are more ways to look at life, society, politics than the one I have. I haven’t given this adequate thought and my opinion is likely wrong. I should educate myself rather than write comments.”
You stated a “2020 summer of terror” - was that terror the deaths of citizens by government servants? Likely not your concern. I stated that that comment shows your political bias. Which it does, and continues to do. What aboutism does not enter this debate on your bias.
To highlight your bias, you relate bolshevism to BLM protests, a real stretch (also continuing to reveal your indoctrination). You see protests (property damage, violence) against clear examples of police violence as ”bolshevism”. You’re not thinking.
Assuming you’re a US citizen, do you realize you already live under an example of socialism? How do you think roads, school, social security benefits, both good and killer cops, etc. are all paid for? By collective taxes used to pay for services, infrastructure that helps society function.
Also you wanna see terror, how bout plots to kidnap the MI governor or attack OH’s power grid [2].
Doubtful you give much thought to domestic terrorism when it’s not for purposes of opposing your political opponent.
Don’t lump half of your country under the guise of a single umbrella term. It will severely distort/disrupt your ability to think.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gretchen_Whitmer_kidnapping_... [2] https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdoh/pr/3-men-plead-guilty-dome...
I feel so blessed.
I myself applied for a Irish passport since my gradparents are Irish citizens.
I looked into it a few years ago but they had such a massive backlog to deal with I was told 24 months, so I put it off.
Many big developed and developing countries are increasing their taxes on young people to fund unsustainable pension systems. They are introducing exit taxes, world wide citizen obligations, compulsory reporting overseas, and restricting ease of moving your business elsewhere.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pensions_crisis
Look up pension bombs. If you predict population will stop growing, who will pay for elderly pension and healthcare where majority of funding goes in developed countries?
In times of covid, countries like Australia had greater restriction than China.
They may restrict your capital flows, shut off your local bank accounts, make it impossible to get out of the country, and a lot more. Every action they take will impact you directly as the passport holder.
So having more passports allow greater freedom and stability in the long run.
Nobody would have thought a highly developed western country would refuse citizen entry before covid.
How does 2nd passport skirt world wide citizen obligations, compulsory reporting overseas?
https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2021/12/us-population...
One of these is not like the others – is someone able to legally avoid US taxes from selling cryptocurrency by holding another citizenship?
Not unless they renounce their US citizenship and pay the exit tax.
I wouldn't bet on Europe; the Atlantic currents are near a tipping point where they shut down. That'll cover most of Western Europe in a glacier if it happens. (Go look up European cities' latitudes; the fossil record also backs up this concern.)
Moving to avoid covid policies seems secondary vs. what the Supreme Court is likely to do in the next decade (especially after more justices are appointed by minority-elected presidents and senates).
To renounce, you first have to meet several criteria:
• You must hold citizenship of another country, so you don’t become stateless.
• You have to be up-to-date with your U.S. tax filing, with the past five years submitted.
• You have to attend an exit interview at your nearest U.S. consulate or embassy.
• You have to pay a $2,350 renunciation fee.
• If you have financial assets worth over $2 million, you may have to pay a one-off exit tax calculated as a capital gains tax as if you sold all of your assets on the day you renounced.
---
At least two of those points seem to be pretty prohibitive, if your goal is to avoid taxes on money already earned...
There’s only one benefit from renouncing the US citizenship. You’re no longer a tax resident.
There’s also a $112k+inflation/year exemption for foreign earned income for non-residents. https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/fore...
So if you’re renouncing your citizenship for tax reasons, it’s very unlikely that it’s going to be worth it, if you’ve got under $2m in assets.
Not to mention that if you decide to return to the US, not only have to go through the US immigation system, but you also won’t clear a background check, because people who renounce their US citizenship are entered into the NICS system.
Such as? All of them stem from FATCA, and we’re back to taxes.
And in a lot of situations not even renouncing the US citizenship will help you there, as you’ll be scrutinized for having a US birthplace.
I understand that FATCA's reporting requirements are onerous enough for banks that they reject US account holders. Then, the inability to get a local bank account may cause problems.
This is where I ask, "can't you just use a US bank account, then? One with good international support? (No fees, etc.)" I suspect this is feasible in many countries?
I do know, however, that in India, many activities require an Indian credit card (regular Visa &etc cards work fine for many things, but for others -- particularly if they touch the government in any way -- they are rejected). And the way to get an Indian credit card is to have an Indian bank account. You see where this is going. So e.g., you end up unable to buy train tickets without bugging an Indian citizen to do it for you.
