Results 1 to 23 of 23

Thread: Paradise Papers

  1. #1
    Mr Self Important Senior Member Beskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Albion
    Posts
    15,930
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Paradise Papers

    So, one of the biggest leak of off-shore bank accounts is now public.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-41880153

    Ranges from movie stars, businesses such as Apple and even the Queen has been squirreling money away in private accounts to avoid the tax man.
    Last edited by Beskar; 11-07-2017 at 03:03.
    Days since the Apocalypse began
    "We are living in space-age times but there's too many of us thinking with stone-age minds" | How to spot a Humanist
    "Men of Quality do not fear Equality." | "Belief doesn't change facts. Facts, if you are reasonable, should change your beliefs."

  2. #2
    Praefectus Fabrum Senior Member Anime BlackJack Champion, Flash Poker Champion, Word Up Champion, Shape Game Champion, Snake Shooter Champion, Fishwater Challenge Champion, Rocket Racer MX Champion, Jukebox Hero Champion, My House Is Bigger Than Your House Champion, Funky Pong Champion, Cutie Quake Champion, Fling The Cow Champion, Tiger Punch Champion, Virus Champion, Solitaire Champion, Worm Race Champion, Rope Walker Champion, Penguin Pass Champion, Skate Park Champion, Watch Out Champion, Lawn Pac Champion, Weapons Of Mass Destruction Champion, Skate Boarder Champion, Lane Bowling Champion, Bugz Champion, Makai Grand Prix 2 Champion, White Van Man Champion, Parachute Panic Champion, BlackJack Champion, Stans Ski Jumping Champion, Smaugs Treasure Champion, Sofa Longjump Champion Seamus Fermanagh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Latibulm mali regis in muris.
    Posts
    11,450

    Default Re: Paradise Papers

    Quote Originally Posted by Beskar View Post
    So, one of the biggest leak of off-shore bank accounts is now public.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-41880153

    Ranges from movie stars, businesses such as Apple and even the Queen has been squirreling money away in private accounts to avoid the tax man.
    NPR reported on this today, suggesting that almost all of this was perfectly legal (ethics are another thing entirely).
    "The only way that has ever been discovered to have a lot of people cooperate together voluntarily is through the free market. And that's why it's so essential to preserving individual freedom.” -- Milton Friedman

    "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." -- H. L. Mencken

  3. #3
    Mr Self Important Senior Member Beskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Albion
    Posts
    15,930
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Paradise Papers

    Quote Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh View Post
    NPR reported on this today, suggesting that almost all of this was perfectly legal (ethics are another thing entirely).
    Which is why they are called "Loopholes".
    Days since the Apocalypse began
    "We are living in space-age times but there's too many of us thinking with stone-age minds" | How to spot a Humanist
    "Men of Quality do not fear Equality." | "Belief doesn't change facts. Facts, if you are reasonable, should change your beliefs."

  4. #4
    master of the pwniverse Member Fragony's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    The EUSSR
    Posts
    30,680

    Default Re: Paradise Papers

    Just like you want the best possible deffence from a lawyer you want to best possible advice from your tax-advisor. Our royal-family is one of the biggest tax-dodgers in the Netherlands, if they start speeching about the rise of egoism and the lack of solidarity at least I know who's saying it

  5. #5
    Iron Fist Senior Member Husar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    15,617

    Default Re: Paradise Papers

    Quote Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh View Post
    NPR reported on this today, suggesting that almost all of this was perfectly legal (ethics are another thing entirely).
    It's not "another thing entirely", the core of the issue is that our laws fail to represent our ethics and we seem to think it's okay because someone goes "jobs, jobs, jobs!".



