Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
No. of Recommendations: 6
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 26
It wasn't such a fun town yesterday, with the heads of state of China, Monaco and France having a powwow. Their lunch was a couple of blocks from our place.
It took me close to 24 hours to implement my convoluted plan to drop my lovely wife off at the airport.

I have *never* seen security like that, both Monaco and Nice. Motorcade in Washington? Pfft! Nothin'.

Both the main highway and the coast road completely closed.
Police every 100-200m along the entire one remaining road to Nice (moyenne corniche).
This is a mountainous region, so it's not as if you can take the "surface streets" to detour.
Kicked out of the airport terminal building, shops closed and people waiting outside for flights.
Nobody allowed to open windows or go onto their balconies in town, or leave things ON their balconies.
Nobody on the roads, no private aircraft or drones, ports closed.
No gatherings on the streets.
Police tape and/or barriers along all curb lines near me.

I hope they had a nice visit!

Jim
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Are you living in Monaco or just visiting?


Curious Dog
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
better views (& air)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpciqAHrSSk

does this site take that kind of youtube link?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
better cinematography here, except the guy did it on a rainy day.
(Hint: when it rains, just run. The rain will stop soon enough.

Go to 1:10

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZkOU3F8tyA
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
Are you living in Monaco or just visiting?

I live here in Monaco.
It's a bit dark at the moment, but I can (just) see the Med out my office window right now.
No crime, no snow, no tax, what's not to like?

Actually those are all only 99% true, but that's better than most places!

Jim
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
No crime, no snow, no tax, what's not to like?

I looked up the following. Euro:240k. Small place but still not as expensive as I thought.

https://www.monacoproperties.mc/en/product/51980-for-sale-ro...

No fed or state taxes ? No capital gains tax ?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 18
No fed or state taxes ? No capital gains tax ?

Well, there are (last I heard) only two countries that tax based on citizenship rather than location of residence.
The US is one.
So, if you're American, there is [almost] no advantage moving to a low tax jurisdiction. You still have to file US income tax on worldwide income.
(other than, say, Taxes...umm, I mean Texas...I always get those two mixed up)
There are very few Americans living here.

But for the rest of us, yeah, no fed, state, local tax of any kind.
No capital gains tax, no dividend tax.
No property tax. No inheritance tax to close relatives.
But we still get free delivery from the local fresh food market and a gen-u-ine friendly cop on every corner.
From a happiness point of view, there is no tax return. No property tax form.
Other than the letter about the security for the state visit, I haven't had anything in the mail from the government in years.
I think my wife (an art photographer) gets a revenue survey form from the statistics department.

The government budget comes more than anything else from sales tax. Second biggest is a very simple corporate tax.
(corporate tax rate is 1/3 of profits for international businesses, zero for local businesses like restaurants and bakeries)
The casino's profits used to be a big factor, but last I heard it's only 4% of the budget now.
A bigger item is taxes on the real estate market: 1% on leases, and bigger amounts on land transfers and registering mortgages.
There are some reasonably serious payroll taxes, but they're substantially lower than most of Europe, so sort of a "mid Atlantic" level.

Personally, the biggest tax I pay is withholding tax on US equities which pay dividends.
Since there is no US-Monaco tax treaty, the US government withholds, and keeps, 30% of all coupons.
There is no offsetting tax credit here, as there is no tax return in which to claim it.
And some property tax on property I own in other countries.

Jim
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
No crime, no snow, no tax, what's not to like?

Only one railroad station in the entire country.

True, but just kidding.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
No fed or state taxes ? No capital gains tax ?

Unless US law has changed, if you are a US citizen, you pay income tax, including capital gains tax, no matter where in the world you are.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
No crime, no snow, no tax, what's not to like?
...
Only one railroad station in the entire country.


Well, yeah, but it's within walking distance, no matter where you live!
Also, only 6 Michelin star restaurants.

Some people complain that the opera and ballet are not the quality of those in, say, London.
But, hey, it's a town of 30,000. At least we HAVE an opera and a ballet.
"The marvel is not that the bear dances well, but that the bear dances at all."
Ballet dancing, to be consistent.

