Born and raised in Monaco here. The article paints a very incomplete picture, told from the minority standpoint of mostly wealthy socialites and residents. There are also about 50K people commuting into Monaco daily from neighboring cities (Nice, Cannes, La Turbie, Beausoleil, etc.) who are just middle-class wage workers, and who form the bulk of Monaco's active population. In the daytime, Monaco is mostly alive from their presence, as they outnumber residents. At night, well, Monaco isn't very much alive at all.
Many if not most of the wealthy residents who can afford the insane real estate prices also own multiple properties worldwide (London, NYC, Lugano, Singapore, etc.), and shuttle between them all year round, so they aren't even there permanently. Monaco is only a fiscal residence for many of them.
Beyond the surface-level glitz, e.g. the Formula 1 and the fancy cars parked in front of the Casino, what's interesting is that the little old unassuming lady in sweatpants walking her dog in the morning may actually be a multi-billionaire, and you wouldn't be able to tell. Lot of old money that likes to keep to itself, as opposed to nouveaux riches who like to flaunt.
This is analogous to Singapore, with a huge army of workers resident in Malaysia crossing over every day, and most returning every night. Hong Kong is somewhat similar but less so: there is enough cheap housing for a significant proportion of the cheaper labour (below millionaire class) to live in the economies boundaries.
The article does make it clear that Monegasques have significant state support for housing but that's on the assumption they aren't millionaires. The mobile workforce from outside is presumably given one of two "perks" -lower taxation outcomes (although I suspect there is some bilateral tax treaty) for at least income tax, and higher pay than they'd get working in their domicile.
I'm trying to steer clear of approval or disapproval writing this. I can't imagine making either of the two choices: to be a tax exile living there but with no statehood, or to be a mobile worker working there but having to return to an EU economy every night. The third option, being Monegasque is not open to me any more than Maltese citizenship, which is also much sought, and hard to get although not as hard as this one.
A surprising number of british working class people have Maltese citizenship, similarly Gibraltarian: thats what the british Navy does for you. I wonder if in millionaires row their advice for non-dom includes "marry a maltese"
Most Monegasques are by and large not millionaires, but they are indeed taken care of by the welfare state very very well. However, they barely make up 25% of the residents, so they are overshadowed by the wealthier foreigners who set up residence in Monaco.
Re: the mobile workforce, there's a tax treaty between Monaco and France (which was imposed by the latter after a total blockade of the former in the 1960s) by which French citizens working in Monaco still have to pay income tax in France, even if they are Monaco residents. It's the only case of "global taxation" of French expatriates in the world. There are, therefore, no incentives for them to live in Monaco. People who set up fiscal residence in Monaco to avoid taxes are, therefore, not French.
> by which French citizens working in Monaco still have to pay income tax in France, even if they are Monaco residents. It's the only case of "global taxation" of French expatriates in the world. There are, therefore, no incentives for them to live in Monaco
Ha, it's amazing how fast and efficient the French government can be at blocking these legal loopholes so that the handful of workers working in Monaco couldn't avoid paying French taxes anymore, when many publicly listed French corporations like Airbus, ST Microelectronics, Balenciaga, etc. have their financial residence in the Netherlands depriving the French state of billions in taxes for decades and nobody bats an eye, but if a few ordinary people do it then there's hell to pay.
It's almost as if there's an agenda for a double standard here, where the system is rigged against the peasantry and for the benefit of wealthy elites. Maybe those guillotines have been gathering dust for too long now.
> Ha, it's amazing how fast and efficient the French government can be at blocking these legal loopholes so that the handful of workers working in Monaco couldn't avoid paying French taxes anymore, when many publicly listed French corporations like Airbus, ST Microelectronics, Balenciaga, etc. have their financial residence in the Netherlands depriving the French state of billions in taxes for decades and nobody bats an eye, but if a few ordinary people do it then there's hell to pay.
Well, even if the current governments had the same policies as 60's France, they probably couldn't act because the Netherlands are in the EU and there are already laws to govern these things, that are not easily changed because they involve 27 countries.
Monaco on the other hand is just one little non-EU country that is nominally independent but in reality utterly dependent on France (and indeed, only independent as long as France tolerates it). So it's much easier to pressure.
Based on colleagues working in Monaco (both locals and commuters), it was not a friendly agreement at all (since Monaco is just losing) - it was basically give us all your French banking / employment data or we will fucking invade you with army and end your little kingdom for good.
French were/are not some nice baguette eating and coffee sipping polite 'bonjour monsieur' artists that visiting Paris as tourist may make you believe, rather colonialists to the core (at least people in government with actual power).
And yes French treatment of even modestly wealthy is straight out of communist guidebook - vilify, tax to hell, make up laws that even break european treaties but ignore european courts rulings on those, blame on rich all mismanagement of vast (not only social) state wealth on population deemed lazy even by french citizens themselves (I have tons of french colleagues and none hired french workers when doing some home reconstruction and they were clear why).
There are various protections in Monaco for local populations, companies have quotas on minimum mandatory hires from local population, so sometimes clueless people are hired to just sit on chair to get the numbers going, earning massive salaries (for France and western Europe at least). But its still well worth for the companies (mostly banks), some scenes are pretty surreal - 90+ senile guy barely coherent coming to the bank branch, accompanied by few 20-something models, taking literally full shopping bag worth of cash and heading right back to casino or yacht for next party. Definitely old rich money's place, overranked in my opinion but its mainly tax haven so thats not relevant.
I am French, by the way. I'm more or less aware of "what the French are", of how the blockade of Monaco happened, as well as of the "communist hell" that is the country -- it's not communist hell and I wish the country where I live (in the EU) was both as business friendly and as supportive of its poor as France is. I was also taxed less in France, but that's probably because I don't take advantage of the innumerable tax deduction and loopholes available here that are little more than disguised tax breaks for the rich.
Based on your comment I'd say you're working in the banking sector in Geneva. Just be aware that your French colleagues are extremely biased.
Come on, it’s Monaco we are talking about. It’s a small island visible from the cost of France, dependents on it for absolutely everything - food, energy, water, transport, defence - and surviving as a tax haven for the ultra wealthy. It’s not colonialism. The fact that it remains independent to this day is an insult to tax paying French citizen.
