Is this one of those deals where they "sell" the company to a trust to avoid taxes and then use the organization's power to allow he and his family to effect the course of politics for generations, like the Patagonia founder did?
Given that the company has already been deeply involved in key litigation around reproductive rights in the U.S., I’d venture to guess it will be more of the same.
Is the term “abortion” completely off the table these days? I keep seeing “reproductive rights” and I’m not sure how that’s different other than the marketing. Is there something else included in that term that is inclusive of abortion?
They fought all the way to the supreme court against having to pay for the pill for their employees, so no, in this case the term "reproductive rights" is not a difference of marketing.
Good call on clarifying. To add, it's hormonal birth control for women that is also used to help with a number of other medical conditions, so it's also not solely used for contraception.
Off the top of my head, birth control. Hobby Lobby et al have tried to get a religious exemption to avoid having birth control covered by their employees' health insurance.
Abortion may be the most politically prominent among reproductive rights, but "Women's reproductive rights may include some or all of the following: abortion-rights movements; birth control; freedom from coerced sterilization and contraception; the right to access good-quality reproductive healthcare; and the right to education and access in order to make free and informed reproductive choices." (per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproductive_rights, which cites https://web.archive.org/web/20080120140923/http://www.amnest...)
Love this comment as I'm a total believer in how if you have billions and opinions ..you're gonna use your money to shape the entire world/change culture towards your opinions.
One thing I think someone's money has been used is the rise of the trans movement (awesome please be yourself and identify as who you feel best suits you).
I'm not for it but money rules the world and if you have billions to more some are gonna definitely use it to shape culture to how they see fit..nothing I'd personally do if I had billions but surely some do as you can see when jack Dorsey recently said he left twitter when an activist billionaire or investor pushed their agenda. When I read that from Dorsey who seems apolitical I was like that for me helps solidify this thought I've had for a few years that we share.
Also, the Silicon Valley Community Foundation (SVCF) is a "tax dodge now, donate later" vehicle more than a philanthropic nonprofit. Big time tax lawyers plus a gradually rigged system find the biggest tax "minimizations" possible.
> The details of how Green will give away his company are unclear, but in an interview with Fox & Friends Weekend last week, Green said that 100% of the company’s voting stock has been moved to a trust.
Legally they're both giving up possession of their companies, but in reality I suspect they will both continue to exercise control over them and receive one kind of monetary compensation or another.
Instead of a trust, if they really wanted to give it away they would create a co-op and given it to the employees and customers. But like other comments have stated, this is all for tax evation and sounding good in public when in reality they retain control of the trust that now owns the company.
I'd say a move toward a co-op would be too risky of a step for a billion-dollar company. The whole intent behind the Patagonia decision was to dethrone shareholder primacy while still maintaining some control / centralized governance.
He likely cannot give away more than $17K per employee per year without incurring gift taxes.
Rough 43K employees (in 2020 per Wikipedia) at $17K each is a maximum tax-free gift of $731M to some hypothetical co-op.
In 2022 Hobby Lobby had $7.7B in revenue suggesting that it is worth quite a bit more than $731M. The difference would be subject to gift taxes at a rate of 40% if transferred into employee hands.
He frankly could not have given it materially to the employees at once without liquidating a serious portion of his holdings to pay the gift taxes.
Though, it could be transferred as compensation and taxed at income rates. But then the employees would be dumping shares to pay the taxes.
(Someone please correct me if I am off here with my numbers/understanding.)
As with the the Chouinard / Patagonia situation, the "giving away company" line is unfortunately just another example of bad headline writing.
One really must examine the individuals making this decision + their track record before we make judgments about the merits of this choice for folks other than the family. Does Yvon's track record with Patagonia align with my values and make me trust his choice as being truly "beneficial" for the planet? Yes.
Did the Chouinard family also avoid $700 million in taxes by "giving away the company" (e.g. putting the shares in one or more trusts, like Hobby Lobby family will). Also yes. [0]
We changed the URL from https://archive.vn/efx0q. It's fine to include archive links in threads, but please don't post them to the top level—unless the original is really no longer available online.