It's a wonderful place if you like quirks of history.
Mainly, that it exists at all as an independent country.
But also little things, like not being in the EU yet minting euros, or being the largest country worldwide with Catholicism as the state religion. (out of 2)

Jim
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
That’s wonderful Jim. I always think of Grace Kelly in Monaco. Sounds like a beautiful place to live. :)

Lucky Dog
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
Unless US law has changed, if you are a US citizen, you pay income tax, including capital gains tax, no matter where in the world you are.

I like seeing my name and picture on a US passport. Paying some bucks in taxes for this privilege is a small price to pay.

Speaking of taxes, with the deadline fast approaching, I filed mine today. I was pleasantly surprised to find out that the Trump tax cuts benefited me immensely. I was under the impression that the tax cuts were mainly for corporations. But corporations are not the only ones benefiting. Individuals - at least those with dependents - will also benefit. My income in 2018 was about 7% higher than in 2017, and yet my tax bill was significantly lower.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Mainly, that it exists at all as an independent country.

Perhaps. But think about it. Sure, the police force of Nice could probably take over Monaco, but doing that would be so embarrassing that even the French would die of shame if they tried it. The only country that is incapable of feeling shame would be The Untied Snakes.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
Mainly, that it exists at all as an independent country.
...
Perhaps. But think about it. Sure, the police force of Nice could probably take over Monaco,


Well, being an independent country is mostly about being more-or-less universally recognized as such.
Very few countries, statistically speaking, can resist a determined invasion.
Pens beat swords for that test.

But also, the little hedgehog has spikes.
Last time there was a tiff with the UK, we sacked Southampton.
Granted, it was a while back—681 years—but surely the UK remembers the bloody nose?

These days I guess a small country like this would counterattack financially.
Freeze bank accounts. Or shut down part of the global shipping industry.

Jim
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I think Monaco could get pretty much whatever it wants from pretty much any country just by carefully selecting about 40 of those yachts in the harbor & "booting" them

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/97/De...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 8
Speaking of taxes, with the deadline fast approaching, I filed mine today. I was pleasantly surprised to find out that the Trump tax cuts benefited me immensely. I was under the impression that the tax cuts were mainly for corporations. But corporations are not the only ones benefiting. Individuals - at least those with dependents - will also benefit. My income in 2018 was about 7% higher than in 2017, and yet my tax bill was significantly lower.

While that may be true for a majority, highly taxed people in blue states have been royally forced to the downward dog posture because the SALT exemption was limited to $10K. So I have to pay taxes on my taxes. Fantastic. Brought to you by free marketeers who mightily protest the double taxation of dividends. Collective punishment to people living in the "wrong" states (never mind that those states contribute more to the Fed budget than they take out as opposed to the "land of the free" red states that live on Fed handouts.)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 23
So I have to pay taxes on my taxes.


No. You pay the taxes the federal government requires, and you pay the taxes your blue state population voted for. The red state taxpayers no longer give you a federal tax exemption for services you have decided to finance in your blue state.

In other words, it is now the way it is in most countries with different levels of government - each level decides how much to tax to finance government services, and the taxpayer pays the total of all these taxes. If they want to have more services or pay less taxes, they vote for that in their state, without getting taxpayers from other states to bail them out from the consequences of their choices.

dtb
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 8
In other words, it is now the way it is in most countries with different levels of government - each level decides how much to tax to finance government services, and the taxpayer pays the total of all these taxes. If they want to have more services or pay less taxes, they vote for that in their state, without getting taxpayers from other states to bail them out from the consequences of their choices.

Your idea of who is bailing whom out is backwards.
At least in US, the more services a state provides, the less the Feds provide. Overall it's each citizen getting roughly equal amount of service combined.

And if the deduction is bad, why is $10K OK? Why not 0? Solely because most people in the red states get taxed less, but not 0. And their votes matter.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Your idea of who is bailing whom out is backwards.

Facts are interesting things, I love them.

https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-bud...

Link #1...hmmm, I'm going to guess that since the largest states have the largest populations they are getting the largest share of "mandatory" spending. And will you look at that...that's like 60% of total federal spending. Additionally, all those "po folk" in the red states probably aren't getting the 133K cutoff for social security taxes. Additionally, you can bet the vast majority is paying 1.45% of all they make to medicare because all their income is "earnings." Po folk don't normally have much income that ain't "earnings". Anyone care to dispute this math?