It wouldn’t even be a colony. It’s literally part of the land. It’s been going around being more or less independent since 1400 and was part of France a mere 200 years ago. And to be fair 90% of what was independent willingly joined France years ago. What remains is an insignificant piece of rock which doesn’t really have its own culture and is only allowed to stay this way because French residents pay taxes in France and the foreigners who use it as tax haven are powerful. It’s nearly as shameful as the Virgin British Islands.
There are lots of French residents who work in Switzerland, based on the length of the border I'd hazard to guess a much larger number than Monaco. In the case of these, they are taxed in Switzerland, not in France, saving them a LOT of money.
I've always wondered how that worked, because in Switzerland you are taxed based on the area you live, not the location of the company you work for.
I'ts complex: depending on the Swiss state you're working in the rules are different, then with COVID a layer of complexity has been added, with work-from-home exemptions being negotiated on what percentage of work-from-home-in-France can make your Swiss income a French income...
My impression is that living and working across an international border is putting your life in a quite convoluted financial and personal structured-derivative of many factors: politics, exchange-rates, social...
Each cantons with a border with France have their own bilateral agreements. In most cases, income tax is payed in the country of residence but in Geneva in particular, income tax is paid locally. The party that collect the taxes is supposed to send back a part of it to the other party according to the agreements in place but there is lots of drama around the amounts owned.
French residents are most likely still paying income tax in France (and in Switzerland too), as France most likely has a bilateral tax agreement with Switzerland. They are also taxed according to where their company (or their main place of work) is located. French citizens living in Switzerland only pay taxes in Switzerland.
Airbus is not a French company since 2014, when it was transformed into Airbus Group SE (Societas Europaea). The French state pushed for this, as well as for European trade and movement of capital, which made possible the capital flight to lower tax jurisdictions like the Netherlands.
"Each citizen must go under the blade. As the blade is released, your financial and social history are reviewed by our mostly-reliable mostly-fair A.I. for the possibility of pardon."
> The third option, being Monegasque is not open to me any more than Maltese citizenship, which is also much sought, and hard to get although not as hard as this one.
Doesn't Malta have a "golden passport" programme of citizenship through investment, where you can get a passport by investing less than $1,000,000 and moving to Malta for three years, virtually no questions asked? [0]
This contrasts strongly with Monaco where even the billionaire residents find it extremely tough to get citizenship.
>Doesn't Malta have a "golden passport" programme of citizenship through investment, where you can get a passport by investing less than $1,000,000 and moving to Malta for three years, virtually no questions asked? [0]
Not at all. This program is now extremely difficult and far from "no questions asked".
>or to be a mobile worker working there but having to return to an EU economy every night.
Monaco is so small and so similar to neighbouring France so it does not make much difference versus having to commute to another neighbouring town. It just so happens that this neighbouring town is also another country.
I visited Monaco several times on a sailboat (I believe it is the cheapest way to spend a night there). The town is very small and well connected by public transportation, so "having to return to an EU every night" is about the same as working on Manhattan while live in Brooklin, Bronx or Jersey.
I’ve always wondered: How do billionaires ensure their security?
Does this old lady have no security detail at all? Are they as prone as us to street-mugging?
Do people like usual unicorn CEOs, I know some who have street-facing houses or houses without a big fence (they don’t live in gated communities), have armed guys to protect against intruders? Do they walk their dog at night? let their kids walk to school in the morning? Do they have security detail for all this, or are they just like us, crossing their fingers that crime be low? Being CEOs with large interests at stake, they surely receive targeted blackmailing in large quantity, don’t they? Even as billionaires, do they simply take the first Uber from their airport to a downtown hotel? Do they simply assume airport-uber-hotel facilities are naturally safe, even considering how much interest they concentrate on their person?
I think it depends on the country and the viability of any sort of attack on the person as an enterprise likely to produce profit.
In countries known for their lawlessness, perhaps Brazil for example, or Papua New Guinea, HNW people do indeed have security details and live in pretty fortified areas (whole districts, typically, not just houses). A visiting CEO or whoever, depending on how well-known they are and how publicly knowable their visit is likely to be, might well organise such protection when they visit. Countries like this, all countries actually, have companies specialising in exactly that.
But I think in countries where there is a credible claim to rule of law, attacks on the actual person are pretty rare. Kidnapping as a general crime is all but extinct in most of the developed world, and you'd have to kidnap someone to make any actual money - it's not like they have a billion dollars in cash on their person. You'd have to kidnap for ransom (or I suppose crypto keys these days?) which is just extraordinarily risky and unlikely to succeed in the modern, developed world.
As to the "uber from the airport" question, anyone above a certain net worth has at least one assistant who organises their calendar and travel (and their whole lives, actually) and they will have arranged transport to/from airports in advance.
To give an example of this, I live in Hong Kong and I've seen people park their very expensive lamborghini, ferrari and mclaren and just go to a small completely unassuming restaurant. I'm always curious so I google the car make I see and some were valued over a million usd. So at least high net worth individuals (not the extremes) feel safe in this city.
Yes and a murder in Luk yu tea house. This doesn't stop high net worth from feeling rather safe. The extremes like the billionaire tycoons are a different matter and I've seen Richard Li come in a restaurant I was eating with his entire retinue of body guards.
Monaco is incredibly safe - undercover and uniformed police everywhere, ubiquitous video surveillance, few ingress/egress points, thorough filtering of cars coming in and out based on condition and license plate, etc. It’s a small territory and thus easy to monitor.
...and practically speaking, it is really hard to get in and out of Monaco (there are only a few roads in and out and traffic moves slowly) and everywhere is covered by cameras. Anyone who tried a street robbery likely wouldn't make it very far at all.
This isn't a problem in a lot of areas. Believe it or not, some places are fairly safe. If you live in a safer area, why would you bother paying for security, especially if no one realizes that you might be worth getting mugged?
I think it depends on the level of fame. Zuckerberg/Gates/Buffet/Musk all have bodyguards. Pretty sure I could walk past EG the Coinbase or AirBnB founders and not recognise them.
I saw benioff crossing the street in San Fran once. Heh it looked like that painting of Washington crossing the Delaware. My CEO was with me at the time and in awe, I was laughing so hard I had to stop walking.
