Exodus of the superrich - opting out - where is our - opt in - offer


(Wilfried Ellmer) #1

Continuing the discussion from What form of society would you pioneer through seasteading?:

…This gave the USA legal jurisdiction over the globe…


Corporate settlements in the United States - The criminalisation of American business - ocean colonization as solution | oceanic business alliance
To understand what is going on in our world - follow the money
The economic realities and practicability shape the concept of freedom of the oceans - not legal hairsplitting - not gunboat politics | oceanic business alliance
Legal uncertainty can be a asset that a good project manager can work in favor
Cost of renouncing US citizenship
Cost of renouncing US citizenship
Oceanic business alliance | key player network | ocean colonization | big five | get connected | get invested
What form of society would you pioneer through seasteading?
Violence in international politics is still a strong kung fu - doubth that - oceanic business alliance
Is the freedom of the ocean divided in zones ? - not really
(Wilfried Ellmer) #2

The Mass Migration of the Super-Rich
Robert Frank | @robtfrank
Tuesday, 29 May 2012 | 11:32 AM ET

The global rich are on the move.

Whether it’s wealthy French or Americans fleeing the prospect of higher taxes or wealthy Russians and Chinese trying to escape political uncertainty, millionaires and billionaires around the world are migrating like never before, according to government statistics and relocation experts.

“There is a sudden awakening among the wealthy that they’re no longer bound to a certain country,” said David Lesperance, a Toronto-based attorney who specializes in relocating the rich. “After the recession and other recent events, they realize they need to get themselves in better fiscal shape. For the wealthy, the idea of moving has changed from something that’s interesting or exotic to something they feel they really need to do.”

The number of Americans seeking to renounce their citizenship surged to more than 1,700 last year, more than twice the rate of 2009, according to U.S. Treasury data compiled by Andrew Mitchel, the international tax attorney. Among them was Eduardo Saverin, the Facebook billionaire who famously moved to Singapore before giving up his citizenship late last year. This year, 460 people expatriated in the first quarter alone.

In France, the wealthy are eying Switzerland, Britain and Singapore as possible escapes from President Francois Hollande’s proposed 75 percent tax on income exceeding 1 million euros. Switzerland had 5,445 people in the forfait system – which allows foreigners to immigrate through a special tax treatment – at the end of 2010; more than 33 percent of those are French, according to a Bloomberg report.

Some rich French are also seeking to leave what they perceive as a growing hostility toward the rich in France.

Meanwhile, the newly rich people in several emerging markets – Russia, China or Brazil – are looking to come to better protect their wealth or families. The combination of slowing growth, political uncertainty and volatile markets at home has lured some of the newly rich around the world to move to Britain or the United States.

Wealthy Russians are moving to London is such large numbers that local commentators have coined the term “Londongrad.” Roman Abramovich, the Russian multi-billionaire who owns the Chelsea Football Club is the highest-profile rich Russian in Britain, but he is only one of ten Russian billionaires living there, while an estimated 1,000 Russian millionaires now call London home.

Attorneys and real-estate agents in London who deal with the Russian rich say their clients are attracted to the stability and refined culture of London, as well as the relative safety. After the tumultuous presidential elections last year, wealthy Russians are increasingly nervous about the country’s political stability and their own fortunes, experts say.

Meanwhile, Chinese millionaires and billionaires are flocking to the United States in record numbers. More than two thousand Chinese citizens sought to immigrate to the United States in 2011 through the so-called “investor visa.” That’s more than twice the number in 2010. The program allows foreigners and their families to receive permanent U.S. residency for an investment of $500,000 or more (or in some cases $1 million or more) that also creates a minimum number of jobs.

The impacts of all these new migratory patterns of the wealthy are still emerging. Some economists and sociologists say the rootlessness of the new rich could further tear the fabric of countries and communities, since the wealthy won’t be as grounded in local charities, workers or businesses. It could also lead to an arms race in tax policy, with locales like Singapore and St. Kitts offering generous income-tax and capital-gains rates to attract wealthy spenders and taxpayers.

Yet others say the rich are simply following the new rule of capital – money will move where it’s treated best. Technology has allowed the rich to run their businesses and investments from anywhere in the world. And while taxes play a role in the decision, relocation experts say culture, education and climate also play roles among the rich. He said some of the U.S. rich are looking to Britain and Switzerland as well as other larger countries in Europe that don’t necessarily have the lowest tax rates.

“It’s not just about taxes,” Mr. Lesperance said. “They’re not necessarily moving to small islands anymore. They want to go where they can replicate their lifestyle, run their businesses, educate their children and eat at great restaurants and enjoy the culture. They don’t want to be on an island where you say, “Well, we’ve eaten at the same three restaurants already. Now where do we go?’ ”


In this context see the subdue to nobody model


Affordability of oceanic freedom a critical focus


Seasteading a way to rapid progress


Seasteading the only feasible way to sustainability on the planet



(Matias Volco) #3

When one considers the super rich segment, that which appears to be out of reach for the ordinary and even extraordinary individual, it is wise to remember that communities that host very wealthy patrons (tourists, expats, travelers and/or residents) become wealthier themselves. This might be a give and take in already existing land-based communities, but it’s not at sea where the benefits would be absolute.
Since the super rich already live private lives, the people who benefit from the public services and security of already existing land-based hideaways or havens are the super rich’s employees, or their employees’ employees or providers or products and services.

A 12 passenger super-yacht might need 30 crew. The crew is usually well paid and itself consumes as much as any middle class resident of a big city.

