[ebaysucks]

Love it. Makes my furniture cheaper.

The only thing unethical about it is that these tax avoidance schemes have inherit economies of scale - startups can't afford the advice.

The solution is not to eliminate the tax paradises (which would cause a revolution btw), but to eliminate the tax code altogether.

If your ideology insists on coercion than at least make it a flat rate.

Edit: I get accused of supporting corporatism below. I don't. I just support anyone to avoid taxes as much as possible and oppose all forms of collectivism.

[gojomo]

Makes your furniture cheaper... and your taxes higher.

Helps big companies and the politically-connected... hurts upstarts and people who focus on business not politicking.

Makes people angry at tax distortions, not taxes themselves.

So this sort of gaming doesn't advance your hopes at all.

You'll have better luck with fair, broadly-based taxes, and structural protections against constant tinkering with both the progressivity and exceptions. Then we could have a rational discussion about the overall level of taxation, or possible replacements for taxation, without the distracting class-warfare and favor-trading sideshows that dominate tax policy in conventional shallow politics.

[va_coder]

"Helps big companies and the politically-connected"

exactly

Q: Why can't I set up my family's income as a charity? I'll give away 1% of earnings.

A: Because I can't afford lawyers, politicians and accountants to protect me when the government threatens to put me in jail.

[ebaysucks]

Please consider public choice theory.

Government won't lower taxes on the middle class if they find a way to tax the rich. They'd just increase taxes on the rich and keep on taxing the middle class as before.

Tax levels are just a product of a) how much there is to take and b) how tax inelastic the subject is.

[stinkytaco]

Public choice theory assumes that Ikea will act in a way that benefits it as an organization (and its shareholders) and fuck the rest of you. Public choice theory essentially states that everyone is a self interested actor, the difference is that I have some control over those actors if they are elected officials, and none if they are a private company. Can I vote with my wallet? Sure, but be honest with me here, how much power does that actually give you? If a chemical company is dumping waste how do I stop doing business with everyone who does business with that company?

We can't, we don't have the information or the power. Instead we elect officials that do have the information and give them the power. This applies to all situations in which I simply don't have the perspective to make the decision, including taxes. Do I think the tax system is screwed up? Sure. Do I think that eliminating it will fix the problem? Nope, but hopefully I can elect people who will fix the problem.

I don't get how people want to put more power in the hands of private organizations instead of one they at least ostensibly control.

[ebaysucks]

Government is an industry with extremely high barriers to entry (want to start a country? Win a war first) and customer lock in (don't like this country? have to leave your entire life behind).

In other words, your argument is that a monopoly in a certain service, given the power to force customers into what it wants at the price it wants, will care more about you than a private entrepreneur just because they have to keep elections once every 4 years...

The reality is that elections are just forward actions of future loot, where politicians buy votes by promising goodies to certain people at the expense of others. Laws that benefit a special interest in a huge way but cost every tax payer a dollar or 2 always pass. Democracy is divide and conquer on steroids.

You also give an example of a negative externality. That's what courts are for. All the law principles that help solve externalities efficiently (habeus corpus, compensating the victim instead of the state) were the result of free competition in common law merchant courts. Again, if the government cares so much about you, why is the murderer of your family member now doing cheap labor in prison for the state rather than for you to compensate the loss?

You know, I wish life were as easy as just coming alltogether, wishing for a better life and giving a TED talk about it. It just isn't. You need to stop looking at intentions and start looking at incentives.

[stinkytaco]

There's so much wrong with this argument I can't even think where to start. Democracy is not perfect because it's made up of people, but a system that gives people control is the best system. The democratic government in the US gives, among other things, critical access to information and regulation of self interested actors. It's the checks and balances that are important. Elected and non-elected officials, civil servants and private actors. Even if I bought your argument that the government is just some self interested autonomous agent (which I do not), we still have control, and most important information about it. That information gives us power.

