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

Post by swombat » Fri, Feb 02, 2018, 8:03 PM UTC

noetic_techy wrote: post #275

dagw wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was obviously a well crafted image, but hardly one invented out of whole cloth. For example non of the three homes he owned[0] would classify as luxury by any reasonable rich person standard. His 'luxury' house in Switzerland was probably not even among 10 most expensive houses in town and was significantly smaller than most billionaires garages. His house in Sweden is in the middle of nowhere, the sort of place w…

Looks like an average upper middle class house in the US. Hardly swanky.

Post by dsfyu404ed » Fri, Feb 02, 2018, 8:08 PM UTC

gaius wrote: post #240

bmelton wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that the laws are the rules, the rules are publicly published, and everyone has access to them. If McDonald's is selling a 10 piece McNuggets for $1.49, and a 20 piece for $4.99, then buying 2 x 10 piece McNuggets for $2.98 is a loophole around paying $4.99. If you find it immoral, so be it, but it doesn't change that you're paying more for McNuggets than McDonald's requires you to pay.

and everyone has access to them The ordinary taxpayer isn’t in a position to exploit interactions between n jurisdictions tax codes, are they?

Post by dsfyu404ed » Fri, Feb 02, 2018, 8:12 PM UTC

bsbechtel wrote: post #256

viraptor wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

51k going to an accountant in your community is probably a more moral way to spend your money than 50k going to fund a war. 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.

Post by fetbaffe » Fri, Feb 02, 2018, 8:14 PM UTC

goty2 wrote: post #247

fetbaffe wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> After controlling the major companies in Sweden, they would have of course continued with the non-public companies, because the main goal of Löntagarfonder was to create equal salaries between high profit companies and low profit companies. No, that was the "solidarity in wages" policy which was already implemented. It was this policy that made successful companies make excess profits. Those profits were supposed t…

Post by dragonwriter » Fri, Feb 02, 2018, 8:22 PM UTC

wahern wrote: post #285

sevensor wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Related, I remember reading that Jefferson worked hard to prevent inheritance in fee tail from becoming established in our republic.

Related? http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/bill-for... In the current political climate I wonder if fee tail could be brought back. The predominate opinion among economists and, especially, legal scholars on the far right seems to be in favor of removing any and all limitations on the enforceability of contracts and trusts, and I could see the far right in many states embrace a return of fee tail as…