Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ikea founder leaves fortune to no one, structures it to ensure it lasts forever

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 373 posts

Re: Ikea founder leaves fortune to no one, structures it to ensure it lasts forever

#111

Post by charlesdm »

matthewmacleod wrote: post #97
charlesdm wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Want to stop avoidance? Make proper laws. If it's legal (even through lobbying), then it is legal. And frankly I don't see why you shouldn't if you legally can. But to each their own views on this. You know who can stop avoidance? Politicians. They need to take responsibility. Feel free to shame multinationals or HNWIs for not paying taxes, but at the end of the day avoidance is only possible because politicians (or…

I can't agree with this enough. Expecting profit-motivated companies to voluntarily choose to pay more tax than they have to is fundamentally doomed to failure. One of the powers of the free market is to encourage the elimination of inefficiency and waste—not that it's perfect at that—and we can't expect to both have our cake and eat it, in that sense. I strongly agree that many companies should be contributing more…

Yes, I agree they're not paying enough, and should be paying more. But that will only happen when laws are changed.

Re: Ikea founder leaves fortune to no one, structures it to ensure it lasts forever

#112

Post by oblio »

aianus wrote: post #33
pipio21 wrote: post #9

When I was young and getting my driving license in Madrid I had to take a bus to the place were exams were done, in the south of Madrid(Mostoles). A friend of mine worked on IKEA and he told me that it was a lot of expectation as the founder had gone to Spain and it was taking the same bus that I took in order to visit the stores in Spain. It was surprising to me that someone owning billions will take the bus, while…

The testing center had their own car? Is this standard in Spain/Europe? I had to pay an instructor with a car to drive me to the testing center and let me use his car for the test while he waited around.

Based on other comments and my experience in Romania/Luxembourg/France, it seems to be like this in Europe.

Re: Ikea founder leaves fortune to no one, structures it to ensure it lasts forever

#113

Post by irickt »

gadders wrote: post #64

According to the Economist, the whole structure was created to minimise tax [1] "What emerges is an outfit that ingeniously exploits the quirks of different jurisdictions to create a charity, dedicated to a somewhat banal cause, that is not only the world's richest foundation, but is at the moment also one of its least generous. The overall set-up of IKEA minimises tax and disclosure, handsomely rewards the founding…

This article gives a much better explanation of the intricate arrangements.

Re: Ikea founder leaves fortune to no one, structures it to ensure it lasts forever

#114

Post by oblio »

jacquesm wrote: post #98
Double_a_92 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Works for the sides, but how to do make a smooth transition to the top? Without cutting it equally short everywhere?

> Without cutting it equally short everywhere? That was my solution :) Saved me a couple of grand over the years.

That doesn't always work, depending on the shape of your head, the texture of your hair, etc.

I for one don't care about it much, and my job allows me not to care, but many people do care for both personal and professional reasons. Any kind of job where you want to persuade people basically requires the best look you can afford. It's basically an investment.

Re: Ikea founder leaves fortune to no one, structures it to ensure it lasts forever

#116

Post by dsacco »

_jal wrote: post #95
charlesdm wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Avoidance, not evasion. If you're a very frugal person, it seems pretty normal to hate taxes. No point in saving on everything, yet then throwing x% away in taxes (yes, I am aware taxes fund a lot of good things, but at the same time a lot of money is wasted -- I'm sure Kamprad thought he could better manage and deploy that money)

Injecting legal definitions into an informal conversation is a cheap debater's trick, annoying, and and hijacks the conversation.

You find the introduction of definitional precision to be an annoying, cheap trick?

What exactly are you achieving if you don’t rigorously define your terms and agree upon them? You make it sound like insisting on that is just a method of sophistry, but it’s the foundation of human communication. We cannot possibly talk about anything in a productive way if we’re not being precise in our terminology. Nuance and context have a meaningful impact on our conclusions, and legal definitions aren’t pointless. You can debate the merits of those definitions, but to hand wave them away because the conversation is “informal” is silly.

It is objectively false and unproductive to conflate tax avoidance and tax evasion. If you have a disagreement about the ethics of tax avoidance and believe it is meaningfully similar to tax evasion, that argument can certainly be made. But it is a legitimate point that tax avoidance is a separate thing from tax evasion. If you want to challenge that, you need to essentially debate the axiomatic legal foundations - i.e. do you find the relevant legislation unethical? Do you think tax avoidance is a net negative even if it’s illegal? Etc. The legal context isn’t pedantry, it’s intrinsically relevant to the topic.

