5 ms·

Like a lot of Family-owned European companies (Ikea comes to mind as well), it's a thinly veiled employment opportunity for the heirs that does very little actu

by RC_ITR 5y ago

Like a lot of Family-owned European companies (Ikea comes to mind as well), it's a thinly veiled employment opportunity for the heirs that does very little actual charity. The family is heavily involved in board selection, & it's really just an elaborate tax scheme. Seriously, look at their 'project list,' a film award is #2! https://www.bosch-stiftung.de/en/project-search https://www.bosch-stiftung.de/en/project-search

CPLX 5y ago
Seems sort of better than the alternative though isn’t it, ie the American model where industrial companies are endlessly looted by management, investment bankers, and private equity firms via a never ending series of mergers and divestments and massive debt loads. It may not be charity, but at least it’s stable.
- rsj_hn 5y ago
  It's not an either-or question. The US has similar style tax-avoidance structures that may sponsor a little-league team or classical music concert to maintain their public image. And Europe has their own corporate raiders -- did you follow the latest drama between Porsche and VW? That failed takeover bid forced out the Porsche CEO but at least he had a $200M golden parachute.
  - realityking 5y ago
    Calling it “the latest drama” might be accurate (I don’t think there’s more recent drama) but it obscures the fact that this particular drama was resolved 12 years ago with VW buying Porsche and the Porsche shareholders becoming the largest VW shareholders.
bobsmooth 5y ago
What's wrong with supporting the arts?
- andyana 5y ago
  I don't think anything is, but it's a low level endeavor for $77b company, no? I mean, the arts are something I support, because it is something I can afford. If I had more money, Id probably want to try harder to make a difference.
  - chki 5y ago
    I mean it's one project out of 145 featured on their website. Looking at their financial statement for 2019 it's certainly a very small amount compared to other projects which include for example funding medical research.
    - andyana 5y ago
      I didn't look at the rest, but the that they would even put that just makes it more odd. It would be like me putting "voluntarily picks up litter when I go for a walk" on my list of charity activities (which doesn't exist because, if anything, I don't do enough for the world to warrant tooting my horn). That's just my opinion, though. I'm happy they are doing something rather than nothing.
    - rcMgD2BwE72F 5y ago
      And emissions-cheating devices.
  - toomanybeersies 5y ago
    But if everybody tried as hard as they could to "make a difference", then nobody would be supporting the arts.
ketzu 5y ago
I don't really see the problem with an art based cultural exchange grant. Also the other projects don't seem terrible either. Could you elaborate?
- Ericson2314 5y ago
  But that must be contasted from the value the unpaid taxes would have created.
  - scoopertrooper 5y ago
    Governments also issue similar grants.
    - lmm 5y ago
      But there's a lot more oversight (from opposition parties, media, etc.) to ensure those grants are being done fairly.
    - Ericson2314 5y ago
      I should have "democratic legitimacy". Rich institutions evading taxes to do philanthropy is form of privatization the people didn't necessarily sign up for.
      - hef19898 5y ago
        You can have both, just be the former royal ruling house of Bavaria. They managed to et a law in 1923 that tranferred most of their property into a public foundation, outside public control. Basically, they got to retain the majority of their properity without any strings attached. Law is still upheld and defended by Bavarian parliament. Heck, they even have the right to live in parts of all the famous Bavarian castles. Also, this foundation is owning 12,000 ha of forest. All of that in addition to the stuff they privately own.
        Ericson2314 5y ago
chki 5y ago
> it's a thinly veiled employment opportunity for the heirs that does very little actual charity I'm looking at their financial report for the year 2019 and that's just not true. They are a very complex organization and simply looking at one film award project and calling the whole thing a scam is very wrong and frankly lazy.
- RC_ITR 5y ago
  A charity that is receiving $300mn+ a year in untaxed dividends spends $125mn of that on: Personnel and other operating expenses attributable to administration + Financial expenses, depreciation and amortization, and changes in provisions and you're just cool with that?
chaostheory 5y ago
> Like a lot of Family-owned European companies (Ikea comes to mind as well), it's a thinly veiled employment opportunity for the heirs that does very little actual charity. The family is heavily involved in board selection, & it's really just an elaborate tax scheme. I wonder if the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has the same criticisms?
- Quarrel 5y ago
  No, because they're explicitly giving away all their funds, not passing it on to the next generation, nor leaving it in a permanent trust.
tengbretson 5y ago
If you're the founder of a transformative company maybe funding a couple generations of your family's fun projects is a good deal.
- vlovich123 5y ago
  Why?
  - gscott 5y ago
    So your great-great-great grandchildren don't have to work at McDonald's. Most people never think about leaving a backstop for more then one generation or they let the Government take so much in taxes at death it all has to be sold. Great for the government but bad for future generations of your family who don't have the financial means to quit a job to try a startup because they have to make rent and run on a mouse-wheel all of their life to stay one step ahead of the next bill.
    - RC_ITR 5y ago
      Yeah, but you don’t think that this just perpetuates economic injustices from past generations? Like I’m sure all the black business owners in Tulsa would have loved to do the same for their grandchildren, but were systematically denied that opportunity. Why should we go so far out of our way to support the will of certain dead people but not all of them?
      - gscott 5y ago
        Yes in the Tulsa case if the original owner died then there would be taxes on everything. Either the heir would pony up the money to the government (maybe by getting a loan which would be impossible due to racism). Chances are the heir would have to sell. With the right structuring there would be a generation of black people in Tulsa who would be able to afford college and other things. (of course it was burned by whites but if it wasn't). We need generational wealth in the country. For people who are in top .01% they should have a wealth tax but for those in the top 1% and below they should be able to make sure future generations can have a chance to be successful.