Link #2...dated, but highly likely still captures the essence of what money is going where.

https://www.kff.org/medicaid/issue-brief/data-note-variation...

Check out the map and the text under the map. Throw in medicaid and the blue states funding the red states argument is, nicely said, not credible. Gonna guess in addition to losing state budget control (philosophical), red state politicians also understand the transfer math (practical) which is why they aren't medicaid fans.

http://rig.deevoted.build/blog/subsidizes-state-local-tax-de...

Link #3...the actual transfer of payments isn't that clear cut and very much depends on the state's tax structure. Plenty of red states didn't fare so well in terms of net transfers either.

Food fights over income taxes alone are highly deceptive and manipulated by both sides...the only thing that should be argued over is total tax burden. To me, it's the only starting point that is intellectually honest.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Throw in medicaid and the blue states funding the red states argument is, nicely said, not credible.

Actually a simpler way of looking at is, look at per capita federal tax collection at different geographies. Then compare that with per capita federal benefits received. You will get a very credible picture.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 35

In other words, it is now the way it is in most countries with different levels of government - each level decides how much to tax to finance government services, and the taxpayer pays the total of all these taxes. If they want to have more services or pay less taxes, they vote for that in their state, without getting taxpayers from other states to bail them out from the consequences of their choices.


There's another way of looking at this.
You see, blue staters tend to earn more and consequently pay more taxes then red staters.
In general, blue staters pay more to the federal government then they receive, while red states receive more federal spending then they pay in federal taxes.

In other words, the blue states have already been subsidizing the red states, which tend to do poorly economically, not least due to chronic underinvestment in education and infrastructure.

The recent tax reform forces the "maker" blue states to pay even more to the "taker" red states, which is quite unfair. This poses the additional problem that it will make it more difficult for the blue states to make the investments they will need if they are to continue carrying their red state brethren in the future, who are unfortunately unwilling to raise the necessary taxes to make such investments themselves.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
...The recent tax reform forces the "maker" blue states to pay even more to the "taker" red states, which is quite unfair.....


And so, is it also "unfair" when our progressive Federal tax system/Social Security/Medicare premium rates causes folks who make more ("makers") to pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes in order to fund the "takers"? ;-)

Cheers!
Murph
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Huh?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Huh?

Hi chippunk!

Could you be a bit more specific in your question? ;-)

I thought it a bit ironic that AD chose the "maker"/"taker" terminology to lament the Federal tax hit to due recent tax law changes.....a hit that generally affects higher income/big mortgage folks in high tax states. Thus, I agree with DTB's take:

https://boards.fool.com/so-i-have-to-pay-taxes-on-my-taxes-n...

For the record, I have no issue with a reasonably progressive Federal tax system, except for the fact that what constitutes one's "fair share" seems to be a highly movable goal post. ;-)


Cheers!
Murph
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"At least in US, the more services a state provides, the less the Feds provide. Overall it's each citizen getting roughly equal amount of service combined."

Which rock do you live under? There is no such thing as te Law oh Conservation of Govt Services.
similarly, There is no such thing as te Law oh Conservation of Govt Abuse.

Those both make roughly equal sense. Krikey. The ability of people to parrot just plain stupid things that they heard some politician say is astounding.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"So I have to pay taxes on my taxes"

Specious slogans. Brought to you by you-know-who. Getting A LOT worse by the year.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
In a post full of bass-ackwards ways of looking at things, this one takes the cake:

"red states, which tend to do poorly economically, not least due to chronic underinvestment in education and infrastructure."

You watch cable TV "news", don't you?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
"No. You pay the taxes the federal government requires, and you pay the taxes your blue state population voted for. The red state taxpayers no longer give you a federal tax exemption for services you have decided to finance in your blue state.

In other words, it is now the way it is in most countries with different levels of government - each level decides how much to tax to finance government services, and the taxpayer pays the total of all these taxes. If they want to have more services or pay less taxes, they vote for that in their state, without getting taxpayers from other states to bail them out from the consequences of their choices."


