"I'm wondering in what way you found American society to be very focused on money during your stay- not doubting you, just wondering what form it took."

someone I know ( a very wealthy broker from Canada) moved to Naples, FL some time ago ; after a few years he moved back to the cold North.
He said that people he had met in Napes constantly ( and only) talked about their money and posstions.
Perhaps that goes on among rich people everywhere?

TG: "The northeast and northwest denizens want to think that they are more "advanced", but they aren't. They are just more arrogant."

Arrogance is a pretty subjective assessment. One could say that people who claim like doing things like "snow machine, hunt and eat moose burgers, you know the things REAL Americans like to do" are fairly arrogant (and chauvinistic) in their own way.

<i>Ireland , Netherlands, Luxembourg are not tax havens by any means; and they have essentially the same employment rights as the rest of the 27- because of the EU. I wouldn't call Switzerland a tax haven either, but I have no idea about it's employment rights.</i>

They absolutely are. Perhaps not the level of the Caymans, but they are. Look at the back of most consumer goods in Europe, and you will see a disproportionate number of &quot;BV&quot; companies, due to the advantageous tax rules in the Netherlands. Ireland's corporate tax rate is 12.5%. By comparison, business-friendly Hong Kong has a 16.5% corporate rate.

And Switzerland, or rather certain Swiss cantons, are even more aggressive. Look up Zug sometime. With a federal rate of 8.5%, low cantonal tax rates mean that the corporate tax rates are often a fraction of those in the US. It is currently a major source of friction between the EU and Switzerland.

<i>Not here, it ain't. I'd hold our civil rights up against your any day of the week. </i>

I hold the civil liberties of Europeans and Americans to be roughly similar, as well. My point that illegal evidence is sometimes admissible in other countries (and you are wrong about the UK), was a specific response to someone who claimed they couldn't think of a single civil liberty that Americans have that Europeans don't.

<i>He said that people he had met in Napes constantly ( and only) talked about their money and posstions.</i>

I don't think Naples is exactly representative of the US. It is a place where rich people go to die. It isn't exactly the sort of place where you will meet &quot;real&quot; people. If your friend was interested in something other than money and boring people, he should have thought more carefully about where to live.

&quot;It isn't exactly the sort of place where you will meet &quot;real&quot; people. &quot;


probably true, but where (in any country) does one meet &quot; real people&quot;?

And, aren't the rich Americans &quot;real people&quot;? If that is true, almost all politicians running for high offices would be deemed unfit.

Great response Sheila.

I understand your comment on Americans being focused on money. I know many who are, some in my family, and many who are not. You may have run into a lot of those who are.

Nikki, I guess I mean things, like press coverage- how much a house is worth, what someone, or some category of people, earns; lots of stuff about cost, and not much else.

You will note, I''m sure, that I specifically EXCLUDED you.



A discussion on tax rates is likely to be bit arrid, travelgourmet, but I think you'll find Holland is around 20-25% Corporate, whereas the US is 15-35%, Ireland, as you said 12.5%. But its personal rates are 20-41% and it's only 15% in the US.

Switzerland looks like it could be as much as 32% if you add the federal and contonal taxes together. They seem to have a low personal rate of tax, but they levy a wealth tax (warning- superficial research only)

It's ridiculous to suggest that illegal evidence is sometime admissable. It MIGHT be true to say taht evidence which was deemed to ahve been illegally obtained in the US, might be deemed to have been legally obtained elsewhere.

And I'm not wrong about the UK- at least my bit of it- Scotland. We have a separate legal system from England's. If we're comparing civil liberties with civil liberties, I'm clear that there is a straight comparison. You can't be convicted with illegally obtained evidence here or in the US.

<i>I think you'll find Holland is around 20-25% Corporate, whereas the US is 15-35%, Ireland, as you said 12.5%. But its personal rates are 20-41% and it's only 15% in the US.</i>

Personal tax rates have no impact on whether a country is an appropriate tax shelter for corporations? And the rates in Holland are highly dependent upon how you structure your company. More importantly, the Dutch let you exclude large chunks of income that would be taxed in most other jurisdictions, so it is quite easy to shield income from taxation at any rate.

<i>Switzerland looks like it could be as much as 32% if you add the federal and contonal taxes together.</i>

Google 'Zug'. The EU has threatened to impose trade restrictions on Switzerland because they view the low tax rates in Zug and other cantons to be unfair government aid. The Swiss, of course, respond by saying that the EU simply has tax rates that are too high. And then there is the question of tax agreements, which can be negotiated by both corporations and individuals. And foreign individuals can base their taxes on expenses, rather than income. Switzerland is, basically, an Eden for tax management.

You should read about the tax structure of Ikea - it utilizes the loopholes in Dutch, Luxembourger, and Swiss laws to great effect. A brilliant piece of tax engineering.

