I'm not sure how confident I'd be, moving to a country that runs a constant 5% deficit. I work remotely, so my employer wouldn't care, but wouldn't cover the difference in employer contributions, which are substantial. That'd mean lowering my gross salary by something like 40k.
Spain is actually the place I'm considering, especially with the Beckham law and the fact that I speak the language.
I don't understand why people allow so easily the increase of retirement age. I don't see the millenials in old age receiving any better healthcare as boomers are receiving right now. Stereotypical good public healthcare exists even in EU maybe only in 5-6 countries, in the rest it's 100 EUR for 5 minutes of doctor's attention.
Its simply impossible for most people to go to university, only enter the job market by 25 retiring by 65 and then live 20 years on retirement when you have an increasingly aging population at the same time.
> I don't see the millenials in old age receiving any better healthcare as boomers are receiving right now.
Questionable, the medical field is progressing. Also we have many things like smoking that are much less common in millennials and even less after that. That should lead to longer health.
In Ted Turner's autobiography [0] (highly recommended) he describes how wealth individuals got around the very high income taxes in the 1960s-1970s:
- Person A is selling their company to Person B
- The total price is very high (let's say millions)
- I B pays A the millions, A will have to pay a large tax burden
- Instead, A "loans" the money to B so that B can "buy" the business
- This creates a stream of small payments (less tax), spread out over time
I mention this only b/c smart people will eventually figure out ways around these taxes.
For example, there are already "barter networks" in Scandinavia where Person 1 does plumbing for Person 2, Person 2 does legal work for Person 3 who in turn does accounting for Person 1. All so there is less income reported.
Also, uniquely in the USA, interest payments on debt can be deducted from your income. There are some caveats to deducting this from personal taxes rather than business taxes, but in general if you can show your personally used the loan for business purposes, you can use the Schedule C form to deduct the interest on it from your personal income to lower taxes paid.
In the NL the one who provides the loan is supposed to do that against a normal interest rate, which is a capital gain subject to tax. So this trick would not work here afaik, because now there is still a party paying taxes.
What about the "default on the loan" backdoor? Would that work?
Let's say I sell you my business for $1 million. You give me a loan for $1,2 million. The money is transferred into my account. I pay 2% interest for 10 years and then I default on the loan. You do nothing to recover the money.
I had a few colleagues in the UK that tried this to avoid taxes. The tax services generally don't look too kindly on that sort of arrangements. Searching for "Loan charge" should surface quite a few distressed stories.
Doesn't look like there is additional tax on the property itself which would be way worse, but still it's completely medieval to tax rises in asset value before there is any cash flow intended to be realized from the rise.
The rate might even be in excess of medieval times, I don't know, but it's bound to drive people away who are not flush with cash. I would maybe consider limiting to crypto alone, and still only after being sold for a profit.
I assume property tax is already exorbitant. I don't know how deep the similarities go, but in Florida many a subdivision or even whole new towns have been carved out of wetlands which were not welcoming otherwise.
Sometimes where dry land didn't even exist before :)
Eventually the subdivision fills, property values rise, and taxes do too automatically.
This is by design, once it's full, they want to tax you out of there to make room for people with more money to spare.
Is that where the pressure's coming from?
They could end up with no room for anybody except the very elite.
If that doesn't work they could always raise the tax rates even more, escalating the same logic ought to move faster in the same direction ;)
They also raised the retirement age past 70. It's a clear signal for wagies to know their place and not to get any ambition of financial independence.
I've got a little girl that just started school, which complicates things, but I'm really reconsidering my future in the country.
You'd be better even In France. I'm here in Spain watching this closely, as this would be over for me.
I'm not sure how confident I'd be, moving to a country that runs a constant 5% deficit. I work remotely, so my employer wouldn't care, but wouldn't cover the difference in employer contributions, which are substantial. That'd mean lowering my gross salary by something like 40k.
Spain is actually the place I'm considering, especially with the Beckham law and the fact that I speak the language.
I don't understand why people allow so easily the increase of retirement age. I don't see the millenials in old age receiving any better healthcare as boomers are receiving right now. Stereotypical good public healthcare exists even in EU maybe only in 5-6 countries, in the rest it's 100 EUR for 5 minutes of doctor's attention.
Its simply impossible for most people to go to university, only enter the job market by 25 retiring by 65 and then live 20 years on retirement when you have an increasingly aging population at the same time.
> I don't see the millenials in old age receiving any better healthcare as boomers are receiving right now.
Questionable, the medical field is progressing. Also we have many things like smoking that are much less common in millennials and even less after that. That should lead to longer health.
In Ted Turner's autobiography [0] (highly recommended) he describes how wealth individuals got around the very high income taxes in the 1960s-1970s:
- Person A is selling their company to Person B
- The total price is very high (let's say millions)
- I B pays A the millions, A will have to pay a large tax burden
- Instead, A "loans" the money to B so that B can "buy" the business
- This creates a stream of small payments (less tax), spread out over time
I mention this only b/c smart people will eventually figure out ways around these taxes.
For example, there are already "barter networks" in Scandinavia where Person 1 does plumbing for Person 2, Person 2 does legal work for Person 3 who in turn does accounting for Person 1. All so there is less income reported.
0 - https://amzn.to/40a8Z67
Also, uniquely in the USA, interest payments on debt can be deducted from your income. There are some caveats to deducting this from personal taxes rather than business taxes, but in general if you can show your personally used the loan for business purposes, you can use the Schedule C form to deduct the interest on it from your personal income to lower taxes paid.
Deduction of interest against revenue isn't allowed in other countries for business purposes?
I know the home mortgage deduction might be somewhat unique, but interest costs seem a business expense pretty clearly.
In the NL the one who provides the loan is supposed to do that against a normal interest rate, which is a capital gain subject to tax. So this trick would not work here afaik, because now there is still a party paying taxes.
What about the "default on the loan" backdoor? Would that work?
Let's say I sell you my business for $1 million. You give me a loan for $1,2 million. The money is transferred into my account. I pay 2% interest for 10 years and then I default on the loan. You do nothing to recover the money.
Tax free sale, no?
I had a few colleagues in the UK that tried this to avoid taxes. The tax services generally don't look too kindly on that sort of arrangements. Searching for "Loan charge" should surface quite a few distressed stories.
In the USA this is taxed as if the loan was forgiven - so one side or the other pays the tax.
There are ways to abuse the bankruptcy laws, but they are difficult and time consuming and usually not worth it.
You may be right. I might be misremembering or overgeneralizing some articles about mortgage interest deductions.
Doesn't look like there is additional tax on the property itself which would be way worse, but still it's completely medieval to tax rises in asset value before there is any cash flow intended to be realized from the rise.
The rate might even be in excess of medieval times, I don't know, but it's bound to drive people away who are not flush with cash. I would maybe consider limiting to crypto alone, and still only after being sold for a profit.
I assume property tax is already exorbitant. I don't know how deep the similarities go, but in Florida many a subdivision or even whole new towns have been carved out of wetlands which were not welcoming otherwise.
Sometimes where dry land didn't even exist before :)
Eventually the subdivision fills, property values rise, and taxes do too automatically.
This is by design, once it's full, they want to tax you out of there to make room for people with more money to spare.
Is that where the pressure's coming from?
They could end up with no room for anybody except the very elite.
If that doesn't work they could always raise the tax rates even more, escalating the same logic ought to move faster in the same direction ;)
[dupe] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47008391
The ladder has been pulled up few years ago. Now they are pouring down boiling tar.
[flagged]