If I am not mistaken, I believe you are Canadian. At least I hope so, because your views of who finances government services for others in America seriously misses the target.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
For the record, I have no issue with a reasonably progressive Federal tax system, except for the fact that what constitutes one's "fair share" seems to be a highly movable goal post. ;-)

Nor do I, but here in New Jersey, because I made a tiny bit more pension income than a threshold, I lost a $45,000 deduction from my income for my state income tax. So instead of getting a $2,385 refund for tax year 2017 (when the deduction was $15,000), I had to pay $831 extra for tax year 2018.

I think the progressions should be a smooth function of income, not the jagged ones we must endure because politicians have no mathematical sense. But that is what we get when mainly lawyers get elected to public office.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
You watch cable TV "news", don't you?

Looks like from your comments, you don't read any statistics either. Common, the facts on tax receipts and where federal money is spent is out there.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
The recent tax reform forces the "maker" blue states to pay even more to the "taker" red states, which is quite unfair. This poses the additional problem that it will make it more difficult for the blue states to make the investments they will need if they are to continue carrying their red state brethren in the future


It is true that red states are, on average, wealthier than the red states, and so they pay more of the burden of federal taxes. This is an inevitable feature of any tax regime where wealthy people pay for a larger share of government services than poor people do. A policy of giving (or maintaining) a tax deduction for people paying more taxes may have its merits, but fairness doesn’t seem to be one of them, and it goes against the principal of taxation without representation (red state taxpayers pay part of the tax load of red states in which they have no vote.)

But to suggest that rich states should get a tax deduction paid for by poor states, so they can continue investing in services in their rich states, so that they can prosper and carry their poor state brethren? This so insulting to those poor state brethren, I can’t imagine it’s what you really mean.

Dtb
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
I believe you are Canadian. At least I hope so, because your views of who finances government services for others in America seriously misses the target.


Yes I am Canadian, but it would be more relevant for you to take issue with some aspect of my argument than to dismiss it based on my nationality.

D
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 19
Well this thread - begun with a video of Monaco and a Tesla - has certainly taken a nasty political turn for no really good reason.

How American...

Can we stop now and talk about BRK and it's subsidiaries and prospect?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
I really enjoyed this thread when it talked about Monaco.

But not since it morphed to a red state, blue state polemic.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
How American...

Can we stop now and talk about BRK and it's subsidiaries and prospect?


No we can't. ;-)

One final point from me and I won't make another but I think it non-partisan. How does one factor in simple cost of living differences in terms of "who is supporting who"?

The person who lives in San Francisco makes and pays a lot more in taxes than the person in rural Texas but the standard of living may be way higher in Texas (in terms of house size, cost of groceries, utilities etc...ignoring cultural/life style preferences. I'm thinking of the Google software engineers reportedly living in their vans type of stories that always seem to be in the media.)

Perhaps we can all just agree on, as you chose to live in different places there are various pros/cons that go with the cost of living for the area you've chosen.

At the end of the day, if the Democrats can ever be successful beyond the coasts then they can switch the tax law right back.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
#s are OUT THERE.

"facts on tax receipts and where federal money is spent is out there"

Common sense & understanding cause & effect is not "out there". Those require you to think more accurately & parrot pablum less. iow, those are "in there". But, then, there seems to be "no there, there".


ps: I have roughly zero doubt I understand the actual science of statistics better than you do, given your slap-dash assignments of cause-and-effect.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Well, DTB, you do know you're debating with a loyal follower of Identity Politics, don't you?

"I am Canadian, but it would be more relevant for you to take issue with some aspect of my argument than to dismiss it based on my nationality."

What else would you expect them to do?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Can you go back & tell us who decided to pull out there std playbook of
specious slogans
slap-dash economic nonsense
identity politics
us vs them
Who did that?

"I really enjoyed this thread when it talked about Monaco. But not since it morphed to a red state, blue state polemic. "

It is highly predictable & never enjoyable. But, it is what they have in their playbook.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I understand the actual science of statistics better than you do

I believe you, just because I have a post-graduate degree in statistics and mathematics, doesn't mean I understand numbers better than you.

Understanding something is different from looking at things objectively. I am sure you are objective and impassioned in your reasoning. But, politics is a mysterious animal, where smart folks suddenly susceptible to all fraudulent arguments.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
"Yes I am Canadian, but it would be more relevant for you to take issue with some aspect of my argument than to dismiss it based on my nationality."