    "Topic is tired and needs a nap." - Tosa Inu

  6. #6
    Praefectus Fabrum Senior Member Anime BlackJack Champion, Flash Poker Champion, Word Up Champion, Shape Game Champion, Snake Shooter Champion, Fishwater Challenge Champion, Rocket Racer MX Champion, Jukebox Hero Champion, My House Is Bigger Than Your House Champion, Funky Pong Champion, Cutie Quake Champion, Fling The Cow Champion, Tiger Punch Champion, Virus Champion, Solitaire Champion, Worm Race Champion, Rope Walker Champion, Penguin Pass Champion, Skate Park Champion, Watch Out Champion, Lawn Pac Champion, Weapons Of Mass Destruction Champion, Skate Boarder Champion, Lane Bowling Champion, Bugz Champion, Makai Grand Prix 2 Champion, White Van Man Champion, Parachute Panic Champion, BlackJack Champion, Stans Ski Jumping Champion, Smaugs Treasure Champion, Sofa Longjump Champion Seamus Fermanagh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Latibulm mali regis in muris.
    Posts
    11,450

    Default Re: Paradise Papers

    Quote Originally Posted by Husar View Post
    It's not "another thing entirely", the core of the issue is that our laws fail to represent our ethics and we seem to think it's okay because someone goes "jobs, jobs, jobs!"....
    You do remember that I am the chap who has argued for years in favor of either a "fair tax" or a "flat-rate tax" with virtually no loopholes, yes? I loathe the idea of tax regulations designed to exempt person A's company from paying just as much as you do.

    I have few or no objections to having ethics embodied in the legal code more coherently.
    "The only way that has ever been discovered to have a lot of people cooperate together voluntarily is through the free market. And that's why it's so essential to preserving individual freedom.” -- Milton Friedman

    "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." -- H. L. Mencken

  7. #7

    Default Re: Paradise Papers

    Quote Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh View Post
    You do remember that I am the chap who has argued for years in favor of either a "fair tax" or a "flat-rate tax" with virtually no loopholes, yes? I loathe the idea of tax regulations designed to exempt person A's company from paying just as much as you do.

    I have few or no objections to having ethics embodied in the legal code more coherently.
    On the other hand, it is not ethical to impose a disproportionate burden upon the non-rich unless you have some compensatory and comprehensive framework for social welfare in place - something which flat-rate taxes are unlikely to adequately fund.
    Vitiate Man.

    History repeats the old conceits
    The glib replies, the same defeats


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 


    Member thankful for this post:

    Husar 


  8. #8

    Default Re: Paradise Papers

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    On the other hand, it is not ethical to impose a disproportionate burden upon the non-rich unless you have some compensatory and comprehensive framework for social welfare in place - something which flat-rate taxes are unlikely to adequately fund.
    Libertarians at Niskanen again; they have a perspective even a socialist could almost endorse:

    WHY LIBERTARIANS AND CONSERVATIVES SHOULD STOP OPPOSING THE WELFARE STATE

    Put all this together, and two clear rules for proper sequencing emerge:

    Rule 1: Don’t reduce government benefits for ordinary people until all subsidies and privileges for the well-to-do have been dismantled.

    Rule 2: Don’t reduce government benefits for the poor and disadvantaged until all government policies that harm the poor and disadvantaged have been reformed.
    Vitiate Man.

    History repeats the old conceits
    The glib replies, the same defeats


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 


    Member thankful for this post:



  9. #9
    Praefectus Fabrum Senior Member Anime BlackJack Champion, Flash Poker Champion, Word Up Champion, Shape Game Champion, Snake Shooter Champion, Fishwater Challenge Champion, Rocket Racer MX Champion, Jukebox Hero Champion, My House Is Bigger Than Your House Champion, Funky Pong Champion, Cutie Quake Champion, Fling The Cow Champion, Tiger Punch Champion, Virus Champion, Solitaire Champion, Worm Race Champion, Rope Walker Champion, Penguin Pass Champion, Skate Park Champion, Watch Out Champion, Lawn Pac Champion, Weapons Of Mass Destruction Champion, Skate Boarder Champion, Lane Bowling Champion, Bugz Champion, Makai Grand Prix 2 Champion, White Van Man Champion, Parachute Panic Champion, BlackJack Champion, Stans Ski Jumping Champion, Smaugs Treasure Champion, Sofa Longjump Champion Seamus Fermanagh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Latibulm mali regis in muris.
    Posts
    11,450

