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

591–600 of 622 posts

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

#591

Post by JoeAltmaier »

dylan604 wrote: post #589
worldvoyageur wrote: post #557

It's none of my business if Ikea wants to buy productive forest land and take it out of production. However, I don't understand how it is any kind of signal of virtue. Would it be virtuous to buy productive farm land and take it out of circulation? How is forest land any different? In a previous life, it would be broadly correct to say that I worked in the forest industry. My body still hurts when I think about it. I…

What's the overall effect of forests vs farm/crop land? Forests provide homes to lots of animals. Farms do not. Forests help recycle the air. Farms do not. I'm sure there's others, but you get the point. At least, I hope you can honestly see a difference between a forest and farm land and that this is just some sort of mental gymnastics excersising of your devil's advocate muscles.

Wait what? Farms don't recycle the air? Do crops operate without CO2 somehow?

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

#592

Post by Jochim »

omgwtfbyobbq wrote: post #580
Jochim wrote: post #522

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

In the same way that a 401k is set up for a specific purpose, IKEA's foundation was also set up for a very specific purpose. If anything, the purpose was criticized as being overly narrow, and they recently updated it to be more broad. Whether a firm can do something similar depends on the specifics. I'm not sure how large IKEA was when they set up their corporate structure in the early 80s, but I doubt they were as…

> In the same way that a 401k is set up for a specific purpose, IKEA's foundation was also set up for a very specific purpose. If anything, the purpose was criticized as being overly narrow, and they recently updated it to be more broad.

Non-profit taxation laws were not set up with the intent of allowing for profit businesses to avoid taxation. That doesn't mean that it wasn't the outcome.

> Edit - To put it another way, there don't seem to be laws restricting investment firms from buying controlling interests in companies to manipulate asset prices/consumer behavior, which to me is far more detrimental than someone who may be pathologically frugal deciding they want to minimize taxes by setting up a complicated corporate structure with a foundation.

The existence of a worse scenario doesn't prevent us dealing with the current one.

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

#593

Post by dylan604 »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #591
dylan604 wrote: post #589

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the overall effect of forests vs farm/crop land? Forests provide homes to lots of animals. Farms do not. Forests help recycle the air. Farms do not. I'm sure there's others, but you get the point. At least, I hope you can honestly see a difference between a forest and farm land and that this is just some sort of mental gymnastics excersising of your devil's advocate muscles.

Wait what? Farms don't recycle the air? Do crops operate without CO2 somehow?

At the same effect as a tree? I'm not a scientist, but I can't imagine an acre of crops having the same effect as an acre of trees. Also, crops are only around for however many months they take to produce their product, then they are harvested, and the ground is tilled under again leaving the land with scratched earth. Trees in a forest keep doing their thing year round.

I'm also ignoring any of the chemicals that farms use on the land, but it is something to also consider.

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

#594

Post by mikem170 »

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.

I've held that point of view, but heard something recently that gave me pause: The high tax rates of the 1960's were the reason that companies paid their employees more and/or invested in research, producing things like Bell Labs.

The reasoning was that when corporate tax rates are low companies will use the extra money to play financial games, and when corporate tax rates are high companies know they are better of off giving the money to retain/recruit good employees or spending it on research to grow the business instead.

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

#595

Post by Jochim »

t-writescode wrote: post #585
Jochim wrote: post #581

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's possible to be technically correct but still be an asshole. Making use of the ability to employ considerable resources to reduce your corporation's tax burden in ways that organisations without those resources cannot is absolutely a violation of the social contract surrounding taxation, which typically follows the convention that those who profit the most from society should return the most. As a result it's no…

Even if the tax structure they're using enables them to hire more employees so those employees can survive more comfortably?

That assumes that they need more employees in the first place. Even then I don't believe companies hiring more employees is necessarily a good thing, unless you believe in work for work's sake.

Robust corporate taxation pays for decent social safety nets/UBI, such that people aren't at the mercy of the whims of whatever mega-corp they're dependent upon for survival. This has the added benefit of naturally improving wages and worker's rights, while allowing for the removal of a minimum wage.

It also has the added benefit of decoupling artistic expression from corporate funding.

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

#596

Post by WalterBright »

dagw wrote: post #107
WalterBright wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I buy utility furniture at the thrift store. When I'm done with it, it goes back to the thrift store :-)

it goes back to the thrift store Last time I moved I found that thrift stores are very picky about what furniture they accept.

