[abcd_f]

I always assumed that IKEA being a non-profit was a tax evasion maneuver first and foremost. Even Wikipedia says that the goal of their convoluted corporate setup is to enable a "non-taxable for-profit" entity.

I don’t think that's what Infomaniak is after. Not even in the same ballpark.

[Hoasi]

Of course, there is no way that a wasteful company like IKEA, that basically sells overpriced plastics and cheap aggregates does actually benefit humanity as a nonprofit implied purpose would. The waste it creates is very substantial on many levels, not even mentioning wasting people’s time and fostering bad taste through short-lived production cycles. Transitioning to a nonprofit obviously has a lot to do with taxes evasion and maybe a little bit of communication posturing too.

[abc123abc123]

Of course. The reason IKEA was structured as it was, is to pay very little tax. Sadly this rational and admirable way of running the company has now gone out the window and the current ownership is way more woke than during the golden era. But now they are big enough to do what they want, so it doesn't really matter that much.

[4ggr0]

> woke

not sure how being directly responsible for illegal wood-cutting in eastern europe, worsening quality, higher prices, low wages and treating your employees like cattle is woke. were you bothered by them pink-washing themselves with rainbow flags?

in other words i'm always surprised about people choosing "wokeness" as criticism when there are things way more impactful and worse to actually care about.

> pay very little tax [...] rational and admirable

okay. i get the rational part, from a business perspective. still dislike that it's being done, but who am i. admirable? are you libertarian by any chance? (genuine question, i can't imagine how one can find tax evasion admirable if they're not wealthy or businessman-first-human-second themselves.)