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

IKEA buys 11,000 acres of U.S. forest to keep it from being developed

goodnewsnetwork.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

531–540 of 622 posts

Re: IKEA buys 11,000 acres of U.S. forest to keep it from being developed

#531

Post by jb775 »

nom wrote: post #256

I never understood why people hate IKEA. Yes it's cheap. Yes it doesn't last a lifetime. Yes it needs a lot of wood. Yes it's highly optimized. But guess what, IKEA is a business responding to the needs of people. The negatives that are mentioned frequently are merely a symptom of our ever faster developing society. The people who complain are the same ones that just buy cheap crap from china without even thinking ab…

I like IKEA stores, but I don't believe for a second this land purchase was made for forestry altruism.

Re: IKEA buys 11,000 acres of U.S. forest to keep it from being developed

#532

Post by dahfizz »

andromeduck wrote: post #364
candu wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally, I dislike IKEA for registering as a non-profit, when they're very clearly not. To me, this belongs in the same bucket as any number of tax avoidance schemes that ensure wealthy individuals pay far lower tax rates than the average person, and that large corporations pay effectively nothing. If they're able to provide great customer service - well, good on them, but I'd much rather the public purse have the…

We would all be better off if corporate taxes were reduced to low single digits in favor of regular individual income tax and VAT bit the optics aren't good so it's never gonna happen except if you're big enough to have creative accountants and political/economic clout like Ikea and others.

Its amusing and depressing that we are in a situation where all experts, from across the political spectrum, can agree on what a more optimal tax system would be. Yet the structure of our democracy basically makes a more optimal solution impossible.

https://www.npr.org/transcripts/499490275

Re: IKEA buys 11,000 acres of U.S. forest to keep it from being developed

#533

Post by michaelmior »

throwawaygh wrote: post #483
hello_moto wrote: post #465

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IKEA > (Mega) churches. There are smaller churches that would benefit from the Govt policies.

It's less about the size of the church and more about the % of the church's untaxed revenue that is spent on salaries and mostly-single-use worship space. Plenty of small churches spend almost all of their revenue on pastoral salary and workship space. It's fine, to each their own, but treating that sort of tithing the same way we treat donations to actual charities seems weird. Both Ikea and non-charitable $ spent b…

> we should stop (not) taxing based on institution type and start (not) taxing based on where the dollars are going

While I don't necessarily disagree, this seems like it would create a large administrative burden and a strong incentive for businesses to simply lie (or creatively disguise) where there money going. This seems easier than fraudulently registering a for-profit business as a non-profit. Although I suppose it's hard to say whether the current or your proposed approach would result in tax breaks really happening where we want them.

Re: IKEA buys 11,000 acres of U.S. forest to keep it from being developed

#534

Post by dahfizz »

stkdump wrote: post #529
lotsofpulp wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s a problem of unnecessarily complicated tax laws.

Gotta love victim blaming. The problem isn't complicated tax laws, the problem is that the governments making them are national entities that have to answer to their national voting population and companies like IKEA are international entities, so have a very easy time to do stuff that is inside the letter but outside the spirit of the laws of the various countries.

> The problem isn't complicated tax laws

> have a very easy time to do stuff that is inside the letter but outside the spirit of the laws

That's like saying "My buggy spaghetti code isn't the problem, the user should just never do something that hits an edge case. My code doesn't need to change"

Re: IKEA buys 11,000 acres of U.S. forest to keep it from being developed

#535

Post by cgriswald »

Kalium wrote: post #505
titzer wrote: post #477

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, nice things usually cost a premium. But used, secondhand stuff can be affordable too. There should be an economy of downcycling that allows for more affordable stuff, too. I just don't think that IKEA is that. Case in point. When I moved in 2013 I had a ~$1500 dining table that I had paid $800 for. Due to the abruptness of my move, I ended up selling it on Craigslist for something like $200. Keep an eye out for…

> There should be an economy of downcycling that allows for more affordable stuff, too. I just don't think that IKEA is that. You're absolutely right! There often this. This is rarely anywhere near the IKEA price point, though. A dining room table for $200, however nice, would have eaten up two thirds of my furnishing budget. How does one manage chairs, a bedframe, and so on of good quality for $100? It's not been my…

The niche IKEA fills isn't "cheap but functional", it's "stylish, but cheap."

Why would you buy an IKEA table and chairs for ~$120 when you can buy a folding table and chairs for less? The folding table and chairs are not only more durable, but they can also be used in the future for other purposes after you replace them as your main dining room furniture. They store better. They last forever. (My grandmother plays cards with her friends on such tables that are older than my parents.) The IKEA table and chairs you get are inferior in every way except one: style.

> When your answer to "How do I furnish?" is "Do without until the perfect deal comes along", do you think it might be worth considering that your answer might not be great for everyone?

This is probably the best answer for most. No answer will be right for everyone. For instance, someone trying to entertain clients in their home will need better than a folding table for dining.

When you're starting out: buy inexpensive, durable, and multipurpose for anything you can't do without, otherwise go without until you can afford to get the right piece.

Re: IKEA buys 11,000 acres of U.S. forest to keep it from being developed

#536

Post by lotsofpulp »

ashtonkem wrote: post #520
lotsofpulp wrote: post #415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which degree should we start judging at? When people deduct taxes for donations to universities to increase the odds of their child being accepted? When people deduct taxes for charity to their church/temple/organization/other tribe in order to direct resources in a way that might benefit them more directly versus the nation as a whole? It's either legal or it's not. If you want the "abuse" to stop, then elect the le…

You seem to be making the argument that if it’s legal, it’s not immoral. I reject this argument completely. By necessity the law does not (and cannot) cover every single aspect of human behavior. Just because what IKEA is doing is legal does not make it right. Nor is it inappropriate for a private citizen to condemn behavior they disapprove of, whether or not it’s legal. As far as where the ethical line is, that is a…

>You seem to be making the argument that if it’s legal, it’s not immoral.

