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

481–490 of 622 posts

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

#481

Post by saalweachter »

johnp314 wrote: post #408
ashtonkem wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IKEA also has a will to abuse them to a degree that their peers don’t, and we should judge them as less ethical for it.

'abuse' is a subjective word, you could have left off the 'ab' and you sentence would still be correct, arguably more correct. Also, why not consider that by using the complex web of tax laws to their advantage allows them to sell products at a lower price. This allows folks with lower incomes to enjoy similar products to those who can afford getting their stuff from more posh places. One could judge Ikea to be more…

> Also, why not consider that by using the complex web of tax laws to their advantage allows them to sell products at a lower price.

Don't business taxes (whether US taxes on profits or European VAT) ignore the costs of goods?

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

#482

Post by throwawaygh »

mattkrause wrote: post #469
throwawaygh wrote: post #409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Personally, I dislike IKEA for registering as a non-profit, when they're very clearly not. They're clearly not a charity. But there are TONS of tax-sheltered businesses that aren't charities. To me, it's morally equivalent to eg churches that use tax-free money to buy and operate super nice concert venues. Or any other non-profit that uses pre-tax money to pay salaries. IMO, Ikea > Churches. > or talk to anyone who…

That's not particularly nefarious. The NIH and NSF have two funding programs, the Small Business Innovation Research and Small Business Technology Transfer programs, that specifically fund startups/spin-outs from their research programs. More here: https://www.sbir.gov/ Some DARPA programs also have similar commercialization milestones: our PMs were pushing people to think about FDA approval and manufacturing.

> That's not particularly nefarious.

Completely agreed! I didn't mean to give that impression at all. I was simply giving a specific recent example demonstrating GP's statement that "especially when said innovation is often possible only because of extensive public investment in research, supply chain stability, etc.".

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

#483

Post by throwawaygh »

hello_moto wrote: post #465
throwawaygh wrote: post #409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Personally, I dislike IKEA for registering as a non-profit, when they're very clearly not. They're clearly not a charity. But there are TONS of tax-sheltered businesses that aren't charities. To me, it's morally equivalent to eg churches that use tax-free money to buy and operate super nice concert venues. Or any other non-profit that uses pre-tax money to pay salaries. IMO, Ikea > Churches. > or talk to anyone who…

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 by churches should be taxes.

TBH though, it's not 1800. we should stop (not) taxing based on institution type and start (not) taxing based on where the dollars are going. This would solve lots of problems in the non-profit world (including IKEA and churches).

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

#484

Post by kaybe »

enriquto wrote: post #189
TeMPOraL wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that it's useless for sequestering carbon that's already in air, that we sourced from deep underground.

Yes, the obvious step would be to stop burning fossil carbon, it seems like a much more pressing issue than sequestering the one that is already in the atmosphere.

By now we need to do both, there is already too much carbon in the atmosphere. If you look at the IPCC projections, 1.5°C is only achievable with carbon capture of some sorts [0] (if at all). Research and development for this has to be pushed yesterday.

Though word is in the air that the previous assessments might have been very optimistic.. although that will probably only be discussed in 2022 when the 6th assessment report is to be published. Which presses the issue only further.

[0] https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/02/SPM3...

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

#485

Post by kbenson »

pegasus wrote: post #459
Fezzik wrote: post #448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People don’t like thinking this way... it’s difficult for a lot of people to grasp, for example, that if they have children and claim those children as a deduction they are thereby avoiding federal income taxes. Individuals avail themselves of the parts of the tax code that benefit them just like Big Corps do. You are not required to claim offspring as a deduction, so I guess by the logic of many people in this threa…

I most people wouldn't your example tax avoidance. That deduction is meant for that particular situation and claiming it is to be expected. Exploiting some complicated loop-hole is something else entirely. That's what most people would label as tax avoidance.

You are making a distinction that doesn't exist. What you might consider a complicated loophole might be what every company with a CPA considers standard practice. Just because it's not obvious to a layman doesn't mean it's not the obvious standard operating procedure for corporate taxes. They are both "avoidance" in the same way, which is taking advantage of specific provisions that benefit that tax paying entity.