Rich people love to distinguish between old and new rich. Am I supposed to somehow be impressed by this? Old rich just use their money for pleasure and status like new rich do, they just have different more obtuse ways to do it.
I think there are implications or reasons i see this… (this is not an endorsement)
1. “New rich” is flashy and gaudy and that’s not perceived as a positive. Flaunting wealth is seen as trying to show off for the admiration/approval/jealousy of the less rich. Being old rich is to be above it, and so comfortable with money you don’t need to show it off.
2. “Old Rich” is a separate world, it’s like royalty, no amount of success today makes you old rich yesterday. Since having the right connections is an important factor in success, it’s another way to close doors for everyone but your kids.
3. I think there’s a certain “aesthetic” that old-money is associated with (enjoyed by the not rich). A quasi-royal preppy guilded sort of image, and people seem to like that.
1. old money is afraid to spend frivolously because (a) they are embarrassed because they know they didn't earn it themselves and (b) they don't believe they could make it on their own if they had to. Also, old money shamelessly flaunts their wealth. Hospital naming rights, charity events, art collections, etc.
2. because old money is the opposite of meritocratic (inheritance based) they have to come up with all kinds of gatekeeping strategies to maximize the advantage of their social position.
3. social rules that keep the old monied themselves in check, to slow down the inevitable reversion to the mean.
>Also, old money shamelessly flaunts their wealth. Hospital naming rights, charity events, art collections, etc.
I think charity type stuff is seen a bit different than flashy ridiculously expensive cars and such.
It's a way that might be seen as showing off but is not perceived as badly and so less likely to get you noticed in a less desirable way.
Similarly those art collections unless lent/donated don't leave the estate and are hardly flashy
Of course it's perceived differently, that's the entire point! A $2000 Brunello Cucinelli sweater is conspicuous consumption just like an oversized Gucci belt.
And the art world is small. People know who the collectors are.
The difference is that every joe blow knows what Gucci looks like but only certain people, if any, can spot a sweater like that. You are signalling to completely different groups. Honestly I'd be surprised if anyone outside diehard fashion "experts" could spot a subdued Brunello sweater at all so the intent there is not to signal at all.
New rich can sometimes be a middle finger to the old rich.
I'm thinking of some Hiphop stars.
Over the top behaviour, perhaps, but I'll always respect that more than the old rich dripping in the unearned benefits of their generational wealth, connections and status worship. But I'm not bitter.
But new rich means people are closer to the source of wealth. Someone who built a successful business is more admirable than someone who never worked, but their ancestors were very wealthy.
Oh come on, it’s easy. Firstly, everyone kinda wishes they won the lottery, intense wealth sounds fun.
I don’t bootlick billionaires and I generally consider wealth inequality a major societal failure, but I can recognize that someone who built immense wealth usually worked hard (and got very lucky!), and potentially possessed some entrepreneurial skill I lack. I also admire musicians because I have no musical ability, and I admire athletes because I have no athletic ability.
What is “character” good for if not helping society in some way? For the most useful ways you could help society, you end up getting paid. So while making money != character, there’s a correlation.
While I believe that I mostly understand the distinction between Old Rich and New Rich (myself being neither of them), I wonder where individuals such as Warren Buffett fall in the social distinction. While it's obvious that in practice he's "new rich" in terms of family timeline, he is famously quite the opposite of the showy New Rich stereotypes. Furthermore, I'm sure there are countless more like him (though not quite so rich) that are virtually unknown precisely because they are so restrained and discreet about their wealth.
I guess what I'm getting at is that I'm curious as to how the Old Rich feel towards these non-New-Rich-but-newly-rich types. Are they still considered part of the New Rich riff-raff even if they do happen to be more sensible with their money? Or are they seen as honorary Old Rich out of respect? Or something else?
Hopefully some Old Rich HN commenter (we know you're there!) can give me some insight.
You've got two bell curves that mostly overlap and a bunch of upper middle class know-it-alls who are trying to say profound things about the nature of the irrelevent little valley between the two summits.
None of this crap really matters. There's plenty of old money types who spend on flamboyant crap and plenty of new money types who don't and trying to generalize based on how many generations they've had money is beyond a fool's errand.
Buffet's diet consists of coca-cola and hamburgers, and every year he throws a massive self-promotion and sales event in Omaha that lasts multiple days. By old money standards it's vulgar.
It’s legitimate. He doesn’t even own McDonalds but every day would get bacon, egg, and cheese biscuit for $3.17. It’s a comfortable, new money thing. You grow up on these things and a lot of the times it ends up being a familiar routine. Gates is the same way with burgers. God knows I’d still doing the same thing past a billionaire.
‘Rich’ is a relative term but my family might qualify as ‘old rich’ and do tend to distinguish from ‘new rich’. The terms are misnomers. People who might be labelled ‘new rich’ or ‘nouveau riche’ do not have the qualities of tastes, behaviours, or values that are handed down and refined over many generations. It is a relatively easy-to-observe distinction.
I am not saying it’s an important distinction to me.
This makes sense, and sounds reasonable. I think people are getting hung up on 'qualities of tastes', believing (I assume) it is a value judgement. I read it as 'characteristics'.
As a result of proximity over time, the 'old rich' have developed unique cultural habits that are easily recognized as different to 'new rich'. Every group does this. Sure, there is good and bad to it, but it's a natural and expected outcome.
It's a term made up to embarrass newcomers. Cultural differences are not right or wrong, they just are.
To say someone has the wrong 'qualities of tastes, behaviors or values' is arrogance. Everybody's culture is handed down, that's another weasel-phrase that just disguises bigotry.
It’s a poor term but one that simply refers to observable differences. It is unfortunate that there may be bigory or judgements accorded. I am inclined to suppose that those people are in the minority.
> People who might be labelled ‘new rich’ or ‘nouveau riche’ do not have the qualities of tastes, behaviours, or values that are handed down and refined over many generations
>"I think there’s a certain “aesthetic” that old-money is associated with (enjoyed by the not rich). A quasi-royal preppy guilded sort of image, and people seem to like that."
Middle class people putting old money on a pedestal and denigrating new money is so laughable to me.
The folks that do nothing but own land and raise your rent every year are oh so classy, and the folks that actually work invent things that improve your life like idk wifi are oh so gauche.