I would also suspect that, the minute you need to deal with an account with any kind of special government classification -- say, a retirement account -- then you need that account to be at an institution that knows about those laws, which again would require a local bank.
In most high-income countries with that income, you either won’t pay anything, or the difference will be marginal.
There will be very few people in the world for whom renouncing the US citizenship would be worth it long-term.
Unless you go full tax-haven, which is also fine.
This is not actually true for the US. The United States will let you renounce your citizenship even if it leaves you stateless.
I wonder if this opens up pathways to citizenship that aren't available otherwise. The "passports for sale" are mostly either extremely expensive or for tiny island nations like St. Kitts. But maybe there are additional countries that offer citizenship to stateless people out of compassion?
Absolutely fucking not.
But if you really, really, I mean, really want to stateless yourself and end up in a situation where you can’t even get a travel document, you can.
Not that anyone ever should.
> Perhaps there are countries that will grant citizenship to stateless people out of compassion, or for a fee?
Not that I’m aware of.
> Persons intending to renounce U.S. citizenship should be aware that, unless they already possess a foreign nationality, they may be rendered stateless and, thus, lack the protection of any government. They may also have difficulty traveling as they may not be entitled to a passport from any country.
This guy did it in 2008.
> Stateless people, when officially registered as 'stateless', can apply for naturalisation after three years' legal stay, which is reduced from the standard five years. They are also exempt from providing a passport, but they do need to provide a birth certificate.
> If you have financial assets worth over $2 million, you may have to pay a one-off exit tax calculated as a capital gains tax as if you sold all of your assets on the day you renounced.
Do you have to pay capital gains taxes on anything over $2 million or wholesale all capital gain?
> You have to attend an exit interview at your nearest U.S. consulate or embassy.
Can they reject your exit?
I'm sure they can reject your exit if you haven't finished paying taxes owed or you seem under duress or mental impairment. But absent that (or maybe similar reasons you wouldn't let someone sign a contract) I don't think they can.
Enforcement on that appears to be about zero.
A fair amount of the increase this article is discussing is likely cryptobros inspired by Roger Ver's success-- he renounced US citizenship while owning >40k bitcoin (potentially much more than 40k, that is just what was in his publicly identified wallet) at a near zero cost basis worth over $20 million at the time while paying only about $200k in exit taxes (he tweeted a picture of the exit taxes check), presumably for his non-bitcoin properties.
He even setup a company to help other people get st. kitts passports that promoted evading US taxes as a top level feature.
Edit: I meant in the case of panama but looks like I'm wrong which is good to know.
https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:American_Samoa_US_...
^The states really delegate a small number of powers to the federal government, things like murder and abortion aren't among those. This is really the way it was supposed to be and Roe vs Wade was a mistake that undermined the legitimacy of the Supreme Court. So delegation is really the wrong word for this but a surprising number of people here seem to have almost no understanding of American civics.
EDIT, I'm out of quota, here's my reply to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31304544 :
> How do you know it won't be made illegal?
This ruling says the federal government has no say in abortion rights. That prevents the federal government from legislating on it. It actually protects your rights from populist right wing mobs on the other side of the continent.
> Why do you assert that it was never under the mandate of the federal government? Obviously it's a contended issue.
All of the powers the federal government has are delegated to it in the Constitution. Show me where this one is.
>- why do you assert anyone who disagree with you is ignorant? Perhaps they listen to the very loud lobby of anti abortion goals, and view this milestone as part of a trend and extrapolate?
Regardless of how they got confused it's not an accurate view of how American government works and thinking that way is harmful to both sides
EDIT 2, my reply to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31304674:
>Here are 13 states that have "trigger laws"
Right, the population there wants it banned, the population in California does not. Now both groups get what they want. It won't be banned in California and, in fact, this ruling makes it harder for republicans to ban it in states like California. This protects your rights if you live in a liberal state.
EDIT: I'm out of quota, here's my reply: I don't care if it's free'd up legislative time. Because of this precedent the federal legislatures can legislate all they want but it won't be meaningful. What I do care about is that it means people can hold federal politicians more accountable for other things since they don't have to care about their stance on abortion one way or the other since nothing can be changed from the federal level.
https://thehill.com/news/senate/3480725-mcconnell-says-natio...
It sure doesn’t seem like opponents of abortion have any issues talking about it at the federal level.