Yes, I would say that legally reducing one's taxes is not immoral.

>By necessity the law does not (and cannot) cover every single aspect of human behavior.

Yes, but in the case of tax law, the complications are created specifically to allow loopholes, and/or to allow the government to not have to transparently state costs. I would posit that any goal of tax deductions is more transparently accomplished by the government spending the cash outright and having to account for it.

>Just because what IKEA is doing is legal does not make it right.

In the context of tax law, I think it's all fair game. If the people want to close loopholes, then close them for everyone. As a business, I'm going to do whatever I need to maintain a competitive advantage. As a voter, I'm going to support legislation that levies taxes according to the quality of life I think people should have in society.

Re: IKEA buys 11,000 acres of U.S. forest to keep it from being developed

#537

Post by Glavnokoman »

candu wrote: post #303
nom wrote: post #256

I never understood why people hate IKEA. Yes it's cheap. Yes it doesn't last a lifetime. Yes it needs a lot of wood. Yes it's highly optimized. But guess what, IKEA is a business responding to the needs of people. The negatives that are mentioned frequently are merely a symptom of our ever faster developing society. The people who complain are the same ones that just buy cheap crap from china without even thinking ab…

Personally, I dislike IKEA for registering as a non-profit, when they're very clearly not. To me, this belongs in the same bucket as any number of tax avoidance schemes that ensure wealthy individuals pay far lower tax rates than the average person, and that large corporations pay effectively nothing. If they're able to provide great customer service - well, good on them, but I'd much rather the public purse have the…

In general I tend to dislike IKEA. But I'd totally approve avoiding taxes to preserve the forest (in case that's actually what they did).

Re: IKEA buys 11,000 acres of U.S. forest to keep it from being developed

#538

Post by skratlo »

headsupftw wrote: post #516
nom wrote: post #256

I never understood why people hate IKEA. Yes it's cheap. Yes it doesn't last a lifetime. Yes it needs a lot of wood. Yes it's highly optimized. But guess what, IKEA is a business responding to the needs of people. The negatives that are mentioned frequently are merely a symptom of our ever faster developing society. The people who complain are the same ones that just buy cheap crap from china without even thinking ab…

Wait a sec. When the products are sold by IKEA, they are cheap but they are "products that people actually need". But when they are from China, they are "cheap crap from china"?

Actually, you are kinda right here

Re: IKEA buys 11,000 acres of U.S. forest to keep it from being developed

#539

Post by derefr »

Sodman wrote: post #361
rychco wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fwiw, the first definition I found for the word evade is “escape or avoid, especially by cleverness or trickery.”

In the US, they are very specific, distinct things. Tax Evasion[0] is not paying taxes you legally owe. Tax Avoidance[1] is finding ways to owe less tax. Evasion is considered illegal, but Avoidance can practically be considered encouraged, as it's perfectly legal and rewards practitioners with lower tax bills. [0] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/taxevasion.asp [1] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/tax_avoida…

The tax system is effectively an operant-conditioning system, functioning on both corporations and individuals, where the negative stimuli are taxes and the positive stimuli are tax credits.

Seen under this lens, any individual or corporation who is not practicing optimal "tax avoidance" — i.e. doing the things required to qualify for tax credits, and avoiding the things that would cause taxes — is not putting themselves as fully under the thumb of the state's operant-conditioning apparatus as the state would like.

The state wants you to min-max your taxes. The tax system is designed around the assumption that taxable entities will min-max their taxes. If you're not doing it, you're not just leaving free money on the table; you're also being sub-optimally pro-social in the state's (society's?) opinion. "Tax avoidance" is to Western states, as "social credit score" is to China: a score of how well you're living up to the government's expectations for you. Of course they want you to aim for the best score you can!

(I can understand people refusing to minimize their tax burden for ideological reasons — i.e. refusing to be manipulated into certain behaviors by the state. But I don't think I've ever heard anyone espouse this stance. Most people don't even understand that taxes are the state attempting to manipulate you.)

Re: IKEA buys 11,000 acres of U.S. forest to keep it from being developed

#540

Post by lotsofpulp »

Jochim wrote: post #522
omgwtfbyobbq wrote: post #501

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, trickle down economics is just fantasy. Tax avoidance is something everyone with a 401k does and is encouraged by the tax code. If there's something unique about what they're doing, especially as a result of them lobbying for certain parts of the tax code, then I can see it being judged harshly. If anyone can do what they're doing, then I don't see it as particularly negative.

A 401k has the specific purpose of helping individuals fund their retirement years, something society has agreed is worth providing some benefit for. There is an element of intention to the exemption and it serves a specific purpose. > If anyone can do what they're doing, then I don't see it as particularly negative. Typically not just anyone can do this, smaller firms do not have the resources set-up these schemes.…

>A 401k has the specific purpose of helping individuals fund their retirement years, something society has agreed is worth providing some benefit for. There is an element of intention to the exemption and it serves a specific purpose.

A 401k has the specific purpose of helping large businesses maintain a competitive advantage over small businesses. If the government wanted to help individuals fund their retirement years, then there is no reason to involve employers in the tax code. They could simply issue the same rules and contribution limits for IRAs.

But they don't. They punish you if you're employed by an employer that doesn't offer a 401k, by setting your contribution limit to a paltry $6k while 401k participants get tens of thousands, and your contribution limit is zero if your spouse is eligible for a 401k and your income is over a certain amount.

Post reply on HN