I once read somewhere that the issue is that to the old rich money isn't a topic. It's something that exists and has existed for a long time, that gets used when needed, but doesn't get talked about.
New rich on the other hand feel the need to display the fact that "they've made it", talking about money is important to them.
So there's a certain incompatibility between old and new rich, where old rich feel bothered by the talk about money.
I think in general money isn't a topic amongst the rich. Yes, there are exceptions, but in general it's a very boring thing to talk about once you reach a certain level.
I personally think of it as a pure human need to somehow feel superior to their peers. Sure, they have the same amount of money, but are how did they get them and can we make their status lower ( and at the same time ours higher ) by pointing to that. The in-group/out-group dynamic is at play for everyone including apparently people, who have a lot of money. If I was a more charitable person, I would say that is a good thing. It means they are still connected to the human race.
Note. By rich here I am talking upwards of 100MM although it would appear B would soon be replacing M as the place to be money-wise in terms of wealth recognition.
I think the implication is that “old money” has aristocratic roots and thus, “noble blood”. Just plain old chauvinism and bigotry, but now applied to billionaires too.
Quite the opposite. A Carnegie whose money comes from developing the American steel industry, or a Hershey whose money comes from chocolate, or the heirs of countless founders of companies that make real stuff, seems much more ethical than people today who make their money from one of the various heads of the advertising or finance hydras.
Stuff like that had negative localized effects, but the ad industry that fuels large segments of tech has negative effects across a much broader swath of the population and economy.
You're trolling here, right? It is not actually your position that it is more ethical to be a steel baron who orders the shooting death of striking workers than it is to be an adtech CEO, right?
Carnegie never ordered deaths of striking workers nor do I think you can make a defensible case that in general steel magnates do. Mining business is difficult and laborers in that industry sure do go through a lot; ore smelting laborers report having respiratory illnesses indeed quite regularly so I agree that steel barons are not completely inculpable if analyzed through an ethics lens.
But looking over the fact that the advertising industry is fundamentally about the exploitation of cognitive biases in order to convince folks to buy things that more often than that they do not need just betrays a certain naïveté of what's going on out there.
Violent suppression of labor organizing is a prominent part of American history. Read, for instance, Rick Perlstein's "Before The Storm" about what happened at the Kohler factory in Sheboygan, more recently than the steel strike we're talking about here.
> You should google the Pittsburgh steel strikes and Henry Frick.
You mean the guy who survived an assassination attempt by labor activists, who were running a totally illegal blockade of his business? And it’s not even like the laws have changed about it since then, their blockade strike would be totally illegal today as well.
> And it’s not even like the laws have changed about it since then
Let me know if it's still legal to have your workers work with highly dangerous machinery for 12 hours a day, 7 days a week (for wages that would be comparable to federal minimum wage today ~ although it's hard to find a good inflation calculator that tracks back to the 1880s).
I'm sure that's totally comparable to the plight that Google/FB/Amzn employees have to put up with.
Obviously I admire what he did with the Gospel of Wealth & his philanthropy, but that doesn't excuse his horrible treatment of workers.
Honestly, it's just so astonishing that you can even argue in support of Henry Frick.
You should read up about the Johnstown FLood and the failure of the South Fork Dam.
I feel like the HN crowd just skims the wikipedia bio and uses that to craft a hilariously terrible argument.
If they didn’t like the working condition, they could have striked or left, that’s not the point. What they did in fact do was to use violence to block people who did like these working condition and specifically came there to work there in their place, when they striked. Oh, and they tried to kill Frick too, don’t forget that.
I am not so much arguing in support of Frick but rather against a completely dishonest narrative where he is villainized for “shooting workers”, while completely omitting the details as to what events led to that situation.
I suspect that this is why end up repeating history in one form or another over and over again. Stuff happens, we learn some lessons, we forget about the stuff (or our institutional memory does) and then we forget the lessons setting the stage for stuff to happen again. Frustrating business, more so to see it happening on such a short timescale. If it was something that the Romans did I could get why it isn't remembered as acutely but this is recent history and even far outside the country where it happened this - used to be - is common knowledge.
I went to Monaco on my honeymoon(one of a few places I visited). A few things the article does not mention are that the local residents cannot gamble at the cities casino. I believe that the casino is one of the largest sources of revenue for the city state. The aquarium and palace are very nice and the palace in particular has alot of history and continuing tradition. Was shocked at the number of luxury cars that were in our parking garage(we drove in), like at least 20-30 Ferraris, Rolls Royce and Bentleys in the garage we parked at. Having grown up in the sf bay area which is very wealthy, the level of wealth here was amazing even to me. I know the country is desperately trying to add more land, this means building out into the sea and building up(high rises). The city state is on a somewhat hilly area which further restricts available building areas. Overall it was a great trip and the people were all friendly and it seemed very safe, lastly I really enjoyed the beer Brasserie de Monaco pilsner(locally brewed).
>the local residents cannot gamble at the cities casino.
Sounds like Las Vegas. I don't mean to say that Vegas residents are prohibited from gambling; they aren't. There certainly are gamblers among them, both natives[1] and those who moved specifically there to gamble. But to the vast majority of Las Vegas residents the casinos are a) employers and b) a place to take out-of-town guests to for an inexpensive meal.
[1] By which I mean "regular people". Newcomers greatly outnumber those actually native to the city.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I heard that for Monaco nationals, housing is heavily subsidized. Otherwise they simply wouldn't be able to live in their own country!
I personally know a Monaco national. Typical middle-class lifestyle, maybe he secretly has a fortune be he doesn't look like it. Interestingly, despite living effectively in France, he is not French, he is not even a EU citizen, it means that when he went to study in France, he had to do more paperwork than someone from, say, Germany.
And BTW, while I didn't live in Monaco, I went there a few times (2h drive from where I live) and it definitely feels the way you describe it.
They could have added Jackson Hole, Wyoming to the list and it would seem equally strange. Kind of a small town with billionaires that you don't really know about unless you've either been there or read specifically about it.
In Canada I'm not aware of any rich people small towns (unless you consider Vancouver, West Vancouver, or Toronto, or the Shaunhessy neighbourhood of Vancouver), but there is the Muskoka area of Ontario where Kevin O'Leary's wife recently smashed her boat into and killed someone
Plus all the multi-millionaires from nearby Northern Italy (one of the most industrialised regions in Europe until quite recently, and still one of the wealthiest) hiding their wealth in there. Them and Mina, the famous singer [1].
