10 ms·

> I never understood why people hate IKEA. Did you read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IKEA#Criticisms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IKEA#Criticisms ? There see

by hiq 6y ago

> I never understood why people hate IKEA. Did you read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IKEA#Criticisms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IKEA#Criticisms ? There seems to be many reasons to dislike the company, even as a happy customer. One thing that stuck with me is this: "The IKEA group has a complex corporate structure, which members of the European Parliament have alleged was designed to avoid over €1 billion in tax payments over the 2009–2014 period." It seems easy to sell cheaper if you just pay less taxes. I'm not hating IKEA, but it's obviously not black or white.

lotsofpulp 6y ago
That’s a problem of unnecessarily complicated tax laws.
- reimertz 6y ago
  Agreed! Complexity introduces bugs and here that means loop holes.
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  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.
  - johnp314 6y ago
    '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 ethical for this practice.
    - Jochim 6y ago
      This is the same kind of mental gymnastics that gave us trickle down economics. The societal ethics, morality and the spirit of the law should all be taken into account when judging behaviour. Exploiting tax structures in order to conceal income is absolutely immoral and shouldn't be tolerated. This is especially egregious when the tax loopholes are effectively gated behind behing a multi-national corporation. It leads to even greater concentrations of wealth in the hands of these companies which damages the health of the local markets they operate in.
      - omgwtfbyobbq 6y ago
        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.
        Jochim 6y ago
        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. Smaller firms are also much more likely to be slapped down by the government. The result of this is that larger corporations are further advantaged. I think attempting to equate personal and corporate taxation is a mistake. Corporations are increasingly transnational in a way that people cannot be, and they are leveraging not just local tax codes, but often established treaties and differences between national tax codes that were introduced with different intent.
        lotsofpulp 6y ago
        >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.
    - saalweachter 6y ago
      > 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?
  - lotsofpulp 6y ago
    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 legislators that will make the loopholes illegal.
    - ashtonkem 6y ago
      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 very complicated subject not conducive to generic discussion. But I am extremely certain that “we configured our multi-billion dollar international furniture business as a non-profit” is certainly well on the wrong side of the line. We can discuss other scenarios in their appropriate context, but the existence of other grey areas does not excuse the unethical behavior of IKEA here. I do wish legislators would get their <explicative deleted> together and fix the tax code so that IKEA will pay their fair share, but condemning them for their behavior is a necessary prerequisite to that change actually happening. One can’t chastise other citizens for complaining about unethical behavior and suggest that instead someone else should change the law, that makes literally no sense. I have no direct capability to change the law, and it’s incoherent of you to tell me to stop complaining about it until the law is changed.
      - lotsofpulp 6y ago
        >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.
  - pvarangot 6y ago
    There's simply no other furniture retailer the size of IKEA, by far. So we actually don't have anyone else to compare to. Someone defending IKEA could argue that if companies like Walmart of Target, which I think are the closest competitors to IKEA, were in the same position they would do even more nefarious tax evasion. It's a "lesser evil" argument but it does ring kind of true.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- franga2000 6y ago
  The problem is the fact that they are willing to do shady things like that to avoid taxes. The fact that they're allowed to do that is a bug in the law, yes, but doesn't take any of their blame away.
- goto11 6y ago
  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.
  - lotsofpulp 6y ago
    >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?
- stkdump 6y ago
  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.
  - dahfizz 6y ago
    > 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"
    - stkdump 6y ago
      No, it is not about one persons code, which was exactly my point.
- melenaboija 6y ago
  That's a problem of companies trying to avoid paying taxes. Something that worker class can't do or solve.
- hrktb 6y ago
  The "don't hate the player hate the game" approach only works if the player has no influence on the game. Corporations and politics are not two separate entity that act independently.
sneak 6y ago
I'm not sure how "complies precisely with the tax law as it exists" is a point against anyone. Surely if you believe the state is entitled to levy taxes, then you wish for people to obey the laws they put in place dictating them, do you not? This idea "people should be paying what we want, not what we specifically legislated" is insane to me. If people aren't to comply with the law as written, what should they be doing? Don't hate the player, hate the game.
- opencl 6y ago
  There's been an ongoing investigation of IKEA by the EU Commission for the past several years because they believe IKEA is not complying precisely with the tax law as it exists. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-ikea-ab-taxavoidance-exclusive/ikea-to-face-eu-order-to-pay-dutch-back-taxes-sources-idUSKBN1WM0PP https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-ikea-ab-taxavoidance-e... https://www.tax-news.com/news/EU_Expands_Investigation_Into_Dutch_Taxation_Of_IKEA____97672.html https://www.tax-news.com/news/EU_Expands_Investigation_Into_...
  - yreg 6y ago
    Were they convicted of any wrongdoing?
- netrus 6y ago
  Easy example: Some entities are exempt from taxes, because they are not there to enrich individuals, but to profit a higher cause. Like Amnesty International. I think it is great that we exempt AI from paying taxes. Now it might be very difficult to write legislation that precisely encodes the difference between AI and McDonalds. After all, McDonalds funds children hospitals! If McDonalds tries to avoid taxes by trying to look like a NGO, the LEAST we can to is to be outraged and punish them as customers - because the only solution for the legislator might be to make AI pay taxes as well. As a soccer player, it might be a good move to fall to the ground when the ref cannot see you. But you are an asshole if you do it. The rules of the game are fine, the player is an asshole. Maybe you should consider the hate of the public just as part of the game these companies are trying to play?
yohannparis 6y ago
This is an issue caused by the European Parliament. I'm sure if they want to stop this behaviour they could write some laws.
- chopin 6y ago
  Afaik they can't. The European Commission can. Which is not elected.
  - yohannparis 6y ago
    True, thanks for mentioning my mistake. They are not elected but we can still write to our MEP and National government to demand that things changes.
- bjourne 6y ago
  Taxation is handled by the member states, not EU. This means that many states act as the lowest bidder (e.g Ireland) to attract foreign companies.
agarden 6y ago
If they are using the money saved on taxes to sell their products cheaper, then it is not themselves (only) that they are enriching thereby, but (also) you and I and everyone else who buys IKEA products. The consumers end up being the ones paying less money into governmental coffers.
- rocqua 6y ago
  It is unfair to competitors who do pay taxes. Besides, it still leaves governments unfunded.
  - dhdhhdd 6y ago
    Simplify tax code? It's a bit ridiculous that a full tax return of an individual can be 40+ pages
- rvense 6y ago
  Not sure where you're from, but round here taxes are used for the infrastructure that private business need to have a market - schools, roads, health care and sometimes even direct investments in private businesses. The two start-ups I've been working for in the past have been helped off the ground by both government and EU money. If Ikea are using elaborate company structures to pay less tax than other furniture stores, they are stealing from the societies that enable them to thrive. Especially if they are using that advantage to depress prices.
thimkerbell 6y ago
No bicycle parking, at the store I visit.

