It's subjective to say it's nice not to have high taxes. Perhaps if you're filthy rich it is. Otherwise not having high taxes generally means run down public services, no or limited welfare state, rampant property speculation, increasing inequality etc.
It works well for Monaco because it's a country populated almost exclusively by millionaires and billionaires hence a small percentage of taxes works ok. It's also basically a city state so no need for much investment in infrastructure etc. The reason those millionaire and billionaires moved there is so they can avoid paying their fair share and this can by definition only work in a small number of countries who, essentially, steal from everyone else. The fact that powerful governments like USA, UK, France, etc. tolerate this should give their citizens a clear indication that their governments care more about the world's billionaires than their own citizens.
Tax havens tend to have it fine, at the cost of a lot of people living in other countries. Remember Panama papers? That was just the tip of the iceberg.
awesome quiz! argentina, zimbabwe, suriname and monaco were my favourite clues. it's kinda cool that you can say that the government turned their people into trillionaires and it's a true statement
I once thought that Weimar Germany held the world record for the highest hyperinflation until Zimbabwe broke it in the 2000s. But I was wrong. Zimbabwe only comes in second place with a price doubling time of about 24 h and 100 trillion (100,000,000,000,000) as the highest printed denomination. The world champion is Hungary: In 1946, they had a doubling time of about 15 h, and their highest denomination was 100 quintillion (100,000,000,000,000,000,000). Germany only comes in 6th, almost as bad as the last world cups :-(
There's actually a potential interesting JetPunk fact in that story: When the Hungarian currency, the pengő, was replaced in August 1946 by the forint, the total value of all Hungarian banknotes in circulation amounted to 1⁄1,000 of one US cent.
"Small" compared to non-island landmasses or the largest islands in the world is not a very useful definition of "small", is it? Taiwan is larger than the vast majority of islands in the world and must be in the high 90s percentile-wise. The USGS categorizes small islands as less than 1 km².
Just because a term is relative doesn't mean it loses all meaning. We could debate the line between large and small islands or other categories but there's no reasonable definition of island which would categorize Taiwan as small. Taiwan is small country (possibly) but not a small island.
Zimbabwe clue is kind of ridiculous. Land reform correcting massive colonial injustice is not "stealing farms." That's a "when we were in Rhodesia" talking point.
I got Interesting Fact #215 after this quiz by either something Quizmaster did to align this quiz with that fact, or by a coincidence, and I'm not sure which it was.
how come nobody ever/
thought of this before?
(how | come | no | bo | dy | ev | er)
My first thought was Sealand.
We fought with chile
and lost our precious coastline
We are still salty.
Just because a term is relative doesn't mean it loses all meaning. We could debate the line between large and small islands or other categories but there's no reasonable definition of island which would categorize Taiwan as small. Taiwan is small country (possibly) but not a small island.
A term can be relative, or a categories may be without unambiguous bright lines, but it doesn't make them wholly meaningless.
Hope to see more of these soon/
Thanks for featuring!
you use it too. May we join /
the Nordic countries?
and - please - don't - tell - Is - rail
Maybe I'm mispronouncing Israel and I should be saying Is-ray-el!
Can't wait for a #2 (scratch that - #3)!