Rich and American? Australia Wants You 337
An anonymous reader writes: Following the success of a millionaire visa program to attract wealthy Chinese, Australia has launched an invite-only visa program that promises citizenship to rich American entrepreneurs. To meet the requirements of the Premium Investment Visa plan Americans must first invest around 15 million Australian dollars. Reuters reports: "Investment advisors who have been briefed on the plan by government officials expressed doubts about the wisdom of targeting Americans, with several telling Reuters the more obvious place to start was Australia's Asian neighbors. After all, why would a successful U.S. entrepreneur want to invest a large chunk of cash in Australia — a country very similar to the United States, just further away from everything — in exchange for a passport that carries few additional benefits to their own? 'The U.S. has some problems that Australia doesn't have. It's got a lot more racial crimes, it's got a lot more gun-related crimes, but I don't think that is going to drive a whole bunch of ultra-rich Americans out of their country,' said Bill Fuggle, a partner at law firm Baker & McKenzie who advises wealthy Chinese migrating to Australia."
Abbot probably watches a lot of Fox... (Score:3)
Which is owned by an ex-Aussie, and is convinced that Obama's such a disaster that the rich are clamoring to leave.
And I won't be surprised if that gets them some takers. Particularly if the GOP can't get it together and start getting a consistent lead on Hillary.
There'll probably be a few more who do it because they want a rich democracy's passport,and don't like the fact the US taxes on global income (ie: if you make $1 Million in China and you;re Swedish you pay no Swedish taxes on it, just Chines; if you're American you pay both).
Aussie freedoms are inferior (Score:5, Insightful)
... Don't take it the wrong way... but I like the bill of rights. Put something in place that forbids the government from overstepping its bounds to any extent and Australia will be very interesting.
Short of that... you're an interesting vacation destination. A nice place to visit but I need something like the Bill of Rights to call a country home.
Too many people died to institute and then preserve that... and far more will die in futures to come.
Australia does things all the time that just casually violate what I consider to be sacred rights. They just ban things... for the children. I can't have that. The gun thing is also important. I'm not a gun nut... but I believe I have a right to be dangerous in my own country and in my home. Not for hunting... not even for self defense... to be DANGEROUS. I feel that is an important check on anyone that would try to intimidate the people. If they understand that the people can and will turn on them with an instant militia of millions. That forces the elites to be careful.
I know my views are incomprehensible to many. And that's fine. Its what I need to immigrate. Without that... I refuse. You're not offering me real citizenship in my opinion if you don't offer me a reasonable set of iron clad rights in the package.
Re: (Score:3)
... Don't take it the wrong way... but I like the bill of rights. Put something in place that forbids the government from overstepping its bounds to any extent and Australia will be very interesting.
Short of that... you're an interesting vacation destination. A nice place to visit but I need something like the Bill of Rights to call a country home.
Well, you'd be quite at home in Russia then. Zimbabwe has a bill or rights too.
What you really want is a thing called "rule of law". Australia has mostly the same rights as the US, unsurprising since both countries legal systems are based on British common law. We can all trace our rights back to the Magna Carta and beyond.
I can get by without a bill of rights, but it was annoying having to quarter those soldiers in my house last year.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't be obtuse... pretending to be stupid doesn't make for a clever argument.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not the silly gun argument again. Hunting is popular in Australia, and we have more guns now than before the buyback. Just fewer assault rifles. People may regard the buyback (and ban on automatics) as a colossal waste of money, and an inconvenience. But having to reload between shots is hardly seen as a major attack on personal freedoms. No more than Americans resent the ban on private ownership of hand grenades. And it gives the kangaroos a sporting chance.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure where you get your news, but in the US, fully automatic weapons have NOT been legal for the average American. If you want an automatic weapon, you have to jump through many hoops and get extra special licensing, upon which you actually give up many of your rights to the ATF for anytime searches of your house, etc.
And if I recall..even if you get one of those, you can only own old machine guns...nothing can be owned that was made in the pas
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, I used the wrong term. Was talking about semi-automatic rifles, not machine guns.
You have to doing something like professionally culling herds of feral buffalo from a helicopter to get a self-loading rifle license now.
