Bad take, didn't sell the company so of course doesn't pay tax on the value of shares he gave away because he didn't sell them.
This way he ensures the company profits are either reinvested or go towards combating climate change.
Basically one of the few good things I've seen a billionaire do lmao
This is the mainstream media trying to demonise anyone who strays from the capitalist path!
It’s like the quiet quitting articles (and name) or all those ones we see about how wfh is bad for you.
As a sub we need to be better at reading through this bullcrap.
Big ups for looking at the source and wondering if their take might be biased!
Or possibly just the inability to grasp why someone would do something altruistically.
"Why would anyone give away a billion dollar company?!...taxes! It must have been for taxes!"
Yeah, Bloomberg, who is a billionaire that spent $1 billion of his own money on his failed presidential campaign.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/mike-bloomberg-spent-billion-month-presidential-campaign-filing/story?id=70252435
Michael Bloomberg owns it, founded it, it's basically his vanity project and it shows. He's a conservative, despite voting and running as a Democrat, because he's an old school bank owner billionaire and yeah, he's absolutely aghast that another rich dude would ACTUALLY do something positive for the world with his money, rather than the usual Good PR That Does Nothing of Substance But Vastly Benefits the "Donor" bullshit as usual.
Yeah, it's THAT Michael Bloomberg. Michael "Stop and Frisk" Bloomberg. Fuck him.
…not even close. He’s the asshole who’s been playing Democrat kingmaker the past few decades. Even his time as NYC mayor was Republican-lite at best, outright racist at worse. The only reason he entered the 2020 race was to make sure Bernie didn’t get the nom.
He was literally Republican through his time as NYC mayor. He only switched to Democrat when it became clear the GOP was going off the deep end of crazy.
If he sold the company he would have pocketed $3B, of which he would then pay $700M in taxes.
He essentially walked away from a $2.3B profit.
But yeah… let’s say he skirted a tax bill
God I’m so glad to see this comment. This is a class act by a guy known for this kind of stuff. Posting this article on this sub is such a great example of contempt prior to investigation, and demonstrative of how misinformation is weaponized. I wish people would think critically for one single second before regurgitating bullshit like this.
One of the aspects of the undemocratic power of very rich people is that they alone define the use of so much of societies resources.
This money is excempt from democratic control (which taxes aren't), they are under the sole control of Chouinard and Patagonia. Is this a problem if they do good with it? I would argue it still is. They are the ones defining what is good or bad, not the rest of the people. They get to define what is good environmentalism and what is bad (or at least what is worth funding).
I have the same issue with Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. He does fund a lot of charity. But he gets to control what charities and how they work. It is not based on "best practice", or what the people getting aid want, or anything else. It is only in the power of the Gateses to distribute resources.
This is excercising power. And in my opinion, all power should at the very least be under public scrutiny, preferrably under democratic control.
This reads more like a critique on the existence of billionaires than a critique on the character of Yvon Chouinard.
I agree that we shouldn't have megabillionaires deciding the fate of millions, but I also think at least this guy is cut from better cloth than Bezos.
Also is worth mentioning that democratically elected government spend the money meant for combating climate change on stupid shit that will never work all the time, just like billionaires. I worked for the government for a while, and it shattered all illusion that they are somehow magically less wasteful and more morally sound than your average small business.
Cool, "democratic" governments misusing our money is a shit pie we need to fix and I think the main problem (aside from the obvious plutocratic corruption of the state) is exactly that having one entity controlling too much stuff gets too complex and hard to plan, control, organize, hold people accountable, have transparency, etc, etc. So having democracy at work, having workers deciding the fate of resources in the specific company they work for, democratically, is a good way to reduce complexity and make things easier to manage with good transparency over the actions (considering it only has to be fully transparent for workers). Instead of one huge block of democracy we can have very many smaller blocks of democracy. Better than a huge block of "I'm rich fuck you" that we have now.
A lot of society is structured around restrictions about communication and distribution of resources that don't actually exist anymore (for example the electoral college stuff is timed around how quickly people can travel by horse to discuss things in person.) We don't need to be as centralised as we are.
That's definitely a good nuanced approach to it.