A private entity does not answer to the public, not truly if there is no information. If they act in way that is unethical or undesirable, they simply hide it from the public. With no reliable information flow (forget for a moment the Internet would not exist in your governmentless world), there is no way of controlling these entities. It sounds peculiarly like feudalism.

No. The system is not perfect, but it is a system we control. It's a system that enables information exchange, money, regulation and the equitable standard of living that has ever existed in the history of the world. Not too bad.

[anamax]

> Nope, but hopefully I can elect people who will fix the problem.

How is that working out for you? Or rather, when has it worked?

[stinkytaco]

Considering the state of the US versus most of the world, my standard of living and my freedom to make these comments, pretty fucking good.

[cturner]

    Makes your furniture cheaper... and your taxes higher.

You can't produce evidence to support that. An entirely reasonable idea: the increased economic activity generated by Ikea success and happy, employed staff and nice affordable furniture more than offsets the tax revenue that would have been collected.

The flexibility that success stories have to move around and chase better taxation rates makes taxation lower for the rest of us. The barbarians in the capital know that if they make conditions too unnice, the successful people will up and leave. The rest of us are free-loaders on the desire of countries to attract those groups.

If Sweden or Europe changed things to crack down on Ikea, they could move plenty of their operation to Singapore.

    You'll have better luck with fair, broadly-based taxes

By fair, do you mean something like the same rule for everyone? Anything broader than that will move into the sort of cajoling you dislike.

[gaius]

An entirely reasonable idea: the increased economic activity generated by Ikea success

But it doesn't work like that. We, as a society, don't let individuals or organizations decide what's best. We vote in a government who (in theory) decide the rules that apply to everyone, then they tax and spend accordingly.

I know it doesn't work like that, which is why you get situations like this (or like Bono campaigning for higher government spending, while squirreling his own money away where it can't be taxed). Hell, I reckon that a better use of my taxes would be supporting the luxury goods industry which is suffering during the recession, but I don't get to cancel my income tax and spend it on champagne and caviar instead...

[ErrantX]

I'm honestly not sure it makes furniture cheaper, either.

Here in the UK at least I found IKEA to be about 10-15% more expensive to local furniture stores. And about on par (about 2-5% more expensive) with national chains.

I'm in the process of kitting out my new house and, to take an example of a book case; this is the sort of think I am after: http://www.ikea.com/gb/en/catalog/products/S99823013

- IKEA: £160

- Homebase: (2 or 3 units together to make that design) £140

- Local Furniture Store: £130 - £150

- Second Hand: £100 ish

- Self Build: about £85 plus my labour (plus; leaps and bounds better quality)

Off topic note; it's currently half built :D because it's a no brainer really to have built it myself once I sorted out the costings. Highly recommend building custom furniture if you have a bit of practical skill - next up is a decent desk (cost of £200 down to under £100 with self build)

[loewenskind]

I don't find IKEA cheap at all. If you get their cheap offerings (where the so called "savings" are) it's garbage that will barely last a year. If you get something decent it costs at least as much as any other store or more.

[fshaun]

Could you elaborate on the fixed costs of the self-build option? I'm curious what tools and experience you have. If I tried to build that I imagine I'd end up paying more in medical bills from banging my head in frustration. It does sound fun though.

[ErrantX]

I'd be pleased to!

So, basic requirements for a bookshelf are:

- Decent power drill/screwdriver (the battery type)

- Tenon Saw (the sort that is fixed with a metal bar to the top for straight cuts)

- Set square

Upfront you're looking at £40-£55, probably, for adequate tools. However I consider it reasonable that anyone practically minded will have some of these anyway (I bought myself a set when I bought my house last year and they have already proved their worth :)).

The main part of the project is careful design, figuring out the exact dimensions of the pieces you need (sketchup is good for this, or graph paper). Then you can go to the nearest hardware store (I live in a medium sized town and we have at least 5 places I can go to) who will provide the wood cut to length for you.

The only real sawing you need to do is fiddly bits - for example I have to fit mine around skirting board at one point, so need a notch.