But we haven't had any Sandy Hooks lately.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh wow..so you're saying you can only have bolt action rifles down there? What about semi-auto pistols?
As far as the Sandy Hook thing....it isn't that big a problem here. Sure every few years, some nut goes stupid and does something like th
Re: (Score:2)
Oh wow..so you're saying you can only have bolt action rifles down there?
Yes, not even semi-auto .22s. But we keep them for hunting, not overthrowing the government, so it is tolerable.
What about semi-auto pistols?
Oddly, they are still legal, up to 10 rounds. And of course, criminals are much more likely to use handguns than assault rifles. But its a lot of hassle to get a handgun license here, and not many people have them. You certainly cannot carry them in public.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Given that the US military is mostly made up of their sons and brothers... yeah.
What is more... we're everywhere. You can't defend a city from the people that live in it.
The concept is sound, sir.
And before you bad mouth it, consider that the Swiss literally give all the men in their society a machine gun and a bag full of bullets.
The anti gun stuff is largely propaganda. You don't understand the issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Which is why they wouldn't do it. Every oppressor always starts with disarming the people.
I am not a peasant. You do not disarm me unless you want violence.
A citizen is something between a peasant and a noble. You do not disarm nobles. They'll kill you or die trying if you try to disarm them.
Peasants you can disarm. They don't fight back much. They do what they're told. They think the thoughts they're told to think.
I am neither a noble nor a peasant. I am a citizen. You do not disarm me unless you're prepar
Re: (Score:3)
"The Iraqi army in the first gulf war was far better equipped, trained and experienced and they lasted about 45mins."
So that explains why the present situation in Iraq has been a cakewalk for the past 10 years?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not this tired old argument again.
There is no force on earth that can stand up to the US military in a conventional battle. Does that mean every other group or nation should stop buying weapons because that would be wasted money?
Taliban and others have shown that US military is quite vulnerable in unconventional warfare. And that was in places where US soldiers didn't care that much about the local population. How do you think it will go down when the guerrilla fighters are blending into the civilian popula
Re: (Score:2)
Inferior? Seriously?
USA has neither a right to life, nor a right to roam. These two are most important rights, everything else is secondary.
And with your mindset (wishing to be a menace) other countries don't want to have you anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
... okay
""Right to life
The right to life is a moral principle based on the belief that a human being has the right to live and, in particular, should not to be unjustly killed by another human being. The concept of a right to life is central to debates on the issues of capital punishment, war, abortion, euthanasia and justifiable homicide.""
So are you saying the US is bad because it executes?
Saying the US is bad because it goes to war?
Saying the US is bad because we allow abortions?
Saying the US is bad beca
Re: (Score:3)
Death penalty it is. Even Russia doesn't execute.
And yes, here in Germany, there is right to roam. I am allowed to walk and cycle even through private forests and field paths. In Nordic countries, for example, the right to roam is even much more extensive.
Public parks, ha! A country where I cannot wander around as I want is an unfree country which I won't ever visit on my spare time (also I don't want to be arrested for walking, like it happened to Bob Dylan).
Re: (Score:2)
So you're saying that if a person is convicted of... personally torturing to death 100 people and then eating them... possibly wearing their skins as clothing... you know... all the fun stuff.
You're saying I'm violating his rights if I put him in the ground?
Don't be absurd.
You are afforded a trial. Due process. if convicted of a capital offense, then I'm not losing any sleep over your coming oblivion.
As to your right to roam... can you give me an example of any place that has this right? Because it sounds i
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, because vigilantism is domestic terrorism.
And as for the government taking a life, in a civilised country nobody has a right to take a life, except in self defense, and even then only if there is no other way. Barbarian governments kill. And if you, as you mentioned, would have no qualms over killing people, this speaks a lot about you. Then again, you have explicitly mentioned that you want to indulge in a power fantasy, which bot
Re: (Score:2)
What makes the US different is that its Constitution is a list of enumerated powers of government, not a list of rights given to citizens. The Bill of Rights doesn't give you any rights you didn't already have under the Constitution, and it doesn't limit government powers any more than the Constitution. The fact that you think the Bill of Rights is important
Re: (Score:2)
The Bill of Rights specifically is a list of NEGATIVE rights where in the government is FORBIDDEN to make any law concerning certain things.
