Hacker News Reader

Comment by steerpike | Hacker News Reader

Which is an anecdote that means exactly nothing. For example all the richest apartments and houses in London and Sydney are often owned by people who live outside the respective country. There's nothing in your story that indicates tax rate is the reason for the behaviour.

View on HN

To nitpick a bit, it is true that the richest apartments in London and Sydney are often owned by people who live outside England or Australia. But that is not evidence that "the richest Britons" live outside England; it can easily be the case that the richest Britons are happy to stay in Britain and the richest apartments are owned by a class of foreigners richer than the richest Britons.

Whereas, if all the richest Swedes live outside Sweden, that does tend to suggest that something made them move. (And doesn't suggest that the apartments they maintain in absentia are the richest apartments.) The default for Swedes is to live in Sweden.

> Whereas, if all the richest Swedes live outside Sweden, that does tend to suggest that something made them move.

Not really, at least not in the way I assume you are thinking. In a small country, of course someone who has international success if going to be wealthier than someone who only has domestic success a lot of the time.

So what? Someone with international success can still only live in one place.

Yeah. It simply means investment. Same could go for most of the well off cities in the US.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com