    Default Re: Paradise Papers

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    On the other hand, it is not ethical to impose a disproportionate burden upon the non-rich unless you have some compensatory and comprehensive framework for social welfare in place - something which flat-rate taxes are unlikely to adequately fund.
    Flat taxes are no more nor less able to fund social welfare than the graduated tax. I would argue that, properly free of loopholes, such a tax may actually generate more revenue than a graduated tax despite the lower base rate. Certainly a minimum threshold is required, since taking 20% of the earnings of somebody making 11k a year is far more problematic to that taxpayer than taking the same percentage from Warren Buffet. As you are aware, the base threshold functions, in a flat tax, as the same basic deduction for all -- and the percentage kicks in above that threshold. I acknowledge that closing the loopholes is key here OR with the extant tax system.

    I prefer the fair tax approach anyway. Income taxes always serve to protect existing wealth holders at the expense of those trying to improve their condition.

    Currently, however, NONE of the USA's social welfare system is funded, nor is anything else in the budget, save on goodwill and faith. The existing debt and continued deficit spending suggests we cannot truly pay for any of it.
    "The only way that has ever been discovered to have a lot of people cooperate together voluntarily is through the free market. And that's why it's so essential to preserving individual freedom.” -- Milton Friedman

    "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." -- H. L. Mencken

  10. #10

    Default Re: Paradise Papers

    Quote Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh View Post
    Flat taxes are no more nor less able to fund social welfare than the graduated tax. I would argue that, properly free of loopholes, such a tax may actually generate more revenue than a graduated tax despite the lower base rate. Certainly a minimum threshold is required, since taking 20% of the earnings of somebody making 11k a year is far more problematic to that taxpayer than taking the same percentage from Warren Buffet. As you are aware, the base threshold functions, in a flat tax, as the same basic deduction for all -- and the percentage kicks in above that threshold. I acknowledge that closing the loopholes is key here OR with the extant tax system.

    I prefer the fair tax approach anyway. Income taxes always serve to protect existing wealth holders at the expense of those trying to improve their condition.

    Currently, however, NONE of the USA's social welfare system is funded, nor is anything else in the budget, save on goodwill and faith. The existing debt and continued deficit spending suggests we cannot truly pay for any of it.
    Then a suitable threshold (say here at $1,000,000 all income) would obviate the income tax and recommend some other imposition (wealth tax?). In the long-term, "paying" for items would involve changing most or all governance under the modern nations. In the medium term, it probably involves monetary reform (leveraging our dwindling international standing).
    Vitiate Man.

    History repeats the old conceits
    The glib replies, the same defeats


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 


    Member thankful for this post:



  11. #11
    Headless Senior Member Pannonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    7,978

    Default Re: Paradise Papers

    Quote Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh View Post
    Flat taxes are no more nor less able to fund social welfare than the graduated tax. I would argue that, properly free of loopholes, such a tax may actually generate more revenue than a graduated tax despite the lower base rate. Certainly a minimum threshold is required, since taking 20% of the earnings of somebody making 11k a year is far more problematic to that taxpayer than taking the same percentage from Warren Buffet. As you are aware, the base threshold functions, in a flat tax, as the same basic deduction for all -- and the percentage kicks in above that threshold. I acknowledge that closing the loopholes is key here OR with the extant tax system.

    I prefer the fair tax approach anyway. Income taxes always serve to protect existing wealth holders at the expense of those trying to improve their condition.

    Currently, however, NONE of the USA's social welfare system is funded, nor is anything else in the budget, save on goodwill and faith. The existing debt and continued deficit spending suggests we cannot truly pay for any of it.
    Graduated tax is just your two band tax rate with more bands. The problem is still defining what is taxable, and the well off are better placed to hire accountants to define their income in a way that can game the system. Hence Thatcher's fondness for the poll tax, which was simple to define and thus collect. The problem was that its unfairness was also plain to see. Over here in the UK, the government has got around this by ramping up VAT, which is included at the point of purchase and thus unevadable. The problem with this is that VAT is also disproportionately paid by the less well off, and all, even the least well off, are subject to it.