In terms of construction, that's fair easy. Wood is really forgiving to work with as long as you are sensible about it :) my design is very simple. I have a piece of wood for the base, with the sides going up to the roof - they are secured top and bottom for rigidity. On both sides I have batons secured horizontally at the intervals I want my shelves, then each shelf just sits on that.

If you get nice thick wood (18mm or more) and don't make the shelf length too long (i.e. about about 80cm) that will work great!

Pre-drill holes first - make sure you use a wood bit substantially smaller than your screw - and make sure you have decent wood screws of the right length.

Bookshelves are pretty simple once you have pieces of wood the right length. Cutting yourself will make it harder, but not impossible :)

EDIT: everything is 90 degree angles, which simplifies things a lot. I'm currently working on a plan for my desk which involves Z shaped legs :) cutting the angles on that will be fun!

Making furniture is wildly rewarding; particularly for me as my dad is pretty practical in terms of DIY so it's some common ground for us!

[jasonlotito]

Are all those examples of "flat-pack furniture"? Self build is the cost plus labor plus the cost of the material to build, etc.

Simply looking at the final product and comparing the price ignores a lot of what makes IKEA what it is, and what they provide.

[ErrantX]

Well true, but the end result is the same. First two (IKEA & Homebase) are flatpack. The local shop & second hand are pre-assembled (the second hand is real wood construction so was never flat pack), but it makes little difference.

Self build, sure, there is a labour "cost" - but you're looking at a couple of weekends max construction, so if you have the interest it's no biggie :) I only included it because I thought it would be interesting to encourage people to consider it as an option.

[jasonlotito]

What I mean is pricing isn't always the same on the pure product for an individual. Not everyone can load up a huge dresser into the trunk of their mini and get it to their flat. And if those places have delivery charges... =)

IKEA was founded on solving that exact problem.

That being said, I wish I had the room to do my own wood work. One day, one day. =)

[ErrantX]

Fair point. FWIW none of those places charge delivery in this case.

You are right; IKEA sell cheap. And they also sell convenience - and market economics means that cheaply convenient is more expensive than cheaply awkward.

[guelo]

Also makes your taxes higher.

[xtho]

I generally enjoy reading hn but such right wing ideologies make me feel sick in the stomach.

Please take into account when making such statements the US (or whereever you live) is not the world. And just because you got brainwashed after decades of conservative government doesn't mean the rest of the world is. But the rest of the world also participates in this community.

[endtime]

I generally enjoy reading HN, but reddit-style thought-policing like this makes me sick to my stomach.

The guy's not a rapist or a neo-Nazi, he's just not a socialist. Get over yourself.

[davidw]

This whole thread is EXHIBIT A of why there should be no politics here.

[hugh3]

And the fact that this comment was modded up to eight "Waaaaah, your ideology makes me sick" is a sign that things have gone way off the rails.

I'm gonna set my noprocrast to 87000 minutes now and come back in two months.

[davidw]

People's ideologies do make other people angry though. Which is why they should be aired on other sites.

[nika]

IS that the fault of the minority who thinks different and then angers the majority?

Or is that he fault of the majority who is so sensitive it cannot tolerate a minority that doesn't agree absolutely completely?

[endtime]

In case it's not apparent from my comment, I agree 100%.

[ugh]

This is pure semantics but are you really comfortable calling anyone who doesn’t want a flat tax a socialist? Someone who doesn’t want a flat tax could have voted for any party in my country.

[endtime]

I was being a little facetious, yes, but if someone to be actually sickened by ebaysuck's position then that constrains my prediction of his beliefs a little more than just not wanting a flat tax for e.g. practical reasons. In other words, I don't think just anyone who doesn't want a flat tax would say what xtho said.

[ebaysucks]

I'm an anarcho-capitalist i.e. I've never seen proof for objective morality of any sort (including democracy) hence I support free markets to make the rules of society by group selection and feet voting.