On the other hand, what you’re doing is dismissing an attempt at precision, which actually bypasses attempts to have these very legitimate debates. No conversation has been hijacked here. Moreover, even if you call this an “informal conversation”, it will persuade people to change their opinions or reinforce them in a meaningful way. You cannot avoid that reality by temporarily surrendering rigor and selectively choosing what’s relevant to the topic.

If you disagree with the legal distinction between tax avoidance and tax evasion, make a compelling argument for it. But don’t dismiss a well established legal distinction without a commensurately compelling reason to do so.

Re: Ikea founder leaves fortune to no one, structures it to ensure it lasts forever

#117

Post by stevekemp »

neolefty wrote: post #83
marmaduke wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have an attribution for the quote?

Olaf Stapleton, "Last and First Men, & Star Maker: Two Science-fiction Novels" (from Google book search)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_and_First_Men is a good read, and very memorable if you've read it.

Not sure, off-hand, which of the two books the quote comes from which I guess is my cue to re-read them both!

Re: Ikea founder leaves fortune to no one, structures it to ensure it lasts forever

#118

Post by [deleted] »

dagw wrote: post #75
chiefalchemist wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok. But when why not donate the tax savings to an org that can use it? I just can't see "I don't care" resulting in hoarding (so much money). Maybe "Money doesn't motivate me" would be more accurate?

Ok. But when why not donate the tax savings to an org that can use it Technically the IKEA Foundation (www.ikeafoundation.org) is that charitable organisation. And technically they do donate a bunch of money each year to various causes. Of course they're not the most transparent of organizations so it's hard to really judge their philanthropic efforts. Maybe "Money doesn't motivate me" would be more accurate? At the…

[deleted]

Re: Ikea founder leaves fortune to no one, structures it to ensure it lasts forever

#119

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

matthewmacleod wrote: post #97
charlesdm wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Want to stop avoidance? Make proper laws. If it's legal (even through lobbying), then it is legal. And frankly I don't see why you shouldn't if you legally can. But to each their own views on this. You know who can stop avoidance? Politicians. They need to take responsibility. Feel free to shame multinationals or HNWIs for not paying taxes, but at the end of the day avoidance is only possible because politicians (or…

I can't agree with this enough. Expecting profit-motivated companies to voluntarily choose to pay more tax than they have to is fundamentally doomed to failure. One of the powers of the free market is to encourage the elimination of inefficiency and waste—not that it's perfect at that—and we can't expect to both have our cake and eat it, in that sense. I strongly agree that many companies should be contributing more…

You can't have a robust and clear taxation framework in a plutocracy, because government is owned by the rich and run for the benefit of the rich. And they're hardly likely to support legislation that forces them to pay more tax. (Even if some are, there will always be a powerful lobbying effort agains any such move.)

The economic and political rhetoric around "freedom", "taxation is bad because government is bad", and so on is a propaganda exercise. It isn't something that appeared spontaneously as a self-evident social truth.

The more time I spend finding out about the history of political though in the US, the more I realise that the dominant narrative is the language and thinking of the hyper-rich, generated and maintained entirely for their benefit.

Re: Ikea founder leaves fortune to no one, structures it to ensure it lasts forever

#120

Post by dagw »

oblio wrote: post #96
erispoe wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He didn't care for the lifestyle that money can bring. He was living in a nondescript suburban house near Lausanne and kept his old car for 20 years. Much like Warren Buffet, he was one of these self-made fortunes for whom money is a way to keep tally.

I'll see if I can find the sources but I saw some comments recently that it was a sham, mostly. He did have high expenses. Edit: Wikipedia says: > Kamprad owned a villa in Switzerland, a large country estate in Sweden and a vineyard in Provence, France. I can't guarantee the prices, but those things should be in the multi-million Euro range. Not quite rapper expenses, but definitely not middle class either.

Here's a picture of his villa in Switzerland: https://w.cdn-expressen.se/images/7d/e2/7de2bbfb59044fe6bfc3...

I mean it's really nice house and apparently comes with a very big garden and beautiful view of the lake, but it's hardly opulent. In a different, cheaper, part of the world a house like that would definitely be within the reach of at least someone earning a decent upper middle class salary.

edit: Here is his "large country estate" in Sweden: https://x.cdn-expressen.se/images/ae/fc/aefca41095674fdcaf01...

Post reply on HN