A floating marina can harbor solo or 2 person sailboats just as well as superyachts accomodating 40+ individuals at the same time. There’s a big market in luxury yachting and counter-intuitively, int’s not only for the super rich. People who enjoy being at sea (would pay for the luxury or would chose jobs at sea) should be, IMO, the first target demographic for Seasteading.


(Jonas Smith) #4

What you keep missing is that all of these “superrich” are still subduing to somebody…they are just leaving restrictive places and moving somewhere else. They are still citizens of a nation, bound by that nations laws and tax regulations. They are just choosing to move from places where they pay 30% tax on dividend income to places where they pay 10%.

How is that “subdue to nobody”? They aren’t floating around on the oceans in their mega-yachts as stateless people living however they want to. They are just giving up US citizenship for Swiss or Singapore citizenship to get out of paying taxes. People have been doing that for decades and the only reason you are seeing more of it now is because the number of very wealthy people in the world…who are the ones who want to do this for financial reasons…has increased dramatically.

Granted there is also a technological reason. It is far easier for a person to interact with people globally these days than it was 10 or 20 years ago. A stockbroker from New York can renounce her citizenship, become a citizen of Switzerland, and still Skype and do business with all her friends in the US, order products online and have them shipped, etc.

But she is still being subdued by somebody…as a citizen of Switzerland she must obey all their laws, pay all their taxes, etc. She might be more free than she was in the US, but that’s certainly not a “subdue to nobody model”.


(Matias Volco) #5

if someone is a citizen of a nation but lives his life splitting the year in two, three or seven foreign nations (perhaps but not necessarily with more than one citizenship) then it is as if that person were flying a flag of convenience.
Much like cruiseships can host gambling salons legally so can individuals enjoy many other liberties legally that would not be so if the individual remained in his or her home country.

US citizens face certain obligations even when migrating permanently to another nation, but that doesn’t stop more Americans each year from choosing to live abroad.
Other nationals face their own challenges.


(Jonas Smith) #6

Sure, I guess you could look at it that way. Although in your example it’s even worse for the person. They are a citizen of some nation…bound by all the rules, laws, and regulations of that nation…but they are living somewhere else and are bound by all the laws, rules, and regulations of the nation they are in. They get it from both directions!

That’s why many Americans, who live all the time outside of the US, are renouncing their citizenship. Why, if you live 365 days a year in France and have no wish to return to live in the US, would you want to retain your US citizenship and have to continue paying taxes to a country you don’t live in or plan on living in? I know I wouldn’t.


(Matias Volco) #7

or from neither

(and US not the best example)


(Wilfried Ellmer) #8

in fact some do exactly this…


(Chad Elwartowski) #9

I always found these articles about people renouncing their citizenship in “record numbers” a bit more hype than substance. Less than 2000 people (with an increase in the hundreds) out of billions of citizens is not going to cause anyone in Washington to pay much attention.

Now if people were leaving by the millions, they might start to feel the heat (though at that point they would likely just try to make it harder for people to leave than actually address the problem).


(Wilfried Ellmer) #10

Chad, i agree that the numbers are far from putting pressure on land Governments (yet) but opting out of state could easyly turn out to be the tip of the iceberg. Fact is the few that actually do so seem to be far from stranded as motherless child and live quite a good life…


The important taks is to make opt out a feasible option for average income segments what makes affordable subdue to nobody solutions a important focus



(Jonas Smith) #11

Please show me someone who has “opted out of state” who lives on a yacht like that.


(Wilfried Ellmer) #12

(Wilfried Ellmer) #13

(Jonas Smith) #14

They are only surrendering their US citizenship, they not becoming stateless, as the article implies. It even says later on:

St Kitts and Nevis is the favourite alternative citizenship option for US citizens. Many will also be looking at Austrian citizenship

I tell you there are no “ultra-wealthy individuals who have chosen to become stateless now cruise outside coastal waters in their mega-yachts in the belief that if they stay on the move, tax authorities will not be able to catch up with them.” Those mega-yachts need to be properly flagged and crewed according to the yacht’s registration certificate, and their owners must have some level of nationality to do that. Most certainly there aren’t “thousands”.

So 1) this is not an “exodus”, it’s just a few rich people trying to escape paying taxes and 2) they are not escaping from any state, they are just moving somewhere where they have more freedom as they perceive it. There is nothing wrong with that.


(Wilfried Ellmer) #15

after opting out they opt into whatever is convenient for them on a personal level - but this is not the point- the point is they opt out in first place from states that they consider abusing. It is also not a point how many they are, the point is it is happening as we speak - not in a futuristic future. May they be few they are the ones that count with economic power.

Offshoring megatrend of the century offshoring the economic power of Venice was built on far less…the really intersting question is what do we wrong to NOT capture their interest as as seasteading movement.


Why don’t we talk about giving them the best offer instead of talking papermouse politics.



(Jonas Smith) #16

So what? Like Chad said people have been doing this for all of human history. People aren’t happy with their current situation and, as long as they aren’t being repressed or forced, leave for someplace “better”. That’s not news.

You are insinuating that people are abandoning the state completely, to live their life as a stateless person roaming the oceans in their mega-yachts following no laws or rules and doing whatever they want. That is not the case…

Sure, let’s found a new nation where they would be happy to become citizens. Just offering them a truck stop in the middle of the ocean isn’t enough.


(Wilfried Ellmer) #17

no to start with i offer this right now - then a transition along the natural development lines to finally come in some 10 years to something that you could picture like this.


But i have a quite long proposal list online to demonstrate the range of possibilities for floating real estate development.


(system) closed #18

This topic was automatically closed 100 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.