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

Post by akuji1993 » Fri, Feb 02, 2018, 4:07 PM UTC

fetbaffe wrote: post #188

One 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…

Post by jernfrost » Fri, Feb 02, 2018, 4:11 PM UTC

fetbaffe wrote: post #188

One 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…

Post by _jal » Fri, Feb 02, 2018, 4:15 PM UTC

dsacco wrote: post #170

_jal wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see a ton of imprecision in technical discussions here daily, and that's a topic on which one would expect some expertise here. And yet the pedantry that receives is far less annoying than the inevitable tax avoidance cliche-rants. Why? Because there the pedantry is at least topical. Here, it is arguing language in order to grind an axe on a side issue almost completely unrelated to the Ikea founder.

Natural language philosophy constitutes legitimate dialectics, not pedantry. In the former you add precision by first synthesizing an agreement of terminology and introducing relevant definitions. In the latter you argue against the meaning of a word instead of the intended meaning of the argument. In point of fact, it’s pedantic to dismiss an argument from legality on the grounds that it’s “legal” and not “ethical”,…

Post by lev99 » Fri, Feb 02, 2018, 4:16 PM UTC

akuji1993 wrote: post #191

fetbaffe wrote: post #188

One 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…

This sounds so obviously stupid I wonder why nobody stopped and said "You know, we might just make all these companies leave with stuff as ridiculous as this."

Post by jernfrost » Fri, Feb 02, 2018, 4:22 PM UTC

vanderZwan wrote: post #184

viraptor wrote: post #45

> The foundation owns itself, so no Kamprad family members hold shares. Late stage capitalism... Anyway, I don't really get why the article claims he didn't care about money. It's known for a while that IKEA avoids taxes in many dodgy ways. If he really didn't care, the connected companies could pay a reasonable amount.

You cannot make sense of Ingvar Kamprad and IKEA without taking a moment to look at how Scandinavian culture is very different from American culture. First, we should talk about the infamous "Jantelagen": > The Law of Jante is the description of a pattern of group behaviour towards individuals within Nordic countries that negatively portrays and criticises individual success and achievement as unworthy and inappropri…