> around 8,000 of the people who live in Monaco are Monegasque citizens
I have the luck of being friends with one of the precious few citizens of Monaco, who chose to leave in BC. There are fun trivia about citizenship in such a small city-nation, especially abroad. First of which is that the Monegasque consul to Canada is not Monegasque himself, and has very, very few citizens to tend to (by cheer luck it turns out I also know that person's son! ). When my friend needed to renew his passport, he just called the consul, who told him "oh, I need to figure out how to get you one", which process was effectively more or less having my friend to drop an email to the person in Monaco who prints passports. Same thing when he got kids.
We went to the US together once, and had to get through immigration because as a Monegasque he can't get dual citizenship. The immigration agent kept us longer, asking all sorts of questions because that was the first time he saw a passport.
Interestingly his kids can have both citizenships, his wife could technically acquire it but it would be subject to remaining married with him and thus she would be allowed to keep her citizenship in case they would ever divorce.
He can get a French id card and a French passport and work in France without a visa, but can't vote in the French presidential elections.
Basically, it is siad that you have to have the French nationality in order to get the identity card. The identity card states "Nationalité Française" on the very top.
Eh, I'll have to research that, I know he had to renew his ID card a few years ago, but he might have the French citizenship otherwise through one of his parents. I was pretty sure though, but I might be wrong
We have similar law in Lithuania regarding the dual citizenship: you can't have it, but if your kids were born abroad and gained citizenship of another country by the right of birth, then they get to keep both citizenships.
>First of which is that the Monegasque consul to Canada is not Monegasque himself
That means that he is an honorary consul. That's how countries handle diplomatic duties in less-important places; a local person (who might be a current or former citizen of the country he represents, or a local citizen who has done business or studied in the other country) is paid a stipend to handle routine duties and can put "honorary consul of _____" on his résumé.
I wish society in general worked like this: less formality, more informality, more relationships.....
.... I could move to a small town. I've always lived in a large metropolis and, to be frank, I'm tired of it. I can't move to Monaco, or make the global population decrease by 90%, but I could move to a smaller community in my state. I think this is what I need to start building more relationships with other people.
Have to actually experienced this? What you want is for people to be familiar and nice, what you actually get is the banker telling everybody your account balance, the whole town talking about that time you showed up to church hungover, and the viciousness of national politics (or mean high school girls) applied to every aspect of your life.
Don’t wish for universal non anonymity unless you really know what it’s like, especially if you’re not willing to join the local moral majority.
Indeed. A small town is nice and welcoming if you are sufficiently like them, and agree with all the stuff your neighbors are on about.
If you deviate from that in some small way, it gets a lot harder. That includes being from the wrong class, or religion, or ethnicity or political leaning.
>If you deviate from that in some small way, it gets a lot harder. That includes being from the wrong class, or religion, or ethnicity or political leaning.
Or just being suspected of being something you're not. Some people in Salem in the 1600s learned the hard way what happens when these wonderful small town people aren't so nice...
I could also say that big cities are (outside of certain expensive neighborhoods and business districts) burnt out hell-holes full of organized crime, refuse, homelessness, pollution, traffic, soulless concrete buildings, and people who don't give a damn about you.
Even though there's truth in all of that (cities are plagued by these problems) it's an overly pessimistic take and is not equally applicable in all cases.
It's attractive and in many ways better, but never forget: the dark side is insularity and 'no outsiders.' When you don't have the relationships or are actively excluded by virtue of being from a lower social class...modernism ain't so bad.
It's all fun & games until you piss off the gatekeeper and now you're forbidden from traveling or pursuing gainful employment. Double-plus bad if they obtain extradition powers and can effectively confine you to poverty status.
When you move to said small town and discover that being part of the in group depends on not straying from norms, going to the same church as everyone else, etc. you start to second guess it.
I don't mind having to conform to some norms. I would even go so far as to argue that close-knit communities are impossible to maintain over long time horizons without these gatekeeping attitudes and insider values that outsiders must conform to.
Sure, but some things are harder to get used to than others. People opening conversations by complaining about environmental protections is getting old.
Made an account for the sole purpose of commenting on this. CNN is usually pretty out of touch, this is completely backwards for what should be a "respectable" news source.
As others have mentioned, these "ultra rich flashy billionaires" are not the typical Monaco resident. These people are heavily looked down upon if they're just out to attract attention, and usually they're driven out of the principality once the money tap goes dry.
There is a lot of money in the city, a lot of family offices, banks and so on. People are pretty quiet and keep to themselves. Go to Cap d'Ail or Cap Martin for a walk and you'll see the same Monaco 4-character plate cars, but with the actual residents who just want to live their lives without the hassle of trying to look cool at Buddha Bar every night.
And the main point, as has been mentioned many times: people who get the residency card in Monaco are unlikely to spend much time there, beyond the mandatory 6 months + 1 day. Some pay people to run their taps and leave lights on, faking utilities usage as a proxy for physically being there. Others are in either at a nice canton in Switzerland or partying in NYC.
Yeah, Monaco is a weird city when it comes to showing wealth
I crossed it recently on my worn out but functional bicycle, to go from where I had to be in France to a cute touristy village in Italy (it was a lovely ~80km ride)
I saw a shinny Ferrari being pulled over as I entered Monaco. (he probably thought he was some f1 driver in the tunnel)
On the other end of the small country, a cop saluted me when I asked directions, then blocked the road to let me cross safely.
Only in Monaco.
(I also happened to have asked directions to a French cop earlier, and he wasn't as classy. And riding a bike in the surrounding area in France is very dangerous, because of angry car drivers)
I plan to come back to visit the museums, and to go to the stadium.
They frequently stop cars that are entering at the "border", especially if the plates aren't from Monaco. If the Ferrari had the 4-character plates it likely would have been let through without a second look.
Quite a few reasons they do this, but the police prefers cyclists so worked out for you.
Places like this are a good reason we need global tax minimums agreements.
US is driving this currently at corporate level, which is the more important, but would be good to see on personal rates too. I think this is one of the most important global trade issues today, and it gets very little attention.
