Paradise Papers

[Beskar]

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.

[Husar]

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?

[Beskar]

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).

[Montmorency]

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.

[Husar]

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.

[Montmorency]

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...

[Pannonian]

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

[rory_20_uk]

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...