So not paying taxes like everybody else which pay for public services you use is morally defensible as long as you don't pay those taxes to a democratic nation as opposed to a dictatorship?
This, I have to imagine, would come down to soft power. To my knowledge, it’s /very/ rarely free to move wealth across borders. So if a country were to strongly incentivize investment a certain way all of a sudden, it would be ideal if the political leanings were aligned with yours. Perhaps that might mean investing/holding your wealth in a country where there are likely to be further breaks for renewables. Who knows.
This isn’t a super thought-through response. Would be curious to see if people have ideas to add.
Instead of avoiding taxes and coming up with silly hacks - one should pay his fair share in his own country and try to build community and wealth around himself and his close ones.
Energy/wealth spent to avoid taxes in way where you move from country to country or do some weird stuff could be spent probably on building a small business or two.
I agree there are bad places to live and people have to run away from these or move because they don't earn enough in their place so they move out for more opportunity, but if it goes down to "I just want to keep more money for myself" is just not right and not moral at all.
Imagine being a 20-year old in Germany and Netherlands and finding the cheapest house you can own goes for 500k. Your salary peaks at 80k after 10 years of work, half of it goes to taxes and 1/3 of that is lost on rent you are forced to pay. Your only option is a 30+ year mortgage that will send you to a rat race with no options to leave, especially when you get married. Or you spend 5 years in Dubai, working remotely for 100k+, return back home and buy a property. Then you work only as much as you need. What would be your choice?
Sure, but what you are describing is not the same as becoming a tax resident of country solely for tax gains, I think that is morally wrong. I do believe in open borders and flows of labor, if specific part of the the world raise wages to attract skilled labour, I think that's great, more choice for us all! I personally would still want to live in the Netherlands earning a third of the disposable income compared to Dubai for various reason, including moral as well as standard of livings reasons but I completely understand somebody else might make a different choice.
AFAIK all Baltic states have a minority with limited rights, so they are far from true democracy. It's irrelevant what they think of that minority/what is their history with that minority, they simply can't claim to be fully democratic.
I dont hail from Estonia, but if you disqualify it as a democracy... pretty much all other european nations and the USA will have to be disqualified too and for the same reasons.
Its quality of life index is way higher then the USA as well, though that doesn't really say anything about its democracy.
Athens didn't have universal suffrage, and they invented democracy (and were in many ways far more democratic than anything we have today). They had some pretty radical measures for mixing up who actually got to hold office, such as sortition, and misbehaving officials risked ostracicsm by public vote.
I think this is something that is severely overlooked in contemporary democracy. It's a very small clique indeed that stands any realistic chance of holding office in most western democracies. Ultimately doesn't really matter who gets to vote if the candidates are all the same.
A quick question - how can a person born in a Baltic state and living there their whole life end up without citizenship? How is that democratic? Don't you see any problem there? That doesn't happen even between Romanians and Hungarians that are often at each other's throat for similar historical reasons.
> A quick question - how can a person born in a Baltic state and living there their whole life end up without citizenship?
The people in question are ethnic Russians who CHOOSE to not get a citizenship. They choose this, beccause people in Baltics without citizenship have the right to travel both within the EU and in Russia without a visa. Just to make it extra clear, let me draw you a table of a citizenship matrix in Estonia:
Estonian citizen - can travel within EU, needs visa for Russia
Russian citizen - needs visa for EU, can travel within Russia
No citizenship - can travel within EU, can travel within Russia
They can convert themselves to a Russian citizen at any time. They don't do it, because they don't want to actually live in Russia. They just want to be able to go there regularly for family and friends.
In the 1990s Estonian citizenship was given to any resident who asked for it, zero requirements. The people who remain stateless today rejected the proposal. Nowadays its more difficult to get Estonian citizenship, but still within reach for plenty of these people. They just don't want to do it, again, because they have friends and family in Russia - and Estonian citizens can't freely travel to Russia.
They can still vote for local elections and work. So there isn't really a strong incentive to care.
The best incentive for getting an actual citizenship is for those who want to travel beyond EU & Russia, because the global world doesn't give these stateless people special rights.
> A quick question - how can a person born in a Baltic state and living there their whole life end up without citizenship?
It should only be possible, if that person was born in Soviet Union (that is, before 1990), and doesn't speak the official language of the country he / she is living in.
I understand you are used to it, but it's really bad optics from the outside. How can there be people in their 30s without a citizenship? Estonian is a Finno-Ugric language which means it's extremely difficult to learn due to a completely alien structure of the language (compared to almost all European languages). Even Finland allows both Finnish and Swedish as official languages and doesn't discriminate Finnish Swedes that they don't speak Finnish. So you have some sort of "Eastern-European" flavor of democracy that allows a portion of population be marginalized based on their language.
> How can there be people in their 30s without a citizenship?
Because they've chosen not to pursue citizenship. There's a simplified path that anyone in this situation can utilize. I don't see how giving them the choice and allowing them to live and work in the country indefinitely even if they choose no is in any way "un-democratic".
And if you're suggesting that 30 years is not enough time to learn the absolute basics of a language, that is just utterly ridiculous. Not nearly as ridiculous as comparing this to the slave labor that built Dubai though.
Look, Baltic states have my sympathy for what you managed to achieve in 30 years. I understand you needed a few years to establish yourselves as independent nations, assert/reclaim your national character and show it to your big bad neighbor. However, 10-15 years would be sufficient for that. Having that same problem for 30 years is just bad and you can try to explain it away as much as you want.
> Having that same problem for 30 years is just bad and you can try to explain it away as much as you want.
I think as an outsider you are completely missing the point: if Estonians ever wanted to give the Estonian citizenship to the residents who are unwilling to learn the official language of the country, they would have already done that.
Because by giving somebody a citizenship, you give them the right to vote. And who would the Russian speakers vote for, if they don't speak any Estonian? Pro-Russian parties and politicians.
So your solution is to basically have them as "untouchable caste" that is supposed to pay taxes but can't vote, despite being born there and living there all their lives. Ideally if they just disappeared. And you don't see any issue with that. You are basically confirming all my arguments so far.
> I understand you are used to it, but it's really bad optics from the outside. How can there be people in their 30s without a citizenship?
Technically, Estonia is not the successor state of the USSR, Russia is. If a person was born in the USSR, and only speaks the official language of the successor state of the USSR, then that person should probably be a Russian citizen, not Estonian.
"Technically, Slovakia is not the successor state of Czechoslovakia, Czechia is. If a person was born in Czechoslovakia, and only speaks the official language of the successor state of Czechoslovakia, then that person should probably be a Czech citizen, not Slovak."
> Most varieties of Czech and Slovak are mutually intelligible, forming a dialect continuum (spanning the intermediate Moravian dialects) rather than being two clearly distinct languages.
> AFAIK all Baltic states have a minority with limited rights, so they are far from true democracy.
Limited rights in the sense of not being able to vote for the parliament, sure. However that isn't unusual at all. In fact, I don't know of any counter example. Do you have an example of a country where non-citizens can vote for the highest form of government?
As for local elections, in Estonia both Russian citizens and ethnic Russians without any citizenship are allowed to vote. That is extremely democractic.