As to the fact that many don't take the constitution seriously... Which segment of our political spectrum is doing that, sport?
Re: (Score:3)
I get it: for you to break out of the European theocratic tradition of limited, divinely-granted human rights is really, really hard.
Re: (Score:2)
Also USA also has this visa program. It costs much less, just 5 million USD, need to create just 10 jobs or so. You can fire them as soon as your green card comes through.
Re: (Score:2)
I've been head hunted three times by Australian firms that offered me citizenship as part of the package. I don't want it.
Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior (Score:5, Insightful)
Put something in place that forbids the government from overstepping its bounds to any extent and Australia will be very interesting.
And how well has that been working for you Americans recently?
You have declared "constitution free zones".
You detain and torture people in prisons with little to no judicial oversight or recourse.
Your own president has executed a citizen under the guise of terrorism overseas by air-strike without any due process.
Your idea of due process when you think you get it happens behind closed doors in secret courts.
And even when someone in power occasionally has an idea that is positive to your freedoms it gets struck down in congress, in the white house, or better yet just simply gets done anyway without oversight by a three letter agency.
10 years ago I would have agreed with you, but quite frankly your bill of rights these days holds about as much weight as the old parchment it is written on. The only thing that the government truly understands is that the instant militia is too busy watching Fox News and Lip Sync Battle to care about attacking their government, and even if they did your small militia is up against the might of the government's own army, the mightiest in the world, unless you can get them to disagree with their own leaders in which case you have a coup which history has shown always works out really well (/sarcasm).
Re: (Score:3)
Cite the constitution free zones?
Our constitution makes no provision for torturing terrorists etc. So I don't know what you're talking about. And really calling waterboarding torture is a bit of a stretch. Regardless, all that whine does is force us to go back to Cold War methods which means either truth drugs or we give the fellow to a willing allied power that will do the deed for us while we take notes. Either way... you're denied your political ammunition which is really all you care about in the first
Re: (Score:2)
""Although this zone is not literally "Constitution free"""
Okay so they're not actually constitution free zones.
What they are is a zone after the border where the border patrol tries to have some defense in depth and queries people to see if they were involved in smuggling or something.
I've also seen these questions being asked by the border patrol... and if you just cite your rights they tell you that you can go. So "constitution free" is a bullshit term for what is perhaps not the best way to do something
Re: (Score:2)
Your "hit and run" means jack squat to a Predator drone guided equipped with FLIR.
Unless, of course, you're doing the hit and run with the Predator.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, you fearmonger much?
You have declared "constitution free zones".
No we don't. There is nowhere in the United States that is a "constitution free zone". That's just media blowing something up out of proportion. There are cases where the border patrol oversteps it's bounds, but that doesn't mean you don't have the rights afforded you by the constitution. Worst case is it escalates up to a court, the court sets it right (through due process). It's not perfect, but it's easy to point and say that's not perfect when you aren't charged with coming
Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior (Score:4, Informative)
A nice place to visit but I need something like the Bill of Rights to call a country home.
Many locals would agree and it is a long sort over goal for the country. When the country was presented an opportunity for its own Bill of Right in the 1980s many of the shock jock radio announcers lobbied heavily against it and it was defeated.
I hope that some day one of those radio announcers are on the business end of not having those rights. As for the many morons who voted against the Bill it just shows how sadly apathetic many Australians have become, largely due to Murdoch and the News empire that grew up in Australia before becoming an American company.
Faux News is the enemy of freedom in the land of the free.
Australia does things all the time that just casually violate what I consider to be sacred rights.
Yes, and many times it happens to promote American interests because our politicians are too spineless to stand up for themselves. No one likes it and the Trans Pacific Partnership is a fine example. We are not even allowed to see the text of a bill that is to be passed into law.
They are things that everyday Australians object to and I'm certain everyday Americans would find it offensive too.
I know my views are incomprehensible to many.
No they are not and many reasonable educated Australians would agree with you. We need a Bill of Rights more than ever. If you are prepared to make your views known to Australian politicians it would be most welcome.