I'm totally shocked at the degree to which people are upset by this since it helps both sides. The only explanation I have is that no one really understands what's going on and they're just "fighting for their tribe."
EDIT: I'm out of quota, here's my reply: This isn't politicization, they're literally interpreting the constitution. Anything other than this would be politicization that would allow populist mobs to run over the states. They're not banning anything, they're giving the power back to you where it belongs.
With the way that the Supreme Court not just got politicized, but effectively taken over over the last six years, it is IMO foolish to the extreme to rely on the SC defending anything in the future.
That’s the bit I think you’re missing and why it may not just be about reserved rights for the states or about congressional legislation. I believe this is also the stated goal of some of these orgs and it’s a moral belief they hold.
Besides all the other reasons, there’s thing called empathy which means I want people in states where I don’t live to have nice lives.
Do you think that “pro-choice” means someone will come to your house and abort your pregnancy whether you want to or not?
Have you read the politico article (which links to the full document)?
The problem is, a lot of freedoms the US people take for granted are not backed by a constitutional amendment but by court decisions or executive orders and so they can be revoked pretty easily.
[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/mitch-mcconnell-national-abo...
[2] https://www.rawstory.com/blake-masters-2657279833/
[3] https://www.newsweek.com/blackburn-says-scotus-ruling-protec...
This ruling actually prevents that.
- Why do you assert that it was never under the mandate of the federal government? Obviously it's a contended issue.
- why do you assert anyone who disagree with you is ignorant? Perhaps they listen to the very loud lobby of anti abortion goals, and view this milestone as part of a trend and extrapolate?
Here are 13 states that have "trigger laws" that get enacted the instant upon Roe being overruled.
> Idaho’s trigger law, for example, would make performing an abortion a felony 30 days after the “issuance of the judgment in any decision of the United States supreme court that restores to the states their authority to prohibit abortion.” The law states that the offense would be punishable by a prison sentence of 2 to 5 years in prison.
https://www.nbcnews.com/data-graphics/map-trigger-law-states...
Your view that the Republicans will follow the constitution is flawed. They follow power.
> Right, the population there wants it banned, the population in California does not.
This is an incorrect statement. Gerrymandering ensures those populations do not get what they want. They do not have real representation.
https://www.npr.org/2022/05/05/1096732347/roe-v-wade-implica...
They're rolling back a raft of rights that we, as a society, decided follow from the constitution fifty years ago. A large majority of the population supports having those rights, but the justices were mostly appointed by minority elected presidents.
Given demographic trends, the senate will represent a narrowing minority of the population over time. The supreme court has also rolled back many voters rights and election integrity rules in the last few years.
Given that, it's likely we won't have a Democrat controlled senate for the forseeable future. If the Republicans control the house and presidency for a hot second, they'll be able to pass a national abortion (and gay rights, civil rights, and probably privacy) ban, and that will be the end of the US as a Democratic nation.
Because of the elctoral college math and existing court corruption, they'll be able to do this with under 40% of the vote.
I'm tired of the excuses. We're facing multiple existential crises, and a small, antidemocratic, minority is blocking action that has broad popular support.
All citizens over 18 should have a vote, and all votes should have equal weight.
Source on the 12%: https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/2jnmbe/i_did_the_...
Which I misread. It takes 12% of the vote to create a filibuster proof majority from small red states, and 5% for those states to sustain a fillibuster.
No, they are not.
Roe v Wade aside, we've been doing those things pretty consistently since the 1900s.
Thank God that kind of thing is currently limited to English-speaking countries.
This is a good point. I hold passports to the USA and Canada. I have considered moving to Canada over the last five-seven years and I don’t feel like it would be much of an improvement. Taxes, housing and COL are significantly higher and the political climate seems to similarly polarized. And these people seeking greener political pastures are probably taking some political dysfunction with them.
The world should be open. But people must be able to provide for themselves.
Why?
We have a long way to go before we even begin a discussion on an open world.
Pick the log from your own eye before you pick the speck from someone else.
And that's not even getting into the attempted coup.
I'd say that's all pretty terrifying.
I think I'd agree that in 2018, if you were paying attention, that the 'smell' was that's where we were heading.
Now we are here.
To clarify. There are people who want fascism. Who want authoritarianism. Who are purposefully breaking political discourse. Who think women should be forced to have babies even if there is incest and rape. That if they get an abortion they could potentially get the death penalty. That white people are superior. That overthrowing the democracy is good (if they are doing the overthrowing). And on and on...
