In my mind Monaco is synonymous with Formula 1. Obviously there's the iconic race (which, as an aside, doesn't suit the modern F1 car, which has become too large for a narrow street circuit).
But the other side is F! notable people who become tax residents. Lewis Hamilton, Toto Wolff, Daniel Ricciardo, Max Verstappen and probably many others. They're Monaco residents for the zero income tax. As an aside, how long are we, as a society, going to tolerate people being able to pay no tax just by having a certain address?
But F1 has always had its fair share of what are known as "pay drivers". These are drivers who only really have a seat because their family owns a team or spends a significant amount or is a title sponsor. Lance Stroll is an example of this on the current grid.
And then there's Charles LeClerc. He's a driver for Ferrari and a Monaco resident but what makes him interesting is that he's a native Monagasque.
Wealth is (thankfully) mostly ephemeral, typically only lasting 3 or so generations. Cornelius Vanderbilt made a fortune in the railroads in 19th century America. Anderson Cooper is a Vanderbilt. As his mother (Gloria Vanderbilt) told him: "there is no trust fund". The Astor name and fortune ended when the last heir died on the Titatnic. The Rockefeller family is still rich but nothing compared to their Standard Oil forebear namesake. The early Roman Republic had ~45 Patrician families. By Julius Caesar's time this had dwindled to ~15.
So I'm always interested in when someone of incredible privilege like Charles Leclerc also somehow becomes extremely driven and talented (which he is). I feel like it's hard to avoid the trap of having no unmet needs tends to make one completely useless.
But the other side is F! notable people who become tax residents. Lewis Hamilton, Toto Wolff, Daniel Ricciardo, Max Verstappen and probably many others. They're Monaco residents for the zero income tax. As an aside, how long are we, as a society, going to tolerate people being able to pay no tax just by having a certain address?
But F1 has always had its fair share of what are known as "pay drivers". These are drivers who only really have a seat because their family owns a team or spends a significant amount or is a title sponsor. Lance Stroll is an example of this on the current grid.
And then there's Charles LeClerc. He's a driver for Ferrari and a Monaco resident but what makes him interesting is that he's a native Monagasque.
Wealth is (thankfully) mostly ephemeral, typically only lasting 3 or so generations. Cornelius Vanderbilt made a fortune in the railroads in 19th century America. Anderson Cooper is a Vanderbilt. As his mother (Gloria Vanderbilt) told him: "there is no trust fund". The Astor name and fortune ended when the last heir died on the Titatnic. The Rockefeller family is still rich but nothing compared to their Standard Oil forebear namesake. The early Roman Republic had ~45 Patrician families. By Julius Caesar's time this had dwindled to ~15.
So I'm always interested in when someone of incredible privilege like Charles Leclerc also somehow becomes extremely driven and talented (which he is). I feel like it's hard to avoid the trap of having no unmet needs tends to make one completely useless.