The Swiss may not be the wealthiest in the world afterall according to a Credit Suisse survey...see this article.

http://www.smh.com.au/executive-styl...101-1mt2r.html

Those figures, to put it very simply, just say that the middle class in Oz is a little bit better off than here in Switzerland, actually considerably better in view of the lower cost of living. However, for the nation as a whole, the average counts, not the median. And that's what those surveys usually are about.

I agree.

Newspapers will publish anything to make people feel good about themselves if it sells the story.

"Median" is the midpoint between the wealthy and the poor.

You could use the same logic to boost the financial status of people in India.


"Average" on the other hand tells the real story.


........ The "Average Swiss" clearly humbles the pocket of any Australian (or most other nationalities).



The cost of living in Australia is sharply on the increase by the way..... and we have one of the most unafordable housing markets on the planet.



If you ask me, the sun doesn't shine so bright back at home now.

I' strongly disagree with that: The median is as good (or as bad a measure) as the mean. Without further information/data both of them will not tell you much about the real situation of an entire populace.

Thats right. Most people (outside of the wankers at Forbes) in the investment world know that Ken Dart is the richest man in the world by a very large margin (His family invented Styrofoam if I remember correctly). He gave up his US citizenship to move to Belize. Lowest value people have reported his worth at is $200Bn. So including him, on the average, the normal person in Belize is worth $570,000 each????? Thats a bad assumption.

Median is always the best. The tails should be atleast 2.5% on both ends.

Was just about to post this, but then after a quick search found this thread... Only, I saw this link from the International Business times:
Australia Dislodges Switzerland, Now Wealthiest Nation in the World

I think it still says quite a bit though...

There was a report of another study done a month or two ago, saying that Sydney was up there (seventh) with the most expensive cities to live in the world, however Zurich & Geneva were 2 & 3. In a mirroring study, all three cities were also up there in regards to "average" salaries, with regard to cost of living etc...

It's from 2010, but there you go

Source is the Australian Bureau of Statistics


This bit is my favourite:
Also note that we have been on the decline since 2007
$251K in 2007 (from the graph)
$248K in 2008
$232K in 2009
$213K now (from the OP)

The median says a lot about the situation of the individual. The average says more about the situation of the nation. If the Belizeans aren't downright stupid, Mr. Dart may pay most of their entire fiscal household, which in turn will benefit all inhabitants except said Mr. Dart. And that doesn't show in the median.

However, maybe the fact that he burned his bridges and moved down there indicates that they don't have a very well thought-out tax system.

Or maybe it shows that people are sick of paying for ever-growing governments who cant control their spending? My boss paid 3% of his income per year to the government of Zug before he redomiciled to the Caymans. Some countries arent as competative as Switzerland. Americans have to give up their citizenships in order to take advantage of things like this.

3 %? You mean % like in "percent"? Are you kidding?

No. Im not..... 3% of a very very large sum though. You would be surprised if you knew. But the tax is based upon things like rental expense that you pay in CH. Its a very good deal. He had a 5 year agreement that expired last year. Now has no taxs though as the Caymans are tax free.

I'm afraid you missed my tongue in cheek. What I meant is, did you really quote those 3% as kind of an example of how bad it can become with those "ever-growing governments who cant control their spending"?

So that poor, poor guy had to go to the Caymans to keep his toast buttered? MY oh my. Maybe he will join englishforum.ky and complain about hurricanes, sand flies and sluggish air condition repair service.

agree. median is normally used to avoid the skew effect from the small number of super-rich.

3% is a good deal. if i were that rich, i wouldn't be moving to the caymans, that's for sure.

talk about knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing.

He has a house in the Caymans but only lives there 3 months out of the year, not during hurricane season. But we have another client who is the largest real estate owner in North America. He pays 60% income tax. 3% Vs. 60% is a no brainer. The UK taxs for my boss would have been around 55%.

Why do you think there are so many UK expats. Many live in tax friendly jurisdictions because its better on their savings. But they dont live there year round.

You mean he lives in Zug the rest of the year? I can't say that'd surprise me.

No... Spain most of the year. You dont have to live in Zug. Just have to have an apartment here. He has been here maybe 2 weeks per year?

Would that be a member of the Irving family, then? I learned something googling that... I always thought Ted Turner had the most land in NA, but I guess that was only in the US, and he got surpassed by John Malone.

If you're talking about income tax, then yes, you have to live here to qualify. While I'm sure Zug will happily take your money, your actual residence abroad is being cheated out of their tax income.

Whether you can get away with it is of course a different question!

i think we win when it comes to the weath of beaches :-P