Re: (Score:2)
the TTP probably violates a lot of our laws and rules as well. It was another of these "you'll have to pass it to see what is in it" laws.
We'll see what happens. If it is what we fear, then there are going to be some fierce court challenges. If not... then it is probably much a do about nothing.
I'd like to know what other thing your politicians have done in the US's interests that violated your rights though? Just curious.
Politicians don't respond to that sort of thing. They understand the blade at the thro
Re: (Score:2)
Fox News is an interesting phenomenon. Murdoch is retiring and his kids are not like him. In fact most of the kids hate Roger Ailes (head of Fox News) at least if you go by what's reported in the press. That's the reason for the quick press release by Fox news that Ailes would continue to report to Rupert when James took over which was immediately repudiated by the corporate side. I'd be willing to bet that over the next 5 years or so Fox will begin to change and that change will accelerate heavily once Rup
Re: Aussie freedoms are inferior (Score:2)
Yea. The elites in afghanistan and iraq are careful. Very careful.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
OK, here's what you do, big man.
You don't even have the intestinal fortitude to log in to Slashdot and you're picking on someone for their level of courage? Here's what you do next, you go get some psychiatric help. Otherwise, save us all a lot of time and find the easiest method of suicide available in your pathetic country, and apply it. You're going to do it anyway, and it would save us all a lot of trouble if you'd do it sooner.
Re: (Score:2)
Well these guys certainly don't have nukes or make their own missiles, and they seem to have done a pretty decent job at fighting off the U.S. government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
If they nuke their own country then they don't have one. You're an idiot.
And as to drones... they don't work on urban insurgencies. Hit and run. Strike and vanish. its over before the drone is even on station.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Aussie freedoms are inferior (Score:2, Funny)
America self corrects towards freedom/liberty. Australia does not.
I'm mostly qualified (for low bars on 'qualified') (Score:2)
On second thought, I'm not very well traveled so I'd appreciate it if someone could help me with the monetary conversion. Australians accept lira, or do I have to convert to Foster's beer for payment? If so, I'll let them keep the change and just give them the entire six pack.
That's the kind of rich I am, ladies, and there's more where that came from.
Re: (Score:2)
You do know that no Australians actually drink Foster's, right? That's the stuff we flog to foreigners.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty much anything but Fosters :-D
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You do know that no Australians actually drink Foster's, right? That's the stuff we flog to foreigners.
You drive a hard bargain. I'll send you a six pack of beer we don't drink and beer we flog to foreigners. One six pack of Foster's and one six pack of Bud Light.
Drink the Bud first and then use the Foster's simultaneously wash away the taste of the Bud, drink something that resembles a beer, and be both humbled and amazed by the fact we can make a beer so crappy it makes you enjoy the crappy beer you guys produce. Then be thankful that I didn't send over Bud Light Lime. Yes, that's a thing and it pro
Fosters isnt that bad (Score:2)
https://www.danmurphys.com.au/... [danmurphys.com.au]
Personally its a bit like VB but a little less B.
Still not as good as Coopers home brew or coopers retail.
Re: (Score:2)
It's bad. Seriously bad. And having lived in Australia all my life the only time I've tried Fosters was when it was on special and a good deal cheaper than beers that Australians actually drink, and I thought that I may as well give it a try. It's not as bad as Bud (yeah, not an Australian beer, just throwing it in there for comparison) or anything but it's pretty bad. Nobody I know drinks Fosters and I've never seen Fosters in an Australian's home fridge (and I do hang around all classes of Australians not
Re: (Score:2)
The US had semi-witty "Fosters: Australian for Beer" commercials in the late 90s. I'm pretty sure that's... it.
Crime (Score:2)
It's got a lot more racial crimes, it's got a lot more gun-related crimes,
On average, yes, but crime is a local thing. Areas of Sydney have drive-by shooting from middle-eastern crime gangs, and plenty of cities in the US are very safe.
I don't know why rich Americans would want to leave - it is the poor people who are much better off in Australia. (unless they dream of buying a home)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, large parts of Australia are a bit 19th century when it comes to race, in several places being called "Irish" is still veiwed as a pejorative.
