[Gud]

What's sketchy about their tax structure? Just curious what you think. I think they are pretty open about it?

The original purpose of IKEA was to foster self reliance, essentially making everyone a bit handier. IKEA brings decent quality furniture to people who otherwise wouldn't afford it. I think it's a noble goal, hence why I ask.

As I understand it, and I could be wrong, IKEA is owned by a non-profit organization called INGKA, set up in such a way to generate revenue not to a few rich people but:

"INGKA Foundation’s purpose is to further, without pursuing any profits, a better everyday life for the many people in need. We achieve this purpose by funding the IKEA Foundation, which is committed to helping children and families living in poverty afford a better everyday life while protecting the planet."

https://www.ingkafoundation.org/our-charitable-purpose/

https://www.inter.ikea.com/en/this-is-inter-ikea-group/about...

https://www.inter.ikea.com/en/-/media/InterIKEA/IGI/Financia...

Regarding them paying of Romanian secret police, I'm very interested to hear about it. I know they used east german prisoners for a time as cheap labor.

[decimalenough]

The Economist did a famous analysis of IKEA's tax structure:

https://www.economist.com/business/2006/05/11/flat-pack-acco...

TL;DR: The only beneficiaries of INGKA's charity are the owner and his family.

[Gud]

Sorry, that TL;DR is completely false.

1) the ”owner” is long dead.

2) the foundation is set up in such a way to perpetuate itself and its goal (to better mankind), forever. Not to generate wealth for Ingvar Kamprads offspring. He hardly left them penniless. His family does not control his foundations. They have a minority vote.

3) if the world’s billionaires set up their organisations in similar ways, the world would be a much better place.

You can read more here:

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/everything-earn-ikea-founder-...

Ingvar Kamprad is known to have lived a simple lifestyle, despite being one of the wealthiest men while he was still alive. While travelling he stayed at cheap hotels and drove an old Volvo. Does this strike you as a man motivated by greed?

From your article: ”That control is so tight that not even Mr Kamprad's heirs can loosen it after his death. The foundation's objects require it to “obtain and manage” shares in the Ingka Holding group. Other clauses of its articles require the foundation to manage its shareholding in a way to ensure “the continuity and growth” of the IKEA group. The shares can be sold only to another foundation with the same objects and executive committee, and the foundation can be dissolved only through insolvency.”

[decimalenough]

Quoting TFA: What emerges is an outfit that ingeniously exploits the quirks of different jurisdictions to create a charity, dedicated to a somewhat banal cause, that is not only the world's richest foundation, but is at the moment also one of its least generous. The overall set-up of IKEA minimises tax and disclosure, handsomely rewards the founding Kamprad family and makes IKEA immune to a takeover.

[Gud]

Again, mischaracterization.

1) what is banal about helping poor families?

2) The founding family is NOT handsomely rewarded.

3) unlike most charitable organizations, INGKA is set up in such a way to not rely on wealthy donors. They only use a small dividend of their massive fortune for charitable causes. This is financially responsible and is the only way to ensure longevity. Why is this a bad thing?

4) why it would be a bad thing for IKEA to be protected from a takeover, I don’t understand. Would you prefer some billionaire purchased it so they can pocket the profits themselves, instead of supporting poor families?

IKEA is one of the better workplaces. Unlike 99% of all the other corporations out there, IKEA uses their profits to help people in need, not enriching their already wealthy shareholders.