    The world would be better off if the rich just pay the top rate of income tax on all their personal income and claim back anything which they're entitled to. That would be the system as it's meant to be. Unfortunately they resent having to pay anything that they can game their way out of, and thus it's the poor who have to make up the shortfall (or more precisely, the next levels down who will have to make up the shortfall). It's the way of the world and I don't expect anything different. However, I wish the tax dodgers would refrain from claiming high horse positions on political issues though.

    Member thankful for this post:



  12. #12
    Praefectus Fabrum Senior Member Anime BlackJack Champion, Flash Poker Champion, Word Up Champion, Shape Game Champion, Snake Shooter Champion, Fishwater Challenge Champion, Rocket Racer MX Champion, Jukebox Hero Champion, My House Is Bigger Than Your House Champion, Funky Pong Champion, Cutie Quake Champion, Fling The Cow Champion, Tiger Punch Champion, Virus Champion, Solitaire Champion, Worm Race Champion, Rope Walker Champion, Penguin Pass Champion, Skate Park Champion, Watch Out Champion, Lawn Pac Champion, Weapons Of Mass Destruction Champion, Skate Boarder Champion, Lane Bowling Champion, Bugz Champion, Makai Grand Prix 2 Champion, White Van Man Champion, Parachute Panic Champion, BlackJack Champion, Stans Ski Jumping Champion, Smaugs Treasure Champion, Sofa Longjump Champion Seamus Fermanagh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Latibulm mali regis in muris.
    Posts
    11,450

    Default Re: Paradise Papers

    Re: two preceding posts.

    Monty: Some form of "wealth" tax would need to be enacted if your goal is to decrease wealth among the upper 1% and redistribute it. The current bloated system currently does no such thing. I am not a fan of soaking the rich or of a wealth tax, but if your real goal is to redistribute wealth, then an income tax as currently modeled simply does not accomplish it.

    Pan: The current definition of 'income' is gamed to a fair-thee-well. Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, for example, lost $167.2 million dollars despite a gross revenue north of $967M. Were this a "real" loss in any sense, of course, no further films of that series would have been produced. It is, manifestly, an accounting game to avoid taxation and to use the "loss" to offset other tax burdens. Clearly, the current definition of "income" being used for corporate taxation is distorted. Moreover, we are well aware that individual income tax dodges -- while not as spectacular -- conform to the same pattern. A redefinition of this is vital to any taxation system that works.


    BTW, I am one of those who believe that ALL taxes are paid by individual persons and families. "Corporate" taxation is ludicrous as the only thing it does is change the corporation into the tax collector, as the cost is always born by the consumer as it forms part of the price for goods and services. Nor does it even help lower the cost of administering taxes, since government regulators and tax attorneys have to oversee the corporate tax process anyway.
    "The only way that has ever been discovered to have a lot of people cooperate together voluntarily is through the free market. And that's why it's so essential to preserving individual freedom.” -- Milton Friedman

    "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." -- H. L. Mencken

  13. #13
    Praefectus Fabrum Senior Member Anime BlackJack Champion, Flash Poker Champion, Word Up Champion, Shape Game Champion, Snake Shooter Champion, Fishwater Challenge Champion, Rocket Racer MX Champion, Jukebox Hero Champion, My House Is Bigger Than Your House Champion, Funky Pong Champion, Cutie Quake Champion, Fling The Cow Champion, Tiger Punch Champion, Virus Champion, Solitaire Champion, Worm Race Champion, Rope Walker Champion, Penguin Pass Champion, Skate Park Champion, Watch Out Champion, Lawn Pac Champion, Weapons Of Mass Destruction Champion, Skate Boarder Champion, Lane Bowling Champion, Bugz Champion, Makai Grand Prix 2 Champion, White Van Man Champion, Parachute Panic Champion, BlackJack Champion, Stans Ski Jumping Champion, Smaugs Treasure Champion, Sofa Longjump Champion Seamus Fermanagh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Latibulm mali regis in muris.
    Posts
    11,450