If only selfishly, as we see the a continuing race to the bottom on corporate tax rates. Also that they tend to be well below personal rates these days plus this gap widening. Increasingly this tax burden needs to be picked up from citizens. I suspect this is a significant variable of the degrading working/middle class lifestyle.
Would love to see more countries come together on this issue. Most of the time its significantly in the wests interest to make this happen, so shows that the corporate lobby has so much power here in that it doesn't. And generally its important for global trade to compete on a level playing field or we start to break the system and interest in it.
I think this rant is a little tired, but I do agree with one point you made, and it’s been something I’ve been thinking a lot about.
> Also that they tend to be well below personal rates these days plus this gap widening. Increasingly this tax burden needs to be picked up from citizens. I suspect this is a significant variable of the degrading working/middle class lifestyle.
I think that we should radically raise corporate tax rate on profits, and provide marginally zero tax on any income (up to a large limit, eg $500k) that isn’t capital gains. This would shift the focus of corporations from increasing profits and stock price and instead put the focus on paying employees more. It was also shift corporate focus less on stock price rises and more on dividend increases (capital gains vs income).
These two things seem like they’d provide a much more stable environment for workers. Paying employees more becomes the new tax write off. Employees benefit because they don’t worry about taxes and get paid more, and it reduced the economic benefit of keeping the money in the company instead.
This is sick. Just because I live in Singapore and pay about 20% income tax and zero corporate tax, I"m apparently degrading the working class lifestyle?
Why does Singapore have better infrastructure and governance than your country? With no natural resources and no land.
You cannot buy your way out of bad governance. If you want a better "lifestyle", elect a better government, the tax rate paid by people in foreign countries has nothing to do with it.
Singapore is taking from other nations. Are you familiar with double Irish? Load of companies do this to run their business in one location and pay lower tax in another.
so just change the definition of who needs to be taxed what to whatever you want in your country. at the end of the day, the company has the option to actually (not just for show) move wherever to another country if it doesn't like your tax. granted, i dont know how corpo rats think so i cant say whether they would not want to live outside the US or something. this doesnt mean there needs to be a global tax minimum.
when i pay tax personally i am getting scammed (robbed). i dont work for a corpo like 99% of the users here that creates deliberately broken products nor do i get any funding from the government to spend on OLED screens while pretending its to boost the economy
If country can do with less money it might attract more businesses. This pushes others to improve their operations too. Global tax minimums remove or soften this incentive which is a bad thing. Most governments are not efficient already and this will not help.
There's a fantastic concept called racing to the bottom.
Small countries can afford to be tax havens because even getting 1% of a multibillion company covers their needs well enough. Meanwhile, the country housing the thousands of workers, damaging roads, using infrastructure, healthcare, etc, get nothing. Global tax minimums are the only way we have a society that keeps functioning.
What you call competition other might call race to the bottom.
It doesn't take a genius to see the problem either, look at companies like airbnb who barely pay any tax in countries they operate in because technically they just have a "customer service office" in said country while the money is moved to Luxembourg, Ireland, &c.
If you don't like tax, you can wonder what your life would have been if you grew up in a country with no infrastructure, education, healthcare and so on... Paying 50% in tax seems like a perfectly good deal considering that everything I own today, I owe it to my fellow citizens who paid tax.
how would police investigate random people for hypothetical crimes they need to make up to justify their job and shoot them when they pull out their wallet if they werent overfunded?
It's a fact though, it's how it worked since basically as long as we lived in communities. You don't need an IQ over 100 to open an history book, you should give it a try
Exactly. Top taxpayers already pay a lot (with all sin taxes, council taxes, VAT, corporate, income, CGT... sometimes even 75%). It is not fair to raise taxes even higher. In fact, governments should learn how to operate with way less.
There are many many services that cannot be done by businesses. From the foundational regulatory framework and enforcement of laws that make substantial businesses possible in the first place, to more practical things like safety and security.
That these cannot be done by businesses is just an assertion, re-enforcing the status quo.
"The Machinery of Freedom"[0] is a book describing how a lot of these could work. I'm not yet sold that they would, but I'm not outright discarding the ideas.
Oh I don’t disagree that there aren’t things that could rather be served by businesses.
What I haven’t heard however are a couple of good examples (in a particular society) that are viable and would make a material positive dent, but I wouldn’t be surprised to hear some good ideas, especially in jurisdictions where a govt does a lot.
> No, taxes is the price I pay for bureaucrats and politicians to not starve. It's a kind of charity.
I feel like most people, including you, have absolutely no idea of how their taxes are spent. Unless you live in an absolute corrupt shit hole you're dead wrong
No I have, but a lot of people - probably including you - take authorities and their budget committees at face-value when they report where they spend tax money.
I don't know about living there, but I've followed Formula 1 for almost 50 years and the Monaco F1 Grand Prix circuit is one of the last of the true classic circuits left.
I personally don't like the Monaco GP due to how big the cars have become making it (nearly) impossible to pass. Still you are correct it definitely is a classic race.
Monaco, Spa, Suzuka, and Monza are some of the best and most iconic tracks in the world.
>I personally don't like the Monaco GP due to how big the cars have become making it (nearly) impossible to pass.
Believe it or not, a modern Formula 1 car has basically the same footprint as a Chevrolet Tahoe
A 2022 Formula 1 car was 5.5 meters, and 2.0 meters in width. Or 11.00 m². By comparison, a 2023 Chevrolet Tahoe is 5.35m in length, and 2.06m in width. Or 11.02 m².
Sure, they only weigh 800kg (1760lbs), but we're basically racing full-size body-on-frame SUVs at this point. I guess we can be glad they're not yet the size of a Suburban, but yikes.
Winners were made by the best-qualifying racer’s team simply being ill prepared to service their car. Other factors are accidents and weather conditions that could possibly destroy what would otherwise be a perfect strategy.
Personally, I feel no race in Monaco was boring until you can actually say nothing really interesting happened in hindsight. But the race itself always has me at the edge of my seat no matter if there’s a chance to have excited talks around the water cooler on Monday.
FIA and F1 are trying to make them smaller and lighter in the 2026 rules.
Really hard thing to do without making the cars less safe as the modern crash structures are one do the main reasons for the size.