Just as humanity doesn't need a forced state religion to be religious, humanity doesn't need a forced tax system to be social.

Please consider this view point. Don't confuse personal ethics and political morality.

[loewenskind]

>I'm an anarcho-capitalist

Do you have any good (online) literature for your position? It seems to me that having money/bartering implies a government no matter how you slice it. I can see potential with some anarchical systems, just not primitivism or ancap.

[ebaysucks]

From the Chicago School of Economics, there is David Friedman with "The machinery of freedom". [1]

A large part of the Austrian school of economics is also ancap. A great overview of the insights today can be found in "Libertarianism today" by Jacob Huebert. [2]

[1] www.voluntaryistpunk.com/ebooks/The_Machinery_of_Freedom_.pdf [2] http://mises.org/store/Libertarianism-Today-P10394.aspx

Edit: You talked about money in a free market. For that topic I recommend "What has government done to our money?" by Murray Rothbard. [3]

[3] mises.org/books/whathasgovernmentdone.pdf

[nika]

Sigh, I think it is a damn shame that you were put to -1 for attempting to clarify. I'm happy to get you to zero.

Personally, I prefer the term "Abolitionist" to "anarcho-capitalist." I'm an abolitionist because, just like the movement of old, I endorse the abolition of slavery. Governments consider people property (the US taxes worldwide income) and believes it owns the output of said property.

[ebaysucks]

Thanks. Abolitionist is also a good word indeed. Another one might be political atheism.

The downvotes are OK though. People feel very strongly about certain ideas for society and mistake freedom for critique on the idea instead of just on the method (coercion).

For some reason parts of the world got over religious coercion. One day we'll hopefully have the same for ideological coercion.

[nika]

I'm really saddened to see that so many people have come to believe that thinking differently is wrong and should be suppressed. That coercion and violence against the innocent is the norm and that people who think that we should live free from violence and coercion are "right wing" and "brainwashed".

To tell him not to participate here because he thinks differently than you is to say that your mind is not open to new ideas and that you cannot bear to be exposed to anything that comes from a different philosophical basis than the one upon which you were raised.

Can you see how that is anti-intellectual?

[xtho]

I didn't tell him not to participate but I asked not to dump his view on other readers since this isn't a site about political or economic theory.

[meric]

How about a progressive consumption tax replacing the income tax to encourage savings? It might be impossible to implement... for now.

[zizee]

Replacing income tax with a consumption tax would see the super rich pay even less tax as they spend a smaller percentage of their income compared to those with a lower income.

[edited to fixed a typo: "the" => "they"]

[DanielBMarkham]

Replacing income tax with a consumption tax would see the super rich pay even less tax as they spend a smaller percentage of their income compared to those with a lower income.

I've heard this argument before, and this is going to sound pedantic, so I apologize, but just exactly how rich can you be if you don't spend your money on things?

Or, put a different way, the rich only (bother us/owe more/are easy targets/need to pay up) because a) they don't have to work to live, and b) they buy and own cool stuff we want.

Obviously being able to live without working is a goal for everybody, so I'm tossing that out. What I'm left with is that we identify rich people by the stuff they buy or own. Without that, you wouldn't really have rich people -- or if you had them, as far as their participation in society they would be just the same as anybody else. They'd be invisible -- both in their appearance and in their stress on the social fabric.

So if you want to sack the rich, do it by taxing the things that we identify with being rich -- buying and owning stuff. That way -- poof! -- there are instantly less rich people in the world, and you've created a stable societal goal for people to strive for which kind of boils down to "make as much money as you need to not work" which is a laudable goal for every society, I would think. Right?

Not trying to argue, just thinking out loud. I've spent some time thinking about this, and I think a consumption tax could be supported by folks no matter what their political philosophy or party. The idea is inherently less political than an income tax. Of course, we'll all get hung up on whether it should be progressive or not, but hey -- baby steps.