    Default Re: Paradise Papers

    Quote Originally Posted by Pannonian View Post
    ...The problem with this is that VAT is also disproportionately paid by the less well off, and all, even the least well off, are subject to it....
    The Fair Tax approach relies on monthly payments to all taxpayers that offset the tax costs borne for purchases of goods and services at and below the subsistence level. Thus, the taxes needed for basic needs would be "covered" and reduce or eliminate the disproportionate impact of a sales tax on lower income earners. At least that is the design goal. There are unanswered questions about how much of a gray or hidden market economy the approach would generate, and some critics assert that it would still be regressive (though most of those are, I believe, folks who view the 1%ers as somehow evil).
    "The only way that has ever been discovered to have a lot of people cooperate together voluntarily is through the free market. And that's why it's so essential to preserving individual freedom.” -- Milton Friedman

    "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." -- H. L. Mencken

  14. #14
    Iron Fist Senior Member Husar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    15,617

    Default Re: Paradise Papers

    Quote Originally Posted by Pannonian View Post
    Over here in the UK, the government has got around this by ramping up VAT, which is included at the point of purchase and thus unevadable.
    I was about to agree when I remembered what I saw mere hours ago.

    It is actually not unavoidable, at least not for rich people buying very expensive things. The example was about how Lewis Hamilton bought his own jet plane.
    The plan basically revolves around 2 shell corporations, both conveniently owned by him. One shell corporation buys this jet for ~20 Million Euros.
    The second shell corporation then requests to lease this jet from the first shell corporation. This makes the jet a business asset, so the first corporation can reclaim the ~4 Million Euros in VAT (assuming 20%). Fortunately for Hamilton, the second corporation allows him to use the jet whenever he wants.
    And the law firm that performs this magic gets ~10,000 € per year.

    As a bonus, the lawyers can claim that the corporations are not shell corporations since they obviously have business transactions.

    The dark side of globalization I guess.

    Another example I heard about recently was Nike. They make all their worldwide profit in a subsidiary in the Ntherlands. The Netherlands do not tax subsidiaries, only the parent company. Since the parent company is in the US, the Netherlands don't care. The US on the other hand, do not tax the parent company for the profits of subsidiaries (made in other countries, forgot the details). Either way, Nike pays no taxes and just accumulates money for shareholders or whoever.

    There are most likely ways to stop this. There was talk between EU ministers about taxing income instead of profits, mnight make sense for global corporations. Should be harder or impossible to claim you have no income in Germany but 30 million customers every year. Though if they were to set a minimum income to save startups from paying enormous taxes without making profits, there will be 3 million amazon subsidiaries with 10 customers each...one loophole we can avoid now.


    "Topic is tired and needs a nap." - Tosa Inu

  15. #15
    Iron Fist Senior Member Husar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    15,617

    Default Re: Paradise Papers

    Here's a link on Hamilton for reference:

    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-41886607

    Includes a cringe-worthy tweet about how we can all have private jets if we just want it enough...
    And an explanation of his scheme that seems to include three companies now.

    And some info about Nike:

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-0...g-nike/9075626
    https://www.fastcodesign.com/9015004...es-nike-richer
    From 2013 already: https://www.lowtax.net/blogs/Tax-Avo...It-570974.html

    These schemes would be moral if I could also use them to pay just 2% VAT on everything. And then we could also kiss the schools goodbye that the corporations need to put out capable workers. I guess the immoral thing here, from a purely monetary POV, is that the tax burden on others needs to be higher to provide public services that these corporations profit from. That's what you were also saying, Seamus, wasn't it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Seamus
    BTW, I am one of those who believe that ALL taxes are paid by individual persons and families. "Corporate" taxation is ludicrous as the only thing it does is change the corporation into the tax collector, as the cost is always born by the consumer as it forms part of the price for goods and services.
    Depends on the price elasticity and competition. At some point the taxes have to bite into investor profits and company value as increasing the price of the product would lead to diminishing returns. The approach of just increasing the price to keep investor profits "stable" (increase them) works really well with medication and the like though, as we saw recently. The point of taxing the profit is usually to skim money off before the investors/owners get their share if I'm not mistaken. The problem is obviously that profit is a dependent number that is easily manipulated.