It's the same with the mortgage interest deduction. You avoid some level of taxes as a homeowner by deducting your mortgage interest. Until you have a house and need to do so, it may seem like some weird loop-hole in the taxes, and when you have a house and use it, it's just something you do every year.

Don't expect a multi-national company worth hundreds of millions or billions to view the tax system as being as opaque and complicated as it seems to an individual. Their situation is vastly more complicated than an individuals, and their capability to navigate the tax system is vastly higher as well with multiple CPAs on staff or a large firm hired, so they can take advantage of those provisions put into the system specifically for them.

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

#486

Post by koheripbal »

retSava wrote: post #235
koheripbal wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Repairing a couch is not an option unless you're skilled in re-apolstering.

Well that goes for all couches, ikea or not, doesn't it? That wasn't the question here.

...but other couches are built to last, so repair is much less commonly needed.

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

#487

Post by miguelmota »

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…

The cheap stuff is ok but the 'higher-end' of IKEA products are just not good. For example, their couches are in the hundreds of dollars range but the cushions become flat and uncomfortable after a very short period of time. Investing a little more in a non-IKEA quality couch will feel like night and day.

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

#488

Post by lotsofpulp »

goto11 wrote: post #478
lotsofpulp wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s a problem of unnecessarily complicated tax laws.

It is pretty simple that businesses have to pay more taxes than non-profits. Unethical businesses mususing this for tax evasion force legislation to create more complex laws to prevent such tricks.

>It is pretty simple that businesses have to pay more taxes than non-profits.

The simple thing would be to have every organization have the same tax rules, and then all tricks are prevented.

Once you start getting into what is and isn't for profit, and what is and isn't charity, is when things become complicated. Should megachurches where the leader flies in a private plane be taxed differently than a business? Should Scientologists get a tax break?

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

#489

Post by dj_mc_merlin »

pegasus wrote: post #456
dj_mc_merlin wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference between avoidance and evasion is very important. One of them is legal and economically encouraged, the other one is an accusation of a crime. Also, most people learn this in high school. Calling it evasion when it is avoidance only confuses people as to what you mean, and makes people think you don't know what the terms mean. > My neighbor, a self-employed painter, claiming his work truck (that he also…

The exact opposite of tax avoidance is tax evasion? I think not. Tax evasion is legally tax avoidance that has been proven to be illegal. What about tax avoidance that hasn't yet been proven so, or maybe the charge has been thrown out on a technicality, or maybe it rests on exploiting a loop-hole? To me, that might not be tax evasion legally, but surely it's tax evasion in spirit. And since we're not in the middle of…

Small misunderstanding, he gave two scenarios, one which he claims is tax avoidance, one which he claims is evasion. My "opposite" referred to him swapping which one is by definition either avoidance or evasion.

> And since we're not in the middle of some courtroom proceedings, in spirit is how we should understand these words.

Agreed that one should be charitable with their interpretations. That said, not caring (or knowing) about this important difference between the two terms is a signal that one only has a shallow understanding of these matters. What useful opinion could one hold about how companies should be taxed when one doesn't understand basic economic terms?

edit: changed you->one so as not to seem accusatory

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

#490

Post by SR2Z »

hedora wrote: post #473
eurasiantiger wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ikea definitely has tiers of quality. A $50 desk is basically cardboard, a $500 desk has some MDF around the edges to make it feel sturdier, and the $1000 desk might even have some real wood in it. The real problem with IKEA is that they use a supply chain that tends to bribe officials into cutting down old growth forests, destroying wildlife habitats.

Here’s a $100 desktop that’s solid wood: https://www.ikea.com/us/en/p/gerton-tabletop-beech-50106773/ A set of metal legs is about $30. They used to sell a solid wood desk for under $200. I have one. It lasted over 10 years, but the desktop recently warped and split. (Laptop overheated it, I think.)

Yeah, it's entirely possible to buy actually good furniture from IKEA. Even their MDF/veneered stuff will last a while if you're careful moving it.
Post reply on HN