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

Post by _jal » Fri, Feb 02, 2018, 2:45 PM UTC

dsacco wrote: post #116

_jal wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 conte…

Post by bmelton » Fri, Feb 02, 2018, 2:48 PM UTC

gaius wrote: post #134

bmelton wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you aren't seeking out the loopholes that apply to you, then you are paying more in taxes than you are legally required to. "legally required to" does not incur a balancing test between what is practicable vs the time it takes. If you're a regular, mid-income citizen, then there isn't likely to be a good ROI on hiring a dedicated accountant to find you loopholes. If you're making $200k a year, and you save 10%, ho…

If you aren't seeking out the loopholes that apply to you, then you are paying more in taxes than you are legally required to. Complete nonsense. Finding a loophole in the tax code is no different to finding a flaw in some computer code that gives you some access you were never intended to have. Should we all hire professional hackers too?

Post by sooheon » Fri, Feb 02, 2018, 2:50 PM UTC

dx034 wrote: post #100

gaius wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

willing to pay more taxes than you are legally required to There is a material difference between that and actively seeking loopholes that are not available to ordinary people. Ikea is only possible because of the physical and legal infrastructure paid for by those ordinary people after all. Not that they will do anything of course, the Viking spirit is long dead.

Not really. Corporate taxes and personal taxes are two very different things. Ikea didn't commit tax fraud (at least from what I heard), they just used structures to minimise taxes. Those weren't loopholes, they were made by countries for companies like Ikea. Companies utilising those structures aren't the problem. It's governments creating the opportunities. Same as with tax incentives for investments. You can't bla…

Post by sooheon » Fri, Feb 02, 2018, 2:53 PM UTC

charlesdm wrote: post #84

andrepd wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh nice, if he thought he could use the money better, then sure, please carry on not paying taxes. Can I do the same? Or is that a privilege reserved for the mega-rich? Or let's call a spade a spade, and let's call tax evasion tax evasion.

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…

Post by rectang » Fri, Feb 02, 2018, 2:54 PM UTC

matthewmacleod wrote: post #101

dna_polymerase wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please cut the ’avoidance, not evasion’ bullshit. This scheme is outright evasion, legalized by lobbying in Brussels against national law. You know that otherwise you wouldn’t care to point out this nuisance.

I understand the frustration, but I really think this is an important distinction to make. Evasion is solved by rigorously enforcing existing tax frameworks. Avoidance is solved by closing loopholes. They're two different problems—although they share some things in common—and they require two different solutions.