    "Topic is tired and needs a nap." - Tosa Inu

  16. #16
    Mr Self Important Senior Member Beskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Albion
    Posts
    15,930
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Paradise Papers

    One rule for the rich, another for the poor.

    Some of the loopholes used are ridiculous, such as a company acting like your agent but instead of paying you, they give you a loan you don't need to repay. Thus as you are not earning an income and technically taking a loan, you avoid paying tax. There are examples such as Steve Jobs famously only getting paid $1 from Apple, but had unrestricted use of an Apple expenses account as a means to bypass paying income tax.

    You then have media companies owned by wealthy individuals like Murdoch who use their influence to point the blame at those on benefits and welfare.. despite the fact a big company like google, vodafone, starbucks, etc just paying their taxes would actually foot the welfare bill in itself. Some of the scams are amazing.. we had Starbucks buying their coffee beans from the Netherlands Starbucks for 5 times the market value, so when it came to their finances in the UK, they were making a big loss, despite raking in billions and opening store up everywhere.

    If we want to fix the system, we need to be brutal. Instead of targeting profits, we should target the money being generated. If they are attempting to avoid 10% tax on profits, then we should impose 5% on money generated... a significantly higher amount. This means for every £20 Starbucks gets, £1 goes straight to the Taxman. You might start crying "but but.. big company X might leave the country!", want to know the secret? Let them. Like in the South Park episode where they kicked out Walmart, another company will take its place and take that money for themselves.

    With the amount of money being generated, we will be able to provide the population with a Universal Wage. Any income above this can be taxed, flat-rate even. Universal wage would make sure those vulnerable in society are able to provide for themselves. Universal Wage would also allow for the rise of automation and technology, with people not being left behind by progress.
    Days since the Apocalypse began
    "We are living in space-age times but there's too many of us thinking with stone-age minds" | How to spot a Humanist
    "Men of Quality do not fear Equality." | "Belief doesn't change facts. Facts, if you are reasonable, should change your beliefs."

    Member thankful for this post:



  17. #17
    Iron Fist Senior Member Husar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    15,617

    Default Re: Paradise Papers

    Quote Originally Posted by Beskar View Post
    If we want to fix the system, we need to be brutal. Instead of targeting profits, we should target the money being generated. If they are attempting to avoid 10% tax on profits, then we should impose 5% on money generated... a significantly higher amount. This means for every £20 Starbucks gets, £1 goes straight to the Taxman. You might start crying "but but.. big company X might leave the country!", want to know the secret? Let them. Like in the South Park episode where they kicked out Walmart, another company will take its place and take that money for themselves.

    With the amount of money being generated, we will be able to provide the population with a Universal Wage. Any income above this can be taxed, flat-rate even. Universal wage would make sure those vulnerable in society are able to provide for themselves. Universal Wage would also allow for the rise of automation and technology, with people not being left behind by progress.
    I may have underexplained it in my last post, but one potential problem is that when you tax all their income, it can disproportionally hurt smaller companies that now barely make a profit and then make a big loss and go out of business. Which just helps the big ones in a way. Yes, they might pay more taxes now, but they also get rid of their competition. And then you get more monopolies and customers getting shafted.
    Then, as soon as you begin to make exceptions, the lawyers of the big ones will likely find ways to be worth their money again...

    Isn't that why so many laws are so complicated in the first place?