Passports? How about a Falcon XB & open roads (Score:2)
That sounds like a more enticing reward.
Re: (Score:2)
Or a HQ Monaro if you're a purist.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, there's that, but I always had a thing for the yellow Falcon interceptors.
America is great if you are rich (Score:2)
I mean, basically any western democracy where you don't need to have an army to protect your wealth is pretty awesome if you are rich. Other than tinfoil hat syndrome (e.g. James Cameron - moved to NZ) why would you limit yourself to a smaller place that you can visit, buy a mansions in, and even smuggle your dogs in on your private jet whenever you want to anyway?
Really the debate needs to change to asking why an Aussie, who enjoys arguable a better standard of living than the median American, can't reason
Go abroad and have some FATCA nightmares. (Score:2)
What a load of horse shit (Score:5, Insightful)
Australia has twice the burglary rate and a higher rape rate. Australia has a ban happy nanny-state government. Australia has a lot of race crimes against Aborigines that just aren't reported in their pop media. Australia's cost of living is almost twice what it is in the U.S. Australia still has a fucking queen.
Australia is like the U.S. except with the fun and awesome parts removed, and instead replaced with the U.K.
Re: (Score:2)
I always thought of Australia as America with less of the bad bits. I found Australians keen to enjoy their lives - not just to work, or live in ever bigger houses, or drive ever bigger cars, but to actually enjoy the experience. I also found Aussies to be considerably more genuine that Americans - they do a certain amount of "how yer goin'?" and whatnot, but it's no where near the whole "hi, how are you today? Oh that's awesome! Okay, you have a great day - missing you already!" crap you get in the US. Als
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
it reminds me of that joke.
"Mayor, can you confirm the allegation that the number of thefts has recently been increasing?"
"Under my term, violent assault has decreased."
maybe it's not a very good joke. i heard it from a mathematician who was pointing out that information, in a practical sense, is not the same thing as logical deduction. at some point you have to make assumptions, and those assumptions are often more important than the thought that follows (or, "garbage in, garbage out"). strictly speaking,
Re: (Score:2)
Unless you're the 1% the USA really has nothing going for it anymore. .
But most Americans think they will soon be in the 1%. Even the guy living in that leaky trailer in Alabama making 8$ an hour.
Re:What a load of horse shit (Score:4, Insightful)
However, Australia has almost no guns, or gun deaths. This is a good thing or a bad thing depending on your point of view.
You guys seem to fixate on the lack of gun deaths like it's some sort of magnificent selling point, but it just isn't a relevant factor for the vast majority of Americans.
Most Americans never face any sort of gun-related violence at all. I don't know anybody who's ever been shot or has shot anybody in the US. Gun violence in the US is largely perpetrated by the urban poor against other urban poor. Nobody else in the US, besides professional worriers, lives their life in fear of being shot.
I notice that the poor, who are responsible for nearly all of the gun deaths in the US, are conspicuously absent from your invitation to immigrate to Australia, by the way.
Australian citizenship (Score:5, Funny)
I tried applying for Australian citizenship once but they turned me down as I didn't have a criminal record.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you live in America?
The British used colonial North America as a penal colony through a system of indentured servitude. Merchants would transport the convicts and auctioned them off to (for example) plantation owners upon arrival in the colonies. It is estimated that some 50,000 British convicts were sent to colonial America, representing perhaps one-quarter of all British emigrants during the 18th century. The State of Georgia for example was first founded by James Edward Oglethorpe by using penal prisoners taken largely from debtors' prison, creating a "Debtor's Colony". However, even though this largely failed, the idea that the state began as a penal has stayed both in popular history, and local lore.[1] The British also would often ship Irish and Scots to the Americas whenever rebellions took place in Ireland or Scotland, and they would be treated similar to the convicts, except that this also included women and children.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] (emphasis mine)
Strange that they let you stay there.
US does this too, but badly (Score:2)
The US has a similar plan [uscis.gov], the EB-5 visa program, but you only need to invest $1 million to get your green card.
I say, if we're going to let people bribe their way to the front of the immigration line, we should get top dollar for it. $15 million sounds about right, plus $2 million paid directly to the government, and used to hire more immigration workers to clear the ludicrous immigration backlog for everyone else.
