History is replete with examples where a country, or the country’s government, would turn on a portion of its citizens. In the most egregious cases (Nazi Germany and Cambodia for example), entire groups of people were singled out for murder and extermination. In other examples (communist bloc countries and some post-colonial countries for example), those newly in power decided to settle the score with certain of its citizens, stripping them of property, homes and rights. This was often done in the name of redistribution, levelling the playing field, “making those people pay their fair share,” or any other number of euphemisms that, at their heart, were simply the majority plundering the minority.
I enjoy reading travel articles of all sorts, and two articles this week caused me to write this post. The first was an article written about the race to provide greater and more luxurious first class amenities on planes, including Etihad Airways’ new three-room suite. The suite contains its own den, bedroom and shower, starting for the modest price of [ahem] $20,000. I enjoy reading about these types of things just because it’s fun to fantasize what it would be like to travel on a long haul flight with your own bedroom and shower. It’s out of my price range, but still, it’s fun to dream. This was an online article so I looked down at the comments, expecting to see the responses ranging from “wouldn’t it be nice…” to “who would be so stupid to spend $20,000 on a flight?” Instead, I was surprised at the level of vitriolic remarks spouted by many of the readers. The comments criticized anyone who would fly in such luxury as one of those “one percenters” who (the commenters claimed) didn’t pay their fair share of taxes. Far from being a discussion of how the suite might be indulgent, opulent, a waste of money, or the like, the commenters seemed more content to use the forum to complain that the “wealthy” were somehow cheating everyone else.
Later this week, I read another article that a writer penned about first class air travel. This writer tried to draw a parallel between airplane travel and the political and economic state of the country as a whole. The writer claimed to have done calculations showing that first class flyers, per dollar, received more square footage on a plane than those of the economy class. By extension, apparently, this writer wanted to argue that upper income earners or upper wealth holders somehow got more for their money than the regular guys and gals in the country as well.
That these writers’ and commenters’ stories aren’t borne out by the facts or numbers didn’t really seem to matter, but rather seemed to have a poetic appeal. The idea? Those that don’t have as much have a right to be angry at those who have more.
As discovered by the writers of the book “The Millionaire Next Door,” the “average” American millionaire leads a fairly plain existence, having worked hard, spent frugally, and invested well. Many entrepreneurs spend 60-80 hour work weeks at their businesses and provide jobs for other employees. Professionals quite often do the same and in addition, for many, spent years and untold money to obtain professional degrees before ever earning the first dollar from them. I expect some of these “one percenters” would be a little shocked to see how they’re criticized in mainstream media by writers and commenters.
The truth is, however, that by popular culture and current politics, higher net worth individuals are targets in American society as well as in many other “first world” countries. They’re targets of demagogue politicians who sometimes need to point an unhappy populace away from the true cause of their troubles (the results of the politicans’ actions). They’re targets of some individuals who simply would rather steal and take, rather than produce and create. They can be, in other words, a focal point of others’ unhappiness. If I have a right to be angry at someone who has more than me, then by extension, I should have the right to do something about it.
Earlier, I’d mentioned countries in history that had turned on a segment of its citizens. Some people in these countries stayed until it was too late for them to leave. But others saw what might be coming, and made backup plans.
There’s no need to cry that the sky is falling, or to imply that professionals, entrepreneurs or high net worth individuals will one day be carted off to jail or for execution. But on the other hand, successful business owners, professionals, and other individuals with higher net worth or income should at least have insurance policies in place, in case their country of residence becomes undesirable, oppressive or otherwise limits their rights. One of those insurance policies is to obtain alternative citizenship. A second citizenship gives its holder additional assurance that if tough times come in their country of origin, they have opportunities to move.
Investors can obtain citizenship through economic contributions, through certain business investments, and through real estate investment. If you are a high net worth individual, and are concerned about the politics of your home country, wouldn’t it make sense to at least make some backup plans? Think about the citizenship by real estate investment programs in the Caribbean, for example. If you invest in those programs, you are obtaining dual benefits: if a worst case scenario happens, you have the ability to move and travel as a citizen of your newly adopted country, able to live and work in much of the Caribbean and in other commonwealth countries. If things don’t ever get so bad, and you never needed to use your second citizenship, well, you’ve still got a Caribbean property to enjoy at your disposal.
Or to use the European citizenship programs springing up: you could invest and obtain the right to live and travel throughout much of Europe, in the event you needed to move. But if you never needed to move, you’ve made diversified investments in Europe and still have made it easier to travel to and through Europe should you decide to ever do so.
Either way, you’ve bought an insurance policy that could one day protect your family if needed, but if not needed, provides some nice benefits along the way.
Obtaining an alternative citizenship need not be viewed as making plans for the end of the world. If ever needed, an alternative citizenship can allow the citizen to move himself and his family to safer, friendlier and freer countries. If the citizenship is not ever used, it can still provide its holder with additional investment benefits, as well as the ultimate benefit of peace of mind.