    "Topic is tired and needs a nap." - Tosa Inu

    Member thankful for this post:



  18. #18
    Mr Self Important Senior Member Beskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Albion
    Posts
    15,930
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Paradise Papers

    Quote Originally Posted by Husar View Post
    I may have underexplained it in my last post, but one potential problem is that when you tax all their income, it can disproportionally hurt smaller companies that now barely make a profit and then make a big loss and go out of business. Which just helps the big ones in a way. Yes, they might pay more taxes now, but they also get rid of their competition. And then you get more monopolies and customers getting shafted.
    Then, as soon as you begin to make exceptions, the lawyers of the big ones will likely find ways to be worth their money again...

    Isn't that why so many laws are so complicated in the first place?
    Well, you can resolve those issues by not actually using tax as the mechanism. You have systems which use grants and so on to support businesses. This could be like in Germany where the town council pays cafe's and restaurants to allow the public to use their toilet facilities. You tie in incentives, such as community work or public good, so the businesses provide for the community and get income based on that. This in turn lowers public spending as the government does not need to fund these services themselves. This ends up tailored to the local areas and encouraging/supporting small business. There are ways to do it.

    On the other hand, if your business is just plain terrible it should be allowed to fail. America for example has some big name companies which cannot turn a profit and gets billions in funds from the government (like General Motors) whilst rival American companies are achieving this (like Tesla).
    Last edited by Beskar; 11-08-2017 at 22:24.
    Days since the Apocalypse began
    "We are living in space-age times but there's too many of us thinking with stone-age minds" | How to spot a Humanist
    "Men of Quality do not fear Equality." | "Belief doesn't change facts. Facts, if you are reasonable, should change your beliefs."

  19. #19

    Default Re: Paradise Papers

    Quote Originally Posted by Beskar View Post
    Well, you can resolve those issues by not actually using tax as the mechanism. You have systems which use grants and so on to support businesses. This could be like in Germany where the town council pays cafe's and restaurants to allow the public to use their toilet facilities. You tie in incentives, such as community work or public good, so the businesses provide for the community and get income based on that. This in turn lowers public spending as the government does not need to fund these services themselves. This ends up tailored to the local areas and encouraging/supporting small business. There are ways to do it.

    On the other hand, if your business is just plain terrible it should be allowed to fail. America for example has some big name companies which cannot turn a profit and gets billions in funds from the government (like General Motors) whilst rival American companies are achieving this (like Tesla).
    To be fair, Tesla was benefited greatly by subsidies.
    Vitiate Man.

    History repeats the old conceits
    The glib replies, the same defeats


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 



  20. #20
    Iron Fist Senior Member Husar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    15,617

    Default Re: Paradise Papers

    Quote Originally Posted by Beskar View Post
    Well, you can resolve those issues by not actually using tax as the mechanism. You have systems which use grants and so on to support businesses. This could be like in Germany where the town council pays cafe's and restaurants to allow the public to use their toilet facilities. You tie in incentives, such as community work or public good, so the businesses provide for the community and get income based on that. This in turn lowers public spending as the government does not need to fund these services themselves. This ends up tailored to the local areas and encouraging/supporting small business. There are ways to do it.

    On the other hand, if your business is just plain terrible it should be allowed to fail. America for example has some big name companies which cannot turn a profit and gets billions in funds from the government (like General Motors) whilst rival American companies are achieving this (like Tesla).
    Yes, if you can prevent that from benefitting the big ones too much. Take for example franchising. What if the local businessman opens a Café under a franchise deal but is essentially, legally just a local businessman. Will he get the benefits or only if he opens up the Café entirely on his own? What if the corporation gives him a million to start the business but the council only offers him a few thousand as a local incentive because it cannot afford more? That's not to say your point wasn't well noted, I was indeed a bit too focused on taxes.