The plan is also to remove MGU-h (waste engine heat to electricity) and add active aero while still keeping the cars roughly as fast as current regulation ones.
I've only visited for a few days but there are supermarkets and at least one really nice public market much like in Menton and Nice. Probably the prices are not French prices but they do cater for non-uber wealth.
I was surprised how family friendly the whole Principality felt once you are in residential neighborhoods outside the whole casino area, plenty of 'average' moms with strollers, children's parks etc.
If you are in good condition you can basically traverse the whole place by walking, very walk-able despite some very busy roads. We were traveling along the French coast but we just parked the car in a shopping mall park and traveled around the Principality by bus and walking. Public transit covers the whole Principality with bus lines, immaculate and very regular. One thing I did notice is that despite very good public transit it doesn't seem to be heavily used but I also didn't witness 'rush hour' from people traveling from France.
Like it's been mentioned a couple of times the whole place is video surveilled and there are Police men in pretty much every busy spot, plus all entry/exits into the principality, so overall it feels a bit like Singapore in the sense of being a heavy on rule-of-law fortress.
The negative aspects I recall:
- The amount of air pollution in some of the roads but this was summer time with little wind so that might play into it.
- Architecture wise apart from the old town parts and the palace/castle hill, looks like they went through heavy construction in the 80's and 90's so you see lots of concrete forest ugliness throughout the Principality.
I’ve lived across America (which is very different from Monaco I’m sure) and no one has ever asked me about what the grocery stores are like, nor has it come up. I don’t think it’d even be something I’d think about when moving unless it’s VERY different.
Discussing housing, citizenship, government, all seems quite relevant to living. The “vibe” and what to expect as the culture seems quite relevant.
Because grocery prices across EU/Europe vary by a huge margin, and going out for a drink /coffee even more. Nowadays things are getting similar due to poor countries getting better, and old powers stagnating in comparison.
Logistics and what is produced nearby used a big factor (also local brands, different countries used to mean different brands), again due to trade agreements (trade between EU countries) and infrastructure improvements.
So you won't find a lot a price and availability difference in what you used to find pre-euro, but there's still some difference, just not as choking.
Also, USA salaries tend on the bigger side, and USA food is also cheaper do to loads of subsidies and bad regulation(so, sugary, worse quality checks, but cheaper), corporation centralisation (EU is made of different countries which used to mean different food corps as well), so the grocery experience is not as relevant.
I went to Canada a few years ago, and I HAD to visit a Walmart (my friend who had moved there said he did the same when he arrived).
So wondering about daily life is legitimate.
I was somehow disappointing, however.
It turns out a Walmart is a supermarket, like in any other place.
So it's indeed not news worthy.
I was wondering that too. For a time I lived on Oxford Street London. You could easily buy, say, designer socks, or an extremely expensive pint of milk, but for grocery shopping you had to walk half a mile to a supermarket.
In my mind Monaco is synonymous with Formula 1. Obviously there's the iconic race (which, as an aside, doesn't suit the modern F1 car, which has become too large for a narrow street circuit).
But the other side is F! notable people who become tax residents. Lewis Hamilton, Toto Wolff, Daniel Ricciardo, Max Verstappen and probably many others. They're Monaco residents for the zero income tax. As an aside, how long are we, as a society, going to tolerate people being able to pay no tax just by having a certain address?
But F1 has always had its fair share of what are known as "pay drivers". These are drivers who only really have a seat because their family owns a team or spends a significant amount or is a title sponsor. Lance Stroll is an example of this on the current grid.
And then there's Charles LeClerc. He's a driver for Ferrari and a Monaco resident but what makes him interesting is that he's a native Monagasque.
Wealth is (thankfully) mostly ephemeral, typically only lasting 3 or so generations. Cornelius Vanderbilt made a fortune in the railroads in 19th century America. Anderson Cooper is a Vanderbilt. As his mother (Gloria Vanderbilt) told him: "there is no trust fund". The Astor name and fortune ended when the last heir died on the Titatnic. The Rockefeller family is still rich but nothing compared to their Standard Oil forebear namesake. The early Roman Republic had ~45 Patrician families. By Julius Caesar's time this had dwindled to ~15.
So I'm always interested in when someone of incredible privilege like Charles Leclerc also somehow becomes extremely driven and talented (which he is). I feel like it's hard to avoid the trap of having no unmet needs tends to make one completely useless.
I grew up working class 20mn from Monaco. That place has been an excellent introduction to the notion of inequality.
It is quite unique. The entire riviera’s economy is focused on tourism, but Monaco takes that to the next level : it is a city designed to attract the ridiculously rich and extract as much money from them as possible while they are there through a carefully maintained wealth signaling culture.
My go-to example is this : a couple of years back I visited the region with some friends and took them to Monaco one day. Obligatory visit to the Casino, around which two things had changed :
- the park in front of the casino had been redesigned. You know how airports force you to go through the duty free, or IKEA has you walk around the entire store to find the exit ? Well that’s what they did with that park, the only way to the casino is through the (luxury brands) shops
- in front of the casino itself, there was a new statue with a plaque. The plaque states « artist : anish kapoor. Donated to the principality of Monaco by miss so and so »
Nothing says « wealth signaling » like donating an anish kapoor to Monaco.
When I say that culture is carefully maintained: the Monaco police will turn you down at the city entrance if you’re driving a beater. They have asked me to take a detour rather than drive my crappy moped in front of the casino. I general, Monaco only exposes you to luxury and incentivized you to show off by burning money.
The default tip to service staff is the highest denomination bill. When the currency changed, it went from the highest francs bill to the highest euros bill - easy conversion.
I could go on and on about how ridiculous this all is, the permanent yacht completion in the port, the luxury sports cars stuck in a permanent traffic jam (locals drive mopeds), the dozens of « out of touch oligarch » stories, the looks of disgust and disbelief I’d get for wearing regular clothes…
In the flip side, Monaco treats their workers well. I have worked a few summer jobs well and everyone I know in the area works is has worked in Monaco. The minimum wage is higher, low income jobs get more after tax than before (there is a « prince’s bonus »). You will at least double your income from tips if you work in the service industry.
Like the article says, The country has been good with its population, allowing them to benefit from living in a playground for the rich rather than displacing them. As a result the royal family is well liked, and it’s not uncommon to meet the prince at places where the workers hang out.