*Especially* since a good chunk of those buying green cards are Chinese businessmen and gove
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The issue with people "skipping in line" is that those who do are usually burdens. like those El Salvador illegal immigrants who come to sanctuary cities, and get taken in the public schools. That wouldn't be an issue, except in many of those cities, those public schools are having a hard time with cash, and in my town at least, taxes are already extremely high. It kind of sucks that the local poor who need help are told to share it with people who shouldn't be there. We can increase taxes...but if you're g
Guns (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Ditto. I've lived in the South most of half a century. I own guns. I'm pretty sure everyone in my family does. Not utterly sure, though. Wouldn't terribly surprise me if one particular cousin doesn't.
BUT, I nev
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't understand why guns always come up when non-Americans talk about America.
Me neither, because I haven't witnessed any such phenomenon. But maybe, if it's occasionally brought up, it has something to do that the US has by far the largest number of small firearms in civilian hands, by a factor of almost SIX ahead of the second largest owner (which is INDIA, a country four times the population of the US)?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't understand why guns always come up when non-Americans talk about America.
We watch American television. And the US gun homicide rate is 20 times higher than here, proving that Hollywood is accurate.
Re: (Score:2)
I have. I was in a Peter Piper Pizza (a pizza place with children's rides and playsets for those who might not know) and there was a guy sitting across the room with his family with a pistol holstered in the open. I didn't get up and leave, but I did keep looking over to make sure there weren't any heated discussions starting.
Re: (Score:3)
Guns do nothing on their own, so calling them 'gun deaths' is disingenuous, and allows you to ignore a multitude of other relevant factors.
Re: (Score:2)
Next to last place to go (Score:2)
right after the UK. Australia has gone down the facist daddy state road at high speed. It is quite amazing how UK/AUS/NZ continue to out do even the US.
Rupert Murdoch's wanted (Score:2)
Well two points: (Score:2)
One, from personal accounts, and from what I see in the mass media, on a whole, Australia seems to have more than a few raciest tendencies (sorry non-raciest Australians)... So that might be one reason they are targeting America, VS Asia. They didn't say it, but I'm willing to bet that a significant percentage (90-99%) of people in America that actually have 15 million bucks in the bank are all white anyway.
Two, I was watching Family Feud the other day, and the American contestant was asked the question "if
Can I bring my guns?? (Score:2, Insightful)
No? Then fuck you Australia.
Re: (Score:2)
WHO RULES BARTERTOWN? (Score:2)
inflation (Score:2)
Re: Sounds like a good deal! (Score:4, Informative)
Don't bother. We're full. We have a housing crisis and the cost of living in a major city is criminal.
I pay $450/wk rent for a two bedroom unit 40 mins from Sydney. Young people growing up here have no chance of owning a house because we have an influx of Asians who have moved over and bought all our property, paid for by their rich parents.
He's right. It's a trap!
Re: (Score:2)
There is a persistent romantic sentiment in the US that Australia represents a sort of America that could have been. This announcement is designed to appeal to those who haven't been staying aware of the Euro-style surveillance that now pervades Australia, and the monopolies that keep the cost of such things as travel and broadband a lot higher than they should be, and the steady loss of rights in recent years.
Re: (Score:3)
That's great! As soon as alllllll the richie richers leave, the entiiiiiire USA can be like Detroit! It's gonna be fucking awesome!!
Not a problem. The US and Eritrea are pretty much the only countries in the world that taxes non-resident citizens. Usually I would question any policy only followed by a single other country, but in this situation I can see why a country might like to have such a policy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Giving up your US Citizenship might help your unborn children's tax situation, but might not help yours:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
"U.S. citizens who renounce their citizenship are subject under certai
Re: (Score:2)
Why would an entrepreneur go to Australia and pay even higher taxes there than in the U.S. when they could immigrate to some country that has little or no taxes and let's them rule like a Andreew Ryan-esque god?
Re: (Score:2)
Why would an entrepreneur go to Australia and pay even higher taxes there than in the U.S. when they could immigrate to some country.../p>
If they are "going" then they are "emigrating" not "immigrating".