    "Topic is tired and needs a nap." - Tosa Inu

  21. #21

    Default Re: Paradise Papers

    A while ago I privately (idly) mused on the idea of a restaurant meant to provide whole meals, filling and nutritious meals, acting as a replacement for individually having to prepare or procure food. For some subset of people, it would be the primary source of healthy and affordable sustenance. It would not directly compete with idiosyncratic home-cooking or with "nice meals out" at standard restaurants.

    But why would anyone visit such a restaurant, and how could it turn a profit to sustain itself?

    Then I realized it can't work as a private enterprise, and it shouldn't be thought of in the context of private enterprise. So, here's a solution many would certainly cringe at: state-run canteens.

    Canteens in every town, with meal recipes formulated by government scientists (we could at least make a good start given contemporary dietary science and improve from there), and prepared fresh according to local resources and affinities. People would come in with their universal federal ID (we need these anyway), which would authorize the order of 3 full meals per day, free of charge. Canteens would also be located in such a way as to integrate as social gathering spaces for the community.

    Such canteens, with the right management and marketing, could be a proper hit with the bottom two income quintiles. Anyone could still buy whatever they like (meals, snacks, groceries, etc.) from the private market in addition to the state-funded meals.

    The sticky part is that the success of government canteens would likely also lead to mass collapse within the ecosystem of low-income small businesses, those that cater to the alimentary needs of low-income residents. Medium-to-high end restaurants and groceries wouldn't take a hit, except to the extent where the canteens are so successful that bourgeois lefties make it fashionable to patronize them.

    I mean, people would probably be happier and healthier...
    Vitiate Man.

    History repeats the old conceits
    The glib replies, the same defeats


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 



  22. #22
    Headless Senior Member Pannonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    7,978

    Default Re: Paradise Papers

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    A while ago I privately (idly) mused on the idea of a restaurant meant to provide whole meals, filling and nutritious meals, acting as a replacement for individually having to prepare or procure food. For some subset of people, it would be the primary source of healthy and affordable sustenance. It would not directly compete with idiosyncratic home-cooking or with "nice meals out" at standard restaurants.

    But why would anyone visit such a restaurant, and how could it turn a profit to sustain itself?

    Then I realized it can't work as a private enterprise, and it shouldn't be thought of in the context of private enterprise. So, here's a solution many would certainly cringe at: state-run canteens.

    Canteens in every town, with meal recipes formulated by government scientists (we could at least make a good start given contemporary dietary science and improve from there), and prepared fresh according to local resources and affinities. People would come in with their universal federal ID (we need these anyway), which would authorize the order of 3 full meals per day, free of charge. Canteens would also be located in such a way as to integrate as social gathering spaces for the community.

    Such canteens, with the right management and marketing, could be a proper hit with the bottom two income quintiles. Anyone could still buy whatever they like (meals, snacks, groceries, etc.) from the private market in addition to the state-funded meals.

    The sticky part is that the success of government canteens would likely also lead to mass collapse within the ecosystem of low-income small businesses, those that cater to the alimentary needs of low-income residents. Medium-to-high end restaurants and groceries wouldn't take a hit, except to the extent where the canteens are so successful that bourgeois lefties make it fashionable to patronize them.

    I mean, people would probably be happier and healthier...
    British restaurant

    Member thankful for this post:



  23. #23
    Darkside Medic Senior Member rory_20_uk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Taplow, UK
    Posts
    8,688
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Paradise Papers

    After this latest lot were released I finally have started to look into it all...

    For $115 / year one can have a private foundation in the Seychelles for one's own personal benefit. No tax of course and legally a distinct entity. For those who want to do commercial things (since Foundations themselves don't), the Foundation can holly own companies.

    The paperwork is pretty minimal and there are few if any names of benefactors anywhere.

    All I'm missing now is the capital to put in it...

    An enemy that wishes to die for their country is the best sort to face - you both have the same aim in mind.
    Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings.
    "If you can't trust the local kleptocrat whom you installed by force and prop up with billions of annual dollars, who can you trust?" Lemur
    If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain.
    The best argument against democracy is a five minute talk with the average voter. Winston Churchill

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO