While true, there are also typically downsides for such. There is no 'free lunch' (as the saying goes). Often the wealthy get wealthy, by being stingy, and they do not spend more money, despite having more money. And anyone who has spent the time to look into such will know that these 'mitigation' strategies invariably come with a "downside", whether it be having to live in Country B (while one's preferred country is A), or whether it means a necessary re-investment (which nominally one would not do), or a necessary donation to some charity (which one would nominally not do) , ... or something else. In the vast majority of cases, a charity, or the public, in some fashion, benefit by the wealthy adopting a mitigation strategy. Of course the press doesn't mention that - its far easier to make villains of the wealthy who worked their butt off, and took the risks, to get where they are today. Frankly - Death and Taxes. Can't be avoided - despite what the spinning press and those with less money are inclined to state and believe.
Create an account or sign in to comment