by hiq 6y ago

lotsofpulp 6y ago

That’s a problem of unnecessarily complicated tax laws.

reimertz 6y ago
Agreed! Complexity introduces bugs and here that means loop holes.
ashtonkem 6y ago
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.
- johnp314 6y ago
  '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 ethical for this practice.
  - Jochim 6y ago
    This is the same kind of mental gymnastics that gave us trickle down economics. The societal ethics, morality and the spirit of the law should all be taken into account when judging behaviour. Exploiting tax structures in order to conceal income is absolutely immoral and shouldn't be tolerated. This is especially egregious when the tax loopholes are effectively gated behind behing a multi-national corporation. It leads to even greater concentrations of wealth in the hands of these companies which damages the health of the local markets they operate in.
    - omgwtfbyobbq 6y ago
      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.
      - Jochim 6y ago
        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. Smaller firms are also much more likely to be slapped down by the government. The result of this is that larger corporations are further advantaged. I think attempting to equate personal and corporate taxation is a mistake. Corporations are increasingly transnational in a way that people cannot be, and they are leveraging not just local tax codes, but often established treaties and differences between national tax codes that were introduced with different intent.
        lotsofpulp 6y ago
        >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.
  - saalweachter 6y ago
    > 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?
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  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 legislators that will make the loopholes illegal.
  - ashtonkem 6y ago
    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 very complicated subject not conducive to generic discussion. But I am extremely certain that “we configured our multi-billion dollar international furniture business as a non-profit” is certainly well on the wrong side of the line. We can discuss other scenarios in their appropriate context, but the existence of other grey areas does not excuse the unethical behavior of IKEA here. I do wish legislators would get their <explicative deleted> together and fix the tax code so that IKEA will pay their fair share, but condemning them for their behavior is a necessary prerequisite to that change actually happening. One can’t chastise other citizens for complaining about unethical behavior and suggest that instead someone else should change the law, that makes literally no sense. I have no direct capability to change the law, and it’s incoherent of you to tell me to stop complaining about it until the law is changed.
    - lotsofpulp 6y ago
      >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.
- pvarangot 6y ago
  There's simply no other furniture retailer the size of IKEA, by far. So we actually don't have anyone else to compare to. Someone defending IKEA could argue that if companies like Walmart of Target, which I think are the closest competitors to IKEA, were in the same position they would do even more nefarious tax evasion. It's a "lesser evil" argument but it does ring kind of true.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
franga2000 6y ago
The problem is the fact that they are willing to do shady things like that to avoid taxes. The fact that they're allowed to do that is a bug in the law, yes, but doesn't take any of their blame away.
goto11 6y ago
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.
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  >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?
stkdump 6y ago
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.
- dahfizz 6y ago
  > 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"
  - stkdump 6y ago
    No, it is not about one persons code, which was exactly my point.
melenaboija 6y ago
That's a problem of companies trying to avoid paying taxes. Something that worker class can't do or solve.
hrktb 6y ago
The "don't hate the player hate the game" approach only works if the player has no influence on the game. Corporations and politics are not two separate entity that act independently.

