3 ms·

Hmmmm sure I can maybe agree with this, maybe? I don’t think you can stop it though… any ideas?

Nursie 4y ago
Regulation of the cryptocurrency space, for example, such that huge amounts of funds can't be kept and moved anonymously and without consideration of (for instance) local taxes in these countries the rich shop between. Those who do so must be held to the same standards as those already resident. In the UK recently we have seen (yet another) backlash against this in the form of the outcry against the wife of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was using "non-Domiciled" status to avoid masses of tax, despite having been resident in the country for multiple years. I've no issue with people moving around, but moving around specifically to avoid contributing to the country you're actually residing in needs to be ended, and regulating cryptocurrency may have to be part of that.
- WFHRenaissance 4y ago
  You have a good heart, and I’m not saying I entirely disagree with you, but think of it this way: If I’m paying taxes, I want it to go to something I care about. “Non-dom” status is blatant fraud for sure and I can’t entirely support that. But, shopping around for preferential territories is kind of what everyone is already doing, right? Imagine if your town made it illegal or expensive for you to move to a neighboring town? That’s the problem cryptocurrency is solving for the rich
  - Nursie 4y ago
    If my town did that, and did that for everyone, I would be trying to change the system rather than raising my middle finger to others who live there and who don't have my resources to avoid the consequences. Sure, it's solving a 'problem' for them, the 'problem' is that they have to follow the same rules as the little people. I can see why they might pursue such a thing, and as I say - it's incumbent upon the rest of us to stop that behaviour, and force them to contribute as others do.

Regulation of the cryptocurrency space, for example, such that huge amounts of funds can't be kept and moved anonymously and without consideration of (for instance) local taxes in these countries the rich shop between. Those who do so must be held to the same standards as those already resident. In the UK recently we have seen (yet another) backlash against this in the form of the outcry against the wife of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was using "non-Domiciled" status to avoid masses of tax, despite having been resident in the country for multiple years. I've no issue with people moving around, but moving around specifically to avoid contributing to the country you're actually residing in needs to be ended, and regulating cryptocurrency may have to be part of that.

WFHRenaissance 4y ago
You have a good heart, and I’m not saying I entirely disagree with you, but think of it this way: If I’m paying taxes, I want it to go to something I care about. “Non-dom” status is blatant fraud for sure and I can’t entirely support that. But, shopping around for preferential territories is kind of what everyone is already doing, right? Imagine if your town made it illegal or expensive for you to move to a neighboring town? That’s the problem cryptocurrency is solving for the rich
- Nursie 4y ago
  If my town did that, and did that for everyone, I would be trying to change the system rather than raising my middle finger to others who live there and who don't have my resources to avoid the consequences. Sure, it's solving a 'problem' for them, the 'problem' is that they have to follow the same rules as the little people. I can see why they might pursue such a thing, and as I say - it's incumbent upon the rest of us to stop that behaviour, and force them to contribute as others do.