<i> It MIGHT be true to say taht evidence which was deemed to ahve been illegally obtained in the US, might be deemed to have been legally obtained elsewhere.</i>

No. The difference is the litmus test applied to the evidence. In the US, the only litmus test is whether the evidence was legally obtained. In virtually everywhere else in the world, two litmus tests are applied. Was the evidence illegally obtained? If so, what is the probitive value of that evidence? In other words, it matters how important the evidence is, and if it will put a murderer away (and they would go free without it), it can be admitted in almost every court outside of the US. In the US, it matters not one bit how damming the evidence is or how dangerous the criminal is, if the evidence was illegally obtained, it is inadmissible.

Taxes in Switzerland:

It certainly is a haven depending where you live.

International companies? Go to Canton Zug or consider Canton Obwalden.
Wealthy private citizens? Go to Canton Zug, Canton Schwyz (especially Z&uuml;rich side) or Ennetburgen in Canton Nidwalden.

I live in Canton Schwyz (not on the Z&uuml;rich lake side.) We pay 12% from our paycheck to social security, unemployment, etc. For a family with two children and a mortgage on a house, we pay about 1 - 1 1/2 months of our salary on income tax. And remember, we get paid 13 + month salaries a year with 4-5 weeks paid vacation.

Life is good in Switzerland ...unless you are a working mother. Day care is rare and finding a Tagesmutter is sometimes an impossible task.

Wow Schuler. That's a nice arrangement. What's the employment picture look like around there for the non-Swiss? Maybe for an EU citizen? Anything in technology?

Lots of technology jobs are available. We have an unemployment rate of 2-3%.

Housing is expensive and hard to find. Expect to pay SFr. 2,000 rent per month for a simple 3-4 room apartment.

Health insurance is expensive. For our family, we pay about SFr. 500. a month.

EU members are welcome to find a job here. See englishforum.ch for more info.

Very interesting. Thanks, I'll check out the link! (we've been considering NL for a move, just by process of elimination mostly. Had never considered CH before though)

&gt;sighs&lt; illegally obtained evidence is not admissable in a Scottish Criminal Court. There are shades of grey with regard to what might be deemed to be improperly obtained.

I'm sure we're boring people here, but I could refer you to some journal articles, if you like.

&quot; 'The northeast and northwest denizens want to think that they are more &quot;advanced&quot;, but they aren't. They are just more arrogant&quot;

What I meant was that, to generalise (as one must), the &quot;blue states&quot; are more endowed with large concentrations of industry and commerce and all that that brings, wealthier, better educated and more outward-looking. In consequence the conservative/religious social attitudes in the US that foreigners find most offputting are most evident in the other parts.

I know that even the blue-red state terminology is misleading, as the political divide is mostly between the city and the country, whether North or South. I know that eastern Oregon and Portland are two very different places, as are Austin and rural Texas.

I know that rural southerners, for example, are mostly good, kindhearted people. They can also be remarkably insular and close-minded. I could say the same things about my own countrymen. On balance, therefore, I'll take the city (from whence the word &quot;civilisation&quot; derives) over the country any day.

Interesting question now I think about it though.

British people certainly do still emigrate. But I've never heard of anyone going to the US (of course I'm sure some do, just that it seems to be a far less common destination than other countries).

Other parts of Europe are popular, of course, but those willing to uproot long-distance seem far more likely to opt for Australia than the US.

You won't find many Brits without a family branch in Australia. You'll rarely find someone with a family connection in the US.

Nonsense a lot of Brits emigrate to USA. Lots have family connections.

Oz just happens to be a small number of people the Brits stand out. There are more people in USA

&quot;I've never heard of anyone going to the US&quot;

I must say neither have I - at any rate not anyone intending to go permanently.

But according to the UK Statistics Authority, 8% of UK emigrants in 2006 (apparently the latest data available) went to the US. 32% went to Oz or NZ and 24% to France or Spain. Americans, BTW, made up 5.5% of all foreign immigrants to the UK.

It should be said, though, that this data's notoriously iffy, and the real problem is that no-one seems very sure whether it's full of under-estimates or over-estimates.

But the weird thing is that I don't think there's much difference between the barriers against migration to the US and those against migrating to Oz/NZ. Or indeed, between the relative standards of living: indeed you'd imagine career prospects would almost always be greater in the US, and both Oz nor NZ are nigh-impossible to retire to these days.

While the real reason France and Spain are so popular is that there are no barriers to migrating there the reason the US is so much less popular than Oz/NZ must be almost entirely migrant preference.

Obviously Nona has never been to FL.

3 of our best friends are British, my lawn service is owned by an English family, we have grocery stores specialising in British foodstuffs, even our supermarkets have British food sections. I also have 2 English families living on the street behind me.

Sounds like Dordogne.

There may not be as many British in places like North Dakota or Utah.

*sigh* read my post again. I didn't say that no British people ever emigrate to the US.

Thanks Flanner for the stats that prove my point. It is not a popular destination for UK emigrants. Why? I don't know, but those are the facts.

Avalon, are these British families you speak of recent immigrants( gee what a coincidence you seem to know so many?) or post war immigrants. First generation Americans or second?

I mean ,, New York is has Irish and Italian families everywhere, but I bet they are mostly NOT recent immigrants.

I didn't realize it was apparently so easy for other nationalities to waltz into your country and open businesses like corner stores,, hmmmm