If I get it from the thrift store, it surely meets their criteria for donations. I'm a bit picky on what I select, too. For example, no upholstered stuff, because of possible bedbugs.

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

#597

Post by omgwtfbyobbq »

Jochim wrote: post #592
omgwtfbyobbq wrote: post #580

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the same way that a 401k is set up for a specific purpose, IKEA's foundation was also set up for a very specific purpose. If anything, the purpose was criticized as being overly narrow, and they recently updated it to be more broad. Whether a firm can do something similar depends on the specifics. I'm not sure how large IKEA was when they set up their corporate structure in the early 80s, but I doubt they were as…

> In the same way that a 401k is set up for a specific purpose, IKEA's foundation was also set up for a very specific purpose. If anything, the purpose was criticized as being overly narrow, and they recently updated it to be more broad. Non-profit taxation laws were not set up with the intent of allowing for profit businesses to avoid taxation. That doesn't mean that it wasn't the outcome. > Edit - To put it another…

That's true, but practically speaking, that's the outcome when for profit company can create a foundation. Kind of like 401k rollovers to an IRA.

The worse scenario doesn't preclude us from addressing less bad scenarios, but I think we should focus more time and effort on that than on reforming the laws around foundations and non-profits, and by we I mean HN readers and the general public.

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

#598

Post by t-writescode »

Jochim wrote: post #595
t-writescode wrote: post #585

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if the tax structure they're using enables them to hire more employees so those employees can survive more comfortably?

That assumes that they need more employees in the first place. Even then I don't believe companies hiring more employees is necessarily a good thing, unless you believe in work for work's sake. Robust corporate taxation pays for decent social safety nets/UBI, such that people aren't at the mercy of the whims of whatever mega-corp they're dependent upon for survival. This has the added benefit of naturally improving w…

Do you think your arguments against the tax code and increased employment presuppose a more perfect world than we have and increased employment could be considered an intermediate step along the way?

That is, right now, we don't have UBI and the safety net, at least in the US, is very weak, so employment and decreased unemployment _are_ necessary for the time being and the ideal state described here is many more steps away than the current status quo.

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

#599

Post by Jochim »

t-writescode wrote: post #598
Jochim wrote: post #595

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That assumes that they need more employees in the first place. Even then I don't believe companies hiring more employees is necessarily a good thing, unless you believe in work for work's sake. Robust corporate taxation pays for decent social safety nets/UBI, such that people aren't at the mercy of the whims of whatever mega-corp they're dependent upon for survival. This has the added benefit of naturally improving w…

Do you think your arguments against the tax code and increased employment presuppose a more perfect world than we have and increased employment could be considered an intermediate step along the way? That is, right now, we don't have UBI and the safety net, at least in the US, is very weak, so employment and decreased unemployment _are_ necessary for the time being and the ideal state described here is many more step…

I think increased employment would have a negative effect on the road to that more perfect world by masking the underlying issues.

Pursuing increased employment as the goal distracts from the real changes that have to be made in order to facilitate those social safety nets, since these inevitably require raising taxes in order to fund them.

The efficacy of job creation through tax cuts is also a matter of debate. This article[1] (which appears fairly well sourced) seems to imply that the expansion of unemployment benefits is at least as effective as cutting corporate taxes and potentially more so when taxes are already low.

[1] https://www.thebalance.com/do-tax-cuts-create-jobs-3306325

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

#600

Post by Jochim »

omgwtfbyobbq wrote: post #597
Jochim wrote: post #592

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In the same way that a 401k is set up for a specific purpose, IKEA's foundation was also set up for a very specific purpose. If anything, the purpose was criticized as being overly narrow, and they recently updated it to be more broad. Non-profit taxation laws were not set up with the intent of allowing for profit businesses to avoid taxation. That doesn't mean that it wasn't the outcome. > Edit - To put it another…

That's true, but practically speaking, that's the outcome when for profit company can create a foundation. Kind of like 401k rollovers to an IRA. The worse scenario doesn't preclude us from addressing less bad scenarios, but I think we should focus more time and effort on that than on reforming the laws around foundations and non-profits, and by we I mean HN readers and the general public.

I guess it depends on the ratio of effort to reward.

Personally I think arguing for levelling the playing field through tax reform would lead to quicker/easier results than arguing for altering the ways in which companies may invest in one another but that could just be because I've been involved in less discussion around the latter issue.

Post reply on HN