Overall, just using "migrate" is probably better as it's independent of the point of view.
e.g.
http://www.vocabulary.com/arti... [vocabulary.com]
Re: (Score:3)
You have to love the " even higher taxes " as if the USA were a high-tax regime already and Australia barely manages to top it. For the "Rich people" at issue, the USA has some of the lowest taxes anywhere. Jamaica has lower top-tier taxes than the USA does (or anybody): only 15%. Why not move there? English spoken, close to the USA, sunny beaches.
No, seriously, libertarian types: why not Jamaica? There is no "Galt's Gulch" in the real world (we're sorry) but you could move to Jamaica. I can't figur
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Detroitland (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously? C'mon, there aren't that many racial crimes in the US (I'm guessing a racial crime means white on black crime?).
We've just had a few cases that have been blown up by the 24/7 news media. It isn't like we're over here beating each other up when we see someone different walking across the street. Geez.
I'd dare say most people in the US couldn't give a fuck about what their fellow citizens are doing. Most of us are way too busy trying to support OUR own families and get ahead in life and enjoy life a bit.
Most of us here don't have the time to go out of our way to suppress or commit crimes against another race different than ourselves.
It isn't even on most of our citizens' daily life radar.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, sure, there are plenty of places where you have uncomfortably good odds of 'racial crimes', or garden variety getting mugged and/or shot; but wealthy people generally don't live in them. That's one of the perks of having enough money to live in the nice part of town. The people you want just don't really have to worry(they might anyway, like the nuts ranting about how talk of 'inequality' is just a step away from se
Re: (Score:2)
That article is about campaign contributions
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Not as easy as all that.
For instance, Portland (OR) is successful not because of its governance, but because it's surrounded by huge corporations in adjacent cities/counties which are decidedly not Democrat-controlled (e.g. the Intel Corporation has numerous fabs in nearby Hillsboro, Nike is headquartered in Beaverton, etc). Few folks actually live inside Portland's city limits unless they're either very wealthy or very homeless - I think the exceptions are all found east of the river, and most of those nei
Re: (Score:2)
Like Portland, they began their swing leftward in the 1980's-1990s.
It's not really that Portland swung left but that everyone else swung right.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not a problem with black. It's a problem with gangster society, which transcends race - Whites, Hispanics, Orientals, Blacks, you name it, all have been pulled in.
Racism is idiocy. Recognizing that a subculture is toxic is just common sense.
Most people are too busy trying to appear politically correct to make any sense at all when these issues come up. A good number of the rest are far too deeply mired in their own prejudices to understand what is actually wrong. Between the two, it becomes very diffic
Re: (Score:2)
Because the US is the only country in the world that taxes it's citizens regardless of where they reside
Not completely correct. There is also Eritrea, in the Horn of Africa if you couldn't recall where it was.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Any policy that is only also shared by a single other country has got to be a well thought out one, no?
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, most Australians and Brits probably have no idea how pointless it is to bring up stuff like this:
What most foreigners consistently get wrong when looking at our crime stats is failing to note that the overwhelming majority of our gun deaths either have a criminal or a suicidal person on the receiving end of the bullet. Since it's illegal in all 50 states and DC to shoot someone over a non-violent offense or even a violent misdemeanor, that almost invariably means that when a criminal is shot it's either by someone who by definition doesn't respect the law (fellow criminal) or someone about to be on the receiving end of a violent felony.
I can't blame them for this misunderstanding. Our gun control lobby is notorious for manipulating stats by doing stuff like putting gangbangers near the age of majority, who are both eligible to be prosecuted as adults and involved in serious crime when killed, as "children" under the death stats. That's about as bad as most countries refusing to count the death of premature babies on their mortality rates and mocking us for our higher mortality rate because we record those as infant deaths.
Your example of being "notorious for manipulating stats" by clasifying people "near" the age of majority as children seems pretty disingenuous. Are these people younger than the age of majority or older? If they are in fact younger than that age and only "eligible to be prosecuted as adults", why would it be "manipulating stats" to clasify them as children? If they are older than the age of majority, and thus presumably not even eligible to be prosucuted as children, why wouldn't you state that?
It is intere