by RC_ITR 5y ago

CPLX 5y ago

Seems sort of better than the alternative though isn’t it, ie the American model where industrial companies are endlessly looted by management, investment bankers, and private equity firms via a never ending series of mergers and divestments and massive debt loads. It may not be charity, but at least it’s stable.

rsj_hn 5y ago
It's not an either-or question. The US has similar style tax-avoidance structures that may sponsor a little-league team or classical music concert to maintain their public image. And Europe has their own corporate raiders -- did you follow the latest drama between Porsche and VW? That failed takeover bid forced out the Porsche CEO but at least he had a $200M golden parachute.
- realityking 5y ago
  Calling it “the latest drama” might be accurate (I don’t think there’s more recent drama) but it obscures the fact that this particular drama was resolved 12 years ago with VW buying Porsche and the Porsche shareholders becoming the largest VW shareholders.

bobsmooth 5y ago

What's wrong with supporting the arts?

andyana 5y ago
I don't think anything is, but it's a low level endeavor for $77b company, no? I mean, the arts are something I support, because it is something I can afford. If I had more money, Id probably want to try harder to make a difference.
- chki 5y ago
  I mean it's one project out of 145 featured on their website. Looking at their financial statement for 2019 it's certainly a very small amount compared to other projects which include for example funding medical research.
  - andyana 5y ago
    I didn't look at the rest, but the that they would even put that just makes it more odd. It would be like me putting "voluntarily picks up litter when I go for a walk" on my list of charity activities (which doesn't exist because, if anything, I don't do enough for the world to warrant tooting my horn). That's just my opinion, though. I'm happy they are doing something rather than nothing.
  - rcMgD2BwE72F 5y ago
    And emissions-cheating devices.
- toomanybeersies 5y ago
  But if everybody tried as hard as they could to "make a difference", then nobody would be supporting the arts.

ketzu 5y ago

I don't really see the problem with an art based cultural exchange grant. Also the other projects don't seem terrible either. Could you elaborate?

Ericson2314 5y ago
But that must be contasted from the value the unpaid taxes would have created.
- scoopertrooper 5y ago
  Governments also issue similar grants.
  - lmm 5y ago
    But there's a lot more oversight (from opposition parties, media, etc.) to ensure those grants are being done fairly.
  - Ericson2314 5y ago
    I should have "democratic legitimacy". Rich institutions evading taxes to do philanthropy is form of privatization the people didn't necessarily sign up for.
    - hef19898 5y ago
      You can have both, just be the former royal ruling house of Bavaria. They managed to et a law in 1923 that tranferred most of their property into a public foundation, outside public control. Basically, they got to retain the majority of their properity without any strings attached. Law is still upheld and defended by Bavarian parliament. Heck, they even have the right to live in parts of all the famous Bavarian castles. Also, this foundation is owning 12,000 ha of forest. All of that in addition to the stuff they privately own.
      - Ericson2314 5y ago

chki 5y ago

> it's a thinly veiled employment opportunity for the heirs that does very little actual charity I'm looking at their financial report for the year 2019 and that's just not true. They are a very complex organization and simply looking at one film award project and calling the whole thing a scam is very wrong and frankly lazy.

RC_ITR 5y ago
A charity that is receiving $300mn+ a year in untaxed dividends spends $125mn of that on: Personnel and other operating expenses attributable to administration + Financial expenses, depreciation and amortization, and changes in provisions and you're just cool with that?

chaostheory 5y ago

> Like a lot of Family-owned European companies (Ikea comes to mind as well), it's a thinly veiled employment opportunity for the heirs that does very little actual charity. The family is heavily involved in board selection, & it's really just an elaborate tax scheme. I wonder if the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has the same criticisms?

Quarrel 5y ago
No, because they're explicitly giving away all their funds, not passing it on to the next generation, nor leaving it in a permanent trust.

tengbretson 5y ago

If you're the founder of a transformative company maybe funding a couple generations of your family's fun projects is a good deal.

vlovich123 5y ago
Why?
- gscott 5y ago
  So your great-great-great grandchildren don't have to work at McDonald's. Most people never think about leaving a backstop for more then one generation or they let the Government take so much in taxes at death it all has to be sold. Great for the government but bad for future generations of your family who don't have the financial means to quit a job to try a startup because they have to make rent and run on a mouse-wheel all of their life to stay one step ahead of the next bill.
  - RC_ITR 5y ago
    Yeah, but you don’t think that this just perpetuates economic injustices from past generations? Like I’m sure all the black business owners in Tulsa would have loved to do the same for their grandchildren, but were systematically denied that opportunity. Why should we go so far out of our way to support the will of certain dead people but not all of them?
    - gscott 5y ago
      Yes in the Tulsa case if the original owner died then there would be taxes on everything. Either the heir would pony up the money to the government (maybe by getting a loan which would be impossible due to racism). Chances are the heir would have to sell. With the right structuring there would be a generation of black people in Tulsa who would be able to afford college and other things. (of course it was burned by whites but if it wasn't). We need generational wealth in the country. For people who are in top .01% they should have a wealth tax but for those in the top 1% and below they should be able to make sure future generations can have a chance to be successful.