Sep 22nd 2009 6:32PM Count me as another person who has never heard of anyone making this assumption, and I live in California where the Wiener Schnitzel chain is rampant and commercials run constantly. In fact, I had one friend who got kind of miffed when he went into a Wiener Schnitzel franchise and they didn't have actual schnitzel.
And amanda, I don't know why you would think that schnitzel wasn't part of Italian cultural cuisine. I still remember the great cotoletta alla milanese I had in Trento in 1990. I'd call it Milan's best contribution to world cuisine, but I doubt it's Milan's to claim. It's basically the same thing as weiner schnitzel -- and they have basically the same thing anywhere you go that's within about 100 miles of the Alps. It might go by different names, but it's pretty recognizably the same.
Sep 22nd 2009 5:58PM Rose Cardini did indeed confirm that the original dressing had no anchovies, but also said that Cesar started adding them a few years later.
Aug 23rd 2009 11:17PM Randall Graham at Bonny Doon was doing this 11 years ago with his Muscat Vin Glacier -- year in and year out one of the best price/quality sweet wines anywhere in the world.
Nice to see that someone has finally taken note.
Aug 20th 2009 3:03PM Wow, Mr. Lesperance. Everything you say seems so credible . . . oh, wait, no it doesn't. It's a pile of hilariously misleading crap.
First, you act as if the cutesy-titled "Golden Geese" get or got nothing from their affiliation with the U.S. in amassing their wealth. As if there was no SEC, no U.S. military, no National Guard, no local police forces and no judical system to protect their interests and maintain the stability required for their businesses; no stock exchanges and no educated workforce to accomplish their goals; and no government investment in basic research and/or infrastructure to exploit. You also act as if the Golden Girls --- sorry, Golden "Geese" -- will take all of these things with them when they go, and there will be no other people willing and able to take advantage of the same benefits once the 24 karat Honkers fly abroad.
Second, you act as if they are fleeing in greater numbers now than they were before --- which, as I stated before, is highly questionable. But since you are in such a unique position, I wonder if you've ever asked your clients "why now"? Why weren't these same folks fleeing in the 90s? Why weren't they fleeing in the late 80s? Why not in the 70s? 60s? 50s? Basically, I guess I'm asking why the rich now are so much wimpier now than they used to be. Don't they know the taxes the Kennedy's paid? Or the Rockefellers? Why are they so whiny?
Third, you conveniently forget that to the extent your numbers are credible, they are not indicative of how important these Golden Goslings are to the economy or the U.S., but rather how incredibly much more money they have been allowed to amass than other folks, especially considering a tax structure designed by their friends and cronies.
Fourth -- thanks for the nice "barnyard animals" reference. You're classy.
Fifth, please explain why we should grant your rantings any more credence than those of the fellow quoted in the article, given that your website brags about relocating rich people? "Helping international clients sort through the relative advantages of relocating to non-traditional tax havens such as Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, Canada and Switzerland." I mean, that's your job, right? You help rich people dodge taxes, right? And what do you do when you "Consult on and propos[e] changes in economic citizenship legislation with the elected officials of several Caribbean nations"? Does that mean that you lobby elected officials to change their country's tax structure for the benefit of your clients who aren't even citizens? Elected officials who don't earn much money, live in a poor but beautiful country, and might be accustomed to a lesser degree of oversight with regard to the conduct of their business than officials in the U.S. -- sorry, in deference to your location, I should say "officials in the U.S. and Canada"? Because that's what it sounds like from where I sit, so I just wanted to ask.
If your entire professional existence is predicated on stoking these kinds of ridiculous perceptions, what credibility do you really have?
Aug 20th 2009 2:12PM " It is a fact that in America personal fortunes (which are also the greatest) rarely last more then two generations; due to inhibiters like death and inheritance tax."
This is the kind of thing which begs for a citation. Personally, I would doubt both parts of the equation: that fortunes rarely last more than two generations, and that those which do fail should be ascribed to "death and inheritance tax." Especially since most smart rich people have availed themselves of the services of someone such as the lawyer so credulously quoted in the article referenced, and have set up a series of trusts which protect the vast bulk of the fortune.
Aug 18th 2009 6:45PM So lemme get this straight . . . a private-client specialist law firm partner -- someone whose clients would be the only people in America to benefit from maintaining the current tax structure -- says he's seen a rise in those "interested" in expatriation. No follow up question about how many of them go through with it. No independent research to see if there is indeed an actual, quantifiable rise in expatriation from the tippy top of the top bracket. No --- just take the word of someone paid to make this meme the common accepted wisdom. We can't lose the idle rich! Then where would we be?!? Better just slash their taxes again and maybe they'll come back . . . if we're really good.
That's just stupid beyond belief. First of all, the only place rich people would want to live that has lower tax rates than the U.S. is Switzerland, and that's only because they went all out to attract the rich. There's almost no way they'll be able to maintain that level and still be, you know, the kind of place that rich people want to go. Second of all, there is no way . . . no way whatsoever . . . that they're going to be hurt by a return to 1990s tax rates. Oooohhh!!! A 4% top marginal rate increase!!! I'll go Galt, I swear I will, Binky, and this time I really mean it.
And so 90 of them went in the first half of the year? How does this compare to last year? Are there any French, German, Saudi, or Canadian rich folk who took their place? And what's this about being able to come back without paying taxes? If they own a place in New York, they'll pay taxes on it. If they buy a yacht in San Diego, they'll pay taxes on it. If they own a U.S. company from which they derive their wealth, they'll pay taxes. And they'll be living somewhere, after all --- and unless it's Switzerland, they'll be paying more taxes there. Oh, and Switzerland doesn't just tax real estate on a yearly basis --- they tax total wealth. Year after year after year.
I don't know who's more pitiable, the ones who believe the fabrications of Jay Krause, Esq., or his clients who actually do go through with it.
Jul 27th 2009 6:21PM All those books would be nice if they weren't all redacted.
Jul 10th 2009 7:15PM Scott, it's the tavern's walls that are 4 feet thick, and unfortunately there don't seem to be any shots of the tavern that I can see.
May 28th 2009 2:54PM Also, Switzerland might not have a large income tax, but they do have a property tax on all property --- not just land, but the entire estate --- which is, effectively, a continuing tax on income earned years earlier. It's a wealth tax, is what it is, and not a lot of countries have it, given the fainting vapors that seem to enwrap politicians when discussing a rational tax system.
But still, more evidence that the mobile rich are either (a) not really that concerned about taxes and basically just want to live someplace beautiful, safe, and healthy, patriotic attachments be damned; or (b) are too stupid to use a calculator before spouting off about fleeing for tax reasons.
May 28th 2009 2:47PM Not only London, but New York, too, considering that New York has relatively high city and state taxes by comparison to other U.S. cities commonly associated with the wealthy (e.g., Miami, Santa Barbara).
Why, it's almost as if the tax burden doesn't really come into the equation, and is used more as a rhetorical device than a explanatory one! Imagine that!