sneak 6y ago

I'm not sure how "complies precisely with the tax law as it exists" is a point against anyone. Surely if you believe the state is entitled to levy taxes, then you wish for people to obey the laws they put in place dictating them, do you not? This idea "people should be paying what we want, not what we specifically legislated" is insane to me. If people aren't to comply with the law as written, what should they be doing? Don't hate the player, hate the game.

opencl 6y ago
There's been an ongoing investigation of IKEA by the EU Commission for the past several years because they believe IKEA is not complying precisely with the tax law as it exists. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-ikea-ab-taxavoidance-exclusive/ikea-to-face-eu-order-to-pay-dutch-back-taxes-sources-idUSKBN1WM0PP https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-ikea-ab-taxavoidance-e... https://www.tax-news.com/news/EU_Expands_Investigation_Into_Dutch_Taxation_Of_IKEA____97672.html https://www.tax-news.com/news/EU_Expands_Investigation_Into_...
- yreg 6y ago
  Were they convicted of any wrongdoing?
netrus 6y ago
Easy example: Some entities are exempt from taxes, because they are not there to enrich individuals, but to profit a higher cause. Like Amnesty International. I think it is great that we exempt AI from paying taxes. Now it might be very difficult to write legislation that precisely encodes the difference between AI and McDonalds. After all, McDonalds funds children hospitals! If McDonalds tries to avoid taxes by trying to look like a NGO, the LEAST we can to is to be outraged and punish them as customers - because the only solution for the legislator might be to make AI pay taxes as well. As a soccer player, it might be a good move to fall to the ground when the ref cannot see you. But you are an asshole if you do it. The rules of the game are fine, the player is an asshole. Maybe you should consider the hate of the public just as part of the game these companies are trying to play?

yohannparis 6y ago

This is an issue caused by the European Parliament. I'm sure if they want to stop this behaviour they could write some laws.

chopin 6y ago
Afaik they can't. The European Commission can. Which is not elected.
- yohannparis 6y ago
  True, thanks for mentioning my mistake. They are not elected but we can still write to our MEP and National government to demand that things changes.
bjourne 6y ago
Taxation is handled by the member states, not EU. This means that many states act as the lowest bidder (e.g Ireland) to attract foreign companies.

agarden 6y ago

If they are using the money saved on taxes to sell their products cheaper, then it is not themselves (only) that they are enriching thereby, but (also) you and I and everyone else who buys IKEA products. The consumers end up being the ones paying less money into governmental coffers.

rocqua 6y ago
It is unfair to competitors who do pay taxes. Besides, it still leaves governments unfunded.
- dhdhhdd 6y ago
  Simplify tax code? It's a bit ridiculous that a full tax return of an individual can be 40+ pages
rvense 6y ago
Not sure where you're from, but round here taxes are used for the infrastructure that private business need to have a market - schools, roads, health care and sometimes even direct investments in private businesses. The two start-ups I've been working for in the past have been helped off the ground by both government and EU money. If Ikea are using elaborate company structures to pay less tax than other furniture stores, they are stealing from the societies that enable them to thrive. Especially if they are using that advantage to depress prices.

thimkerbell 6y ago

No bicycle parking, at the store I visit.