"Please submit the original source. If a post reports on something found on another site, submit the latter."
And for the record, the taxes were far far worse at that time. People were being absolutely opressed via the taxation scheme which was utterly corrupt. And Jesus tells them to pay it.
But the rest of the quote is "....and unto God the things that are God's". Context is rather important. Jesus (reportedly) says this to avoid speaking out against the tax which would have got him in trouble with the authorities but he's also making a point about the material vs spiritual which I think has some worth even to an atheist like me.
I'm not sure why I'm making this defence of Jesus. I don't think he existed but your statement seems designed to paint Jesus as a supporter of tyranny which I don't believe follows from the quote and its context.
What his "followers" have gone on to do? Heinous, reprehensible, appalling. No question.
Not wealthy, but I have long believed that too much wealth can be a curse. Of course, some handle it well and other, I can confidently say that they probably would have had a much better life had they not had tons of money thrown in their lap. Especially those who had it given to them at a young age.
"If it floats, flies, or fornicates, better to rent it than to own it..." Felix also suggested that anything over $80m is too much trouble. A learned perspective no doubt.
"Felix" is not mentioned in the original article or anywhere else in this thread, so I had to Google who OP is talking about. Apparently it's entrepreneur Felix Dennis, founder of Dennis Publishing and publisher of Maxim, Stuff, and Blender magazines:
I normally wouldn't put much stock (lol) in the notion that "wealth is a curse" but considering our guy was busted smuggling Iraqi antiquities during the war...
It did come to a head with the case of United States of America v. Approximately Four Hundred Fifty Ancient Cuneiform Tablets and Approximately Three Thousand Ancient Clay Bullae
53 comments
[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 125 ms ] threadOne thing I think someone's money has been used is the rise of the trans movement (awesome please be yourself and identify as who you feel best suits you).
> The details of how Green will give away his company are unclear, but in an interview with Fox & Friends Weekend last week, Green said that 100% of the company’s voting stock has been moved to a trust.
Legally they're both giving up possession of their companies, but in reality I suspect they will both continue to exercise control over them and receive one kind of monetary compensation or another.
Rough 43K employees (in 2020 per Wikipedia) at $17K each is a maximum tax-free gift of $731M to some hypothetical co-op.
In 2022 Hobby Lobby had $7.7B in revenue suggesting that it is worth quite a bit more than $731M. The difference would be subject to gift taxes at a rate of 40% if transferred into employee hands.
He frankly could not have given it materially to the employees at once without liquidating a serious portion of his holdings to pay the gift taxes.
Though, it could be transferred as compensation and taxed at income rates. But then the employees would be dumping shares to pay the taxes.
(Someone please correct me if I am off here with my numbers/understanding.)
One really must examine the individuals making this decision + their track record before we make judgments about the merits of this choice for folks other than the family. Does Yvon's track record with Patagonia align with my values and make me trust his choice as being truly "beneficial" for the planet? Yes.
Did the Chouinard family also avoid $700 million in taxes by "giving away the company" (e.g. putting the shares in one or more trusts, like Hobby Lobby family will). Also yes. [0]
[0]: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-09-15/patagonia...
"Please submit the original source. If a post reports on something found on another site, submit the latter."
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I'm not sure why I'm making this defence of Jesus. I don't think he existed but your statement seems designed to paint Jesus as a supporter of tyranny which I don't believe follows from the quote and its context.
What his "followers" have gone on to do? Heinous, reprehensible, appalling. No question.
Not at all. But rather to point out that the right thing to do isn’t always obvious.
...said absolutely no one without wealth.
1. https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/9622552-if-it-flies-floats-...
It did come to a head with the case of United States of America v. Approximately Four Hundred Fifty Ancient Cuneiform Tablets and Approximately Three Thousand Ancient Clay Bullae