So no and 'to be fair', 'the other side of the proverbial fence' absolutely do not 'also see the same problem.'
Heck, rednecks can already drive across state lines with the intent of shooting some townies, then get off by claiming self defence.
Nonetheless, the point of smelling points of no return is valid for all situations, where you can see looming crises but at the same time a provisionally livable state and "doom not fully scheduled".
I don’t think this is true? I’m in favor of women having the right to abortion, but my understanding of the anti-abortion steelman position is that it stems from defending individual rights of the unborn (basically fetal personhood). That doesn’t really apply to restricting any of these other rights - it’s a special case (if anything it should be an argument for increasing availability of contraception).
The real discussion should be about that bit imo, but both camps are often talking past each other without engaging on the core disagreement. For example, the bodily autonomy argument falls flat if you believe the unborn have individual rights that are being violated.
You’re avoiding the point of the parent. There is nothing crazy about saying something that has its own elbows, asshole, DNA, brainwaves, and beating heart is a person and deserves protection.
It’s quite a leap to get from that to banning condoms.
Another thing is fear. A failing business gives you worry that your next paycheck won’t be coming. Not only has this happened numerous times to government employees since 2006, I realized how much general fear you live with in the US. As a resident, there was a constant underlying fear of dealing with police, to ending up on a hospital bed and no way to afford it (again). In a successful business, no one is living in fear — maybe stress, but not fear.
Those are the two biggest smells I remember thinking about at the time. Is the US actually going to fail? I don’t think so. I think it’s too big to fail atm. If talent starts leaving the US in droves, that’d be the first harbinger in my opinion. But I can’t see the future and wars are usually good for the US, so I wouldn’t be surprised to see the US provoke Russia or some other country into a pointless war.
if things didn’t work out for you in the US that’s fine, just don’t assume you can see the future
Highly debatable. However, I think most citizens would consider their nations age date of acquisition of sovereignty, not from the date of the current form of government or any other standard.
Anyway, calling United States one of the oldest countries in the world is about as defensible as calling it one of the newest countries in the world. I just don't see the data for it.
imho, that’s not what makes a startup.
in your analogy: who are the investors? the US not only burns the money, it has the ability to print more money. between the petrodollar and the military supremacy the only thing that can topple the US are internal factors.
It's even more common with island countries where you can buy passports or government services otherwise not available to non-residents in elsewhere without even visiting.
It's 21st century and governments are startups attracting capital and skilled workers (employees).
I never claimed to see the future, only similarities to things I’d seen before, from friends in government to the news.
A startup looks to turn an idea into reality and make it self-sustainable and profitable. They will ofter make compromises in order to accelerate their growth (and some things that VC make them do make zero sense if you’re not considering the hyper growth scenario).
A country, imho, offers a framework for its citizens and does not optimize for government growth or government profitability. They don’t need yo justify their existence and don’t need to be profitable to accomplish their mission. This framework offers a multitude of “services” and enables businesses and private citizens to exist + offers them stability needed. By any means it’s not a startup and should not be looked at through the lens of a startup
One option we are considering is starting our family in the US and moving to the EU slightly later in life, but before the kids would start school. Adoption and surrogacy are generally harder or take longer in the EU, although the processes are substantially the same for same sex and opposite sex married couples, at least in western Europe.
- high taxes that you actually see the output of. Also, higher taxes than the US means not paying US taxes due to tax treaties, though you still have to file them.
- Dutch-American Friendship Treaty (DAFT) means you can move here and start a business with minimal investment.
- Our son was 3 when we moved here. He speaks fluent Dutch now and is on his way to learning Spanish and German.
Was Russia fighting a land war in Europe just a little blip on the radar that has not yet caused you to question your "sniffing" ability?
In national terms, there are 200-ish options, not "plenty of fish in the sea".
Picking failures is easy because the majority of start-ups fail. If you pick failures 50% of the time, and 90% of startups fail, then actually you are really good at picking successes.
But since then, 100% of the businesses I’ve worked at are still in operation today (another 5).
Why? Are you spending time in both, or is it just a backup measure?
Initially it was because I became a US citizen, I didn't really feel the need to do anything with my Iranian citizenship.
At this point though, it's a backup. Some things would definitely be harder for me in Iran - but depending on how things go in the US - I might feel like I'd be safer in Iran.