If you think Donald trump has good taste in interior design, love the smell of money and tax evasion or just have a lot of money you’d like to get rid of, visit Monaco !
More seriously, I’d recommend paying it a visit if you find yourself in the vicinity. It is a unique place that will be of interest to curious folks.
Oops, I forgot about the briefcases full of unmarked €500 notes they must have their assistants lug around.
So, is the default tip 500 (highest available) or 200 (highest you will ordinarily be given in a bank) or 100 (highest most people usually have on hand)?
At the time I lived there, tipping 500 for holding the door was not uncommon and half expected.
You’re joking about the briefcases, but a friend of mine had a group of bodyguards swarm the $LUXURY_SPORTS_CAR dealership he was working at, followed by the customer who bought a car cash - as in « literal cash from a suitcase »
Why?
What are you going to do with the artwork, cars, furniture and boats?
It’s just a themepark for the rich. It provides lots of benefits for the city and the surrounding areas working class. And monico itself treats his citizens right.
It’s very different from the gentrification that happens on “non money burning themepark cities”, ie: every other city.
Now if you are complaining about tax evasion, that’s something about your country policy. What Monaco does as tax policy only matters if you have shitty treaties. France has fixed some loopholes there, tou country should do the same, instead of war.
Monaco IS the loophole, and is hardly independent.
It's also surprising that this place was allowed to be. The first article of the French constitution says France is indivisible, and that every citizen should be equal to law without difference from 'origin'
In the meantime, they create this artificial 'country' for the über-wealthy, where they can do whatever they want in casinos, get rid of the poor at night with multi-million euro flats, have a bespoke overly funded police department, while evading taxes.
So yeah, it provides benefits. But it's a proof that equality has limits.
Who is the "we" you envisage will be invading? They're unlikely to get far. Luxembourg is in NATO. Jersey is defended by the UK. France and Spain protect Andora.
Also it’s becoming increasingly difficult legally avoid tax so people actually have to physically move to the tax havens instead of just sending their money there.
Also keep in mind the Swiss effectively abandoned their 200 year old policy of neutrality over the Ukraine - Russian conflict.
Millionaires and billionaires take note of this sort of thing, and while it may not be an overnight exodus, it certainly does change things. Like most finance text books begin with: "money goes where it is treated best".
> Also keep in mind the Swiss effectively abandoned their 200 year old policy of neutrality over the Ukraine - Russian conflict.
I think this predates the Ukraine - Russian conflicts. Swiss banks have been giving client names when asked to do so by foreign judges. Much harder to get info from banks in Hong Kong or Dubai.
Can you tell us more about Swiss neutrality in the context of Russia/Ukraine? All I've heard is that the Swiss are blocking Germany from supplying Gepard 35mm ammunition to Ukraine. Does this mean that the Swiss favor Russia?
> Neutral Switzerland has mirrored nearly all the sanctions that the European Union imposed on Russia over its military intervention in Ukraine.
Other countries located further East or in the South have decided not to mirror EU's or the West's (more generally) sanctions on Russia, they effectively remained neutral to this conflict. Switzerland has not done that.
On a more general note, Switzerland's "neutrality" is only a marketing thing at this point, the fate of Wegelin & Co [2] and the subsequent changes in how the Swiss banks handle some of their clients (who happen to hold US citizenship) can attest to that. The "most" neutral countries right now most probably can be found in the Gulf, the UAE (and Dubai) first among them. That's why the recent prisoner exchange involving Viktor Bout and that WNBA player took place in there, and not in Geneva or Zurich.
I think it’s expected that the prisoner exchange would happen in a place to which both involved countries can fly. AFAIK Russian planes are banned from the European airspace.
It turns out that banking secrecy means nothing de facto when you cannot maintain your neutrality, i.e. when you do not have enough levers at your disposal as to not allow foreign entities to directly interfere in your affairs as a country (in your banking industry, in this case).
So they praise safety of this place. I'm not sure what will prevent petty criminals to commute from Nice, raid for some expensive watches and then get away? It's not like there's a big fence or anything.
This is happening in Switzerland, where the Swiss are more and more having to deal with the French "hoods" ("racailles" in french) coming from around Lyon.
There are quite a lot of them too around Nice so i'd be curious to know why they don't go there.
Practically speaking, there are not many routes in and out of Monaco, and they are usually very congested. Combined with surveillance, the chance of 'petty' criminals actually being able to pull this off is effectively zero.
It’s already well-known, and there are one of the worst criminal-burbs of France in Nice. That said, I’m always surprised how criminality doesn’t travel much.
A loathesome place filled with tax evaders hiding their wealth from the countries and citizens that made them rich.
When I watch those programs which celebrate the 'glamour' and 'lifestyle' of these people, all I wish for is a small suitcase nuke that could improve the world overnight.
> A loathesome place filled with tax evaders hiding their wealth
Lets not forget gold diggers, influencers, and poor people commuting in from France/Italy every day to all the boring work. Sounds like a pretty cool place!
Why are postings to that Internet that are labelled essentially as ‘news articles’ taken more seriously and with less scrutiny than an average Reddit post?
Unlike many ‘news articles’ emanating from the likes of CNN, this one is attributed to a named person. What qualifications does this person have and what research was undertaken to write a credible article on life in Monaco? My conclusion is that it is click-bait junk. Why was this article deemed important or interesting or relevant to the HN community?
This is not a news article, it's under travel which is a common genre of story telling/writing. You might read similar articles in a travel magazine on a plane.
I personally clicked because Monaco = F1 in my brain, I am curious about the town. Primarily I am interested in tech news but occasional side tracks of interesting things are welcome.
Many if not most of the wealthy residents who can afford the insane real estate prices also own multiple properties worldwide (London, NYC, Lugano, Singapore, etc.), and shuttle between them all year round, so they aren't even there permanently. Monaco is only a fiscal residence for many of them.
Beyond the surface-level glitz, e.g. the Formula 1 and the fancy cars parked in front of the Casino, what's interesting is that the little old unassuming lady in sweatpants walking her dog in the morning may actually be a multi-billionaire, and you wouldn't be able to tell. Lot of old money that likes to keep to itself, as opposed to nouveaux riches who like to flaunt.