You might have missed the part where I pointed out "your views of who finances government services for others in America seriously misses the target." You were completely wrong when you stated that red states were bailing out blue states.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I actually am not "impassioned in my reasoning" at all. You are.

These are #s. They have no passion. If you actually have even a decent background in statistics but still throw around slap-dash correlations & phony cause-and-effects, then you have lost it. Simply lost it. Your "passion" turned you into the fraudulent debater.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
phony cause-and-effects

It is a simple math. I pay $10 in taxes and I take $12 services and you pay $10 in taxes and take $8, services then I am the taker.

So I am interested to hear what cause and effect you are talking about in this scenario.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
This thread has long since run it’s course.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I am sure that ALL discusses of cause-and-effect would be over your head. Yes, it is simple. You have no fundamental understanding of what NUMBERS mean & do not mean. On only the most simple level of MANY levels where you are wrong ...
When the govt spends $1, that does not mean anyone got any actual "service".

Learn to define your terms & learn to not abuse numbers. Life is long. Learning should start somewhere.


ps: are you the genius that posited a Law of Conservation of Govt Services? If so, don't hold your breath for a prize (other than participation).
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
When the govt spends $1

You spend too much time making personal attacks and attacking straw-man. Go back and see where I mentioned Government spends.

Secondly, if government spends $1 on a laying a road, Am I receiving any actual service or not?

Oh BTW, you may be too busy basking in your smartness, when you recover from that, can you explain the cause and effect?

LOL
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Yes I am Canadian, but it would be more relevant for you to take issue with some aspect of my argument than to dismiss it based on my nationality.

This polite retort alone would give it away.
Not to mention the beady eyes (if you are a South Park fan.)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Or, one could spend 5 minutes looking at the actual data, and draw conclusions on facts, instead of generalizing along stratified liberal condescension.

https://www.moneytips.com/is-your-state-a-net-payer-or-a-net...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
This thread was successfully added to your ignored threads list.

Enough is enough. Change the heading if you wish to pursue your debate.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I DID NOT MEAN TO ADD THE AUTHOR TO MY IGNORED LIST.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 11
Or, one could spend 5 minutes looking at the actual data, and draw conclusions on facts, instead of generalizing along stratified liberal condescension.

I think you misinterpreted the chart.
The states paying more than they receive are (population numbers in brackets):

Blue states:
New Jersey (8900k), Connecticut (3573k), New York (8623k), Massachusetts (6902k), Illinois (1274k), New Hampshire (1356k), California (39560k)

Purple states:
Minnesota (5611k)

Red states:
North Dakota (760k), Wyoming (577k), Nebraska (1900k), South Dakota (882k), Texas (28000k) (barely)


When you look at the population numbers, it becomes clear that the only red state of any significance that is not a net recipient is Texas. And Texas is almost a wash and hardly contributes anything.
The heavy lifting is done by New Jersey, New York and Massachusetts.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Well this thread - begun with a video of Monaco and a Tesla - has certainly taken a nasty political turn for no really good reason.


I feel kind of bad. Sorry about that.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5

see the Med out my office window right now.
drop my lovely wife off at the airport.

My main takeaway from this thread is:

lovely view + lovely wife = lovely life.

Youngsters on this board, take note of this simple recipe for a happy life!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
<<My main takeaway from this thread is:

lovely view + lovely wife = lovely life.

Youngsters on this board, take note of this simple recipe for a happy life! >>


Agree but youngsters might also want to bring some $$$ along if they
move to Monaco it makes "poor" areas of the US like say Palm Beach, Aspen,
Malibu and the upper east side of NYC look like a bargain :).
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 12
My main takeaway from this thread is:
lovely view + lovely wife = lovely life.


PS:
View optional.

Jim
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
The heavy lifting is done by New Jersey, New York and Massachusetts

You dropped a decimal point. California has more population than those three states combined.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Can you go back & tell us who decided to pull out their std playbook of

specious slogans ; "I pay taxes on my taxes" ... lmao

slap-dash economic nonsense ; e.g. The Law of Conservation of Govt Services ... lmao!

identity politics

us vs them

Who did that?

"I really enjoyed this thread when it talked about Monaco. But not since it morphed to a red state, blue state polemic. "

It is highly predictable & never enjoyable. But, it is what they have in their playbook.
Print the post Back To Top