[yummyfajitas]

The problem is that consumption inequality is not nearly as large as income inequality. If your desire is to soak the rich, you pick the statistic which gives you the broadest base for doing so - consumption is simply not that statistic. In the US, the rich have iPhones while the poor are stuck with iClones [1].

As for why we want to soak the rich, it's clearly not (a) - most poor people work very little (by choice).

[1] Note: this is not my opinion on Android (I hate Steve Job's walled garden, and am very happy with my N1), but it is the opinion of several lower class people I know.

[philwelch]

The argument for rich people paying more tax isn't because we don't like them, it's because government is expensive and we can't afford it without rich people subsidizing everyone else.

Keep in mind that rich people also have more of a vested interest in maintaining the system, so it's not entirely unfair to them, either.

[yummyfajitas]

Rich people have a vested interest in maintaining public goods (roads, police, military), but such goods comprise a minority of the government.

Most government spending is simply taking money from some people and giving it to other people. This is explicitly not in the interests of the rich.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year2009_US.html

[philwelch]

Most government spending is simply taking money from some people and giving it to other people. This is explicitly not in the interests of the rich.

This is categorically untrue. Social welfare and wealth redistribution, from the perspective of the rich, are a concession to the poorer classes in the interest of pacifying them and preventing a violent leftist uprising. Of course, this has to be done through the government rather than voluntarily because, for game-theoretic reasons, it can't be done voluntarily.

[notahacker]

Sure, but the 20%[1] of government spending that actually is explicitly in their interests is so fundamental to most rich people's ability to accumulate and enjoy their fortunes. The 80% of the rest of the spending is an acceptable price to pay if you consider it to be explicitly in their interest that the government is not subject to the capricious behaviour of the unaccountable ruler too. Today's government systems weren't designed by the poor.

[1]Pareto-inspired made-up-statistic

[meric]

What it means is... The first $5000 of consumption will be tax free, the next $10000 at 5%, and the next yet at 15%, etc.

So, the super rich would indeed pay a smaller percentage of their income, only if they spend the same as an ordinary consumer, but they would pay much more tax (e.g. 60% after 1 million) if they spend everything they earn.

This would encourage them not to swap pieces of paper for real goods. It would make them have more money in the bank but less million dollar cars and yachts. The productivity saved from not producing those non-producing consumer goods can be used, e.g., on farming, so that food becomes cheaper for the general populace.

[zizee]

I'm not sure how shutting down Porsche factories is going to make food cheaper? In western countries only a few percentage of people are in the business of producing food. By moving workers from building yachts into food production will not make food production cheaper.

This plan would see the rich hording money, rather than spending it on luxuries. The kind of luxuries that are produced by western economies. When the rich spend their money on frivolous luxuries, it helps redistribute their wealth to the workers producing those luxuries.

[meric]

http://www.paulgraham.com/wealth.html

To take an example to the extreme, it would be wasteful if Warren Buffet hired 10,000 painters to paint a portrait of himself everyday. The GDP would go up, but it wastes effort, effort that can be allocated more efficiently. (Using his own example here)

[thailandstartup]

I'm more a fan of an impossible-to-implement wealth tax instead. That would be fairer.

[alexg0]

It exists in most countries, in a form of estate or death tax. Also has same problem, as it forces people subject to it, to spend on accountants and lawyers to minimize it.

[lukesandberg]

You could argue that it makes your furniture cheaper, but isn't it more likely that the additional profit that IKEA accrues due to this complicated scheme is 1. siphoned directly to a small number of individuals 2. divided amongst the shareholders or 3. simply wasted on the tons of accountants and lawyers that it probably takes to keep this system running.

Even if its not the case (at least not entirely) then you can still argue that the fact that IKEA is doing this is anti-competitive, which is surely against your ideology of anti-collectivism because it distorts natural market forces.

Even someone adamantly in the Chicago school of economics would be against a scheme like this because it implies that IKEA is effectively able to compete under markedly different market conditions than its competitors.