Earlier quoted context omitted.
A someone who is broadly sympathetic to the idea of labor ownership of the means of production, could I trouble you to explain what's so obvious about the stupidity of this plan? Taxes on corporate profits are generally seen as reasonable in the abstract, and they're common all over the world. I could see setting an unusually high tax rate being problematic, but that doesn't appear to be what happened. And it doesn't…
Version that was introduced in 1982 was a water downed version of the original plan, the Social democrats lost an election because of the original plan in 1976 against the popular opposition leader and farmer Thorbjörn Fälldin. Fälldin broke a 40 year long social democratic rule. Fälldin described the plan as DDR style economics with the subsequent removing of personal freedoms. Original plan was to create funds to w…
Ikea founder leaves fortune to no one, structures it to ensure it lasts forever
251–260 of 373 posts
Re: Ikea founder leaves fortune to no one, structures it to ensure it lasts forever
#252Re: Ikea founder leaves fortune to no one, structures it to ensure it lasts forever
#253Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not to take away from your interesting comment, but it's not written "70-ties", just "70s" - the first one reads as "seventy-ties", which is odd :) EDIT: Updated "70's" to "70s" because of the great child comment that links to an article showing that while 70's is technically correct it's much more usual to exclude the apostrophe.
As long as we're exploring punctuation, the apostrophe in that case is valid and correct, but it's growing obsolete as it becomes more normal to write "70s". https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/9199/do-decades-ever...
https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/13631/is-an-apos...
Almost all the style guides recommend no apostophes on the end. Rather, apostrophes are reserved for numerals that are lefts out, i.e., '60s or 1960s, but not 1960's.
Re: Ikea founder leaves fortune to no one, structures it to ensure it lasts forever
#254Earlier quoted context omitted.
A someone who is broadly sympathetic to the idea of labor ownership of the means of production, could I trouble you to explain what's so obvious about the stupidity of this plan? Taxes on corporate profits are generally seen as reasonable in the abstract, and they're common all over the world. I could see setting an unusually high tax rate being problematic, but that doesn't appear to be what happened. And it doesn't…
It is not obviously stupid that labor running the company is a bad thing. I think it is a bad thing in most cases, but I can understand the debate. What IS stupid is thinking that companies will stick around while their control gets transferred away (from those controlling it). If a company wants to transfer control to its employees, it will do that. If a company doesn't (almost all of them) it will leave. That seems…
The CEO doesn't own a publicly traded company, the shareholders do. And if they don't think a sale is a good idea they can just not sell their shares at the offered stock price.
I'm being a bit intentionally naive, but I don't understand who the "they" is that is supposed to have a valid worry about losing control.
Re: Ikea founder leaves fortune to no one, structures it to ensure it lasts forever
#255One have to remember why this was setup in the way it is, to protect the company forever. In Sweden during the 70-ties 80-ties the Social democrats was pushing a radical socialist agenda ('löntagarfonder') to take over companies by taxing profits and then buying shares with it, all controlled by trade unions. Result of these policies was that many companies left Sweden to protect itself (of course). IKEA, Tetra Pak a…
I'm not Swedish, but I find this area relatively interesting. The idea is fairly straightforward: Sweden's model created low income inequality between the poor and the rich, but did not create low wealth inequality. A large proportion of Swedish capital was controlled by 15 families, and most wealth his still controlled by a small inherited class (many descended from the old Swedish nobility), and 80-90% of wealth is…
Edit: also /u/aomurphy I'd love to chat about your "information stack" so to speak. If you're interested - my email is in my bio.
Re: Ikea founder leaves fortune to no one, structures it to ensure it lasts forever
#256Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not caring about money doesn't necessarily mean you are willing to pay more taxes than you are legally required to, especially a subjective amount that others deem 'reasonable'.
As a friend accountant/layer said: there will always be people coming to us, spending 51k to avoid paying 50k of taxes, and we'll help them arrange that. Legal isn't the same as moral, so sometimes the legal limit becomes meaningless.
If one is going to judge a client's morality by his eagerness to spend more money than his tax bill in order to avoid paying that bill, that same moral lens needs to be applied to the accountant knowingly charging his client more than the client would save in taxes.
Re: Ikea founder leaves fortune to no one, structures it to ensure it lasts forever
#257Earlier quoted context omitted.
He didn't really care about money personally, or at least not the material things money can buy. At least that's the image he worked very hard to portray by driving an old Volvo, living in a modest house and wearing clothes bought in a second hand store etc. He obviously cared a lot about his companies making as much money as possible. Although if you asked him he'd probably say that all that tax avoidance was just h…
"It was not exactly so, as reporters found. His home was a villa overlooking Lake Geneva, and he had an estate in Sweden and vineyards in Provence. He drove a Porsche as well as the Volvo. His cut-rate flights, hotels and meals were taken in part as an exemplar to his executives, who were expected to follow suit, to regard employment by Ikea as a life’s commitment — and to write on both sides of a piece of paper." ht…
Re: Ikea founder leaves fortune to no one, structures it to ensure it lasts forever
#258Earlier quoted context omitted.
You get it; pedantry is pointless here. The folks benefitting from a thing will vote themselves money and perks until the place is bankrupt. It takes a different mindset to sign the front of the check, than to sign the back of the check.
>The folks benefitting from a thing will vote themselves money and perks until the place is bankrupt So, executive boards of companies?
The positive aspect is that it introduces democracy into the system (through control by officeholders), if only for the moment that it takes for power to recentralize (as any autonomy that the business has is lost due to patronage appointments from the central government or larger unions.) Maybe this could be prevented by handing control to the union of the workers in a particular company, or a particular location, rather than large unions that cover entire industries.
Re: Ikea founder leaves fortune to no one, structures it to ensure it lasts forever
#259Earlier quoted context omitted.
A someone who is broadly sympathetic to the idea of labor ownership of the means of production, could I trouble you to explain what's so obvious about the stupidity of this plan? Taxes on corporate profits are generally seen as reasonable in the abstract, and they're common all over the world. I could see setting an unusually high tax rate being problematic, but that doesn't appear to be what happened. And it doesn't…
Version that was introduced in 1982 was a water downed version of the original plan, the Social democrats lost an election because of the original plan in 1976 against the popular opposition leader and farmer Thorbjörn Fälldin. Fälldin broke a 40 year long social democratic rule. Fälldin described the plan as DDR style economics with the subsequent removing of personal freedoms. Original plan was to create funds to w…
It's not the companies own money after it's been taxed. From then on it's actually the government's money.
Re: Ikea founder leaves fortune to no one, structures it to ensure it lasts forever
#260Earlier quoted context omitted.
A someone who is broadly sympathetic to the idea of labor ownership of the means of production, could I trouble you to explain what's so obvious about the stupidity of this plan? Taxes on corporate profits are generally seen as reasonable in the abstract, and they're common all over the world. I could see setting an unusually high tax rate being problematic, but that doesn't appear to be what happened. And it doesn't…
This scheme is backdoor nationalization. OF COURSE the company would flee the country to prevent it.
Once you do, and it is bought by someone else, it's not your company anymore. Why does it matter if it was bought by Berkshire-Hathaway, Vanguard, or by the government of Sweeden?