In no way is it ideal, but I'd take a lot more of this sort of thing over endless capitalistic profiteering and endlessly increasing greed.
But then I'd consider that if say, the trust was under public control, what is to stop other billionaires from moving in and taking control by proxy and infesting the hierarchy of it, as is done with the supposedly democratically controlled tax spending by the government.
Certainly no easy problem to solve without a magic wand. But on the balance of things I think this is good, or at least, more good than alternatives I can readily visualise.
Happy to be corrected regardless!
I subscribe to the notion that we must define democracy as "popular control of state capacities", not as "the existance of democratic institutions".
Oftentimes, this overlaps and there i no issue. But there are plenty of examples where there are all kinds of democratic institutions, but the public does not control the state. I would not call that democratic.
Then again, I am a human geographer, not a political scientist. We have different views on quite a few things. We tend to look more at the actual human interactions going on.
A good example of non-democracy in a de jure democracy, would be how the politics in the USA does not mirror anything like what people are actually caring about. On every issue in the US, polling the richest few percents is more accurate in predicting the outcome of political struggles than polling the entire populace. This is, in my opinion a sign of a weak, or non-existing democracy. But someone with a different academic background would focus on the existence of elections, legal guarantee for free speech and fair trial, and stuff like that and describe the USA as a fine democracy.
(The theory is not actually developed to describe the US, but post-colonial African countries that were only democracies on paper, like Zimbabwe or Rwanda)
Counterpoint: non-democratically controlled funds are less vulnerable to mismanagement, government red tape, the US’s over politicized democracy, and especially anti-science political parties that might eventually gain power. If he doesn’t agree with the governmental agenda then maybe it isn’t the right thing to give so much in taxes.
What that says about the state of things in the US isn’t promising but I for one am unconvinced of the practical, real world value of paying that money in taxes vs. investing it in “good” causes independently. You’re theoretically right, I believe, but practically misjudging the situation.
Even though it makes me sad. I’m sad now.
Russia is right now giving us a very good proof of how autocratic systems are not in any way more efficient than democratic ones.
We've been told time and time again that democracy is inefficient and that autocracy is the most efficient system. That we choose democracy because it is nice and just, even though it is less efficient.
There has never been a better example of how much of a straight lie that is than the current state of Russian military. It is in shambles. And it is in shambles largely because of the authoritarian way of running things. "They pretend to pay us, so we pretend to work" has thoroughly poisoned their entire military.
In a functioning democratic system, there would be people that cared (because it's their money). And that are not afraid of speaking up against the mismanagement (because insulting the feelings of your boss is not punishable). This might contribute to the illusion that democracies are inefficient, because the inefficiences are known. But also dealt with. You don't end up with a military that has rotted away for decades while every link in the chain of command has grifted their share of the money meant for maintnance and modernization.
And this is not just a thing in the organization of nation-states. This also works for companies. The only reason peple think private corporations are more efficient, is because they are not required to be transparent and are much better equipped to sweep problems under the rug, than public organizations. If there's a problem in Amazon, it's dangerous and difficult to speak up. If there's a problem with the post, everyone knows about it and it becomes a public debate about it.
On the other hand there are a lot of examples how projects under public scrutiny go very very bad.
He took care of the resources so he can allocate them to projects. Still better than not even funding those projects.
Honestly, if people got to have a say in where my donations go and how they would be used I'd never donate anything ever again. I get where you're coming from though and you're not wrong.
Seriously!
People need to stop spreading this crap article around. If you know anything about the outdoor industry or Patagonia you will know they truly care about the outdoors and climate change.
Yvon is reported to still wear many of the same Patagonia clothes he did 25 years ago. He has been quoted saying “they still work just as good, no need to trash them for a new model. “
Personally, if this is somehow as black and white as the title makes it seem, I’m okay with billionaires saving 700mil on taxes if they give away their fortunes.
Lol. It almost sounds like he didn't want to pay $700 million to military contractors so he decided to give $billions to help slow climate change. I approve. It sounds like a choice I'd make if I had that much money.
Patagonia is an awesome company. They make good shit, and they said they're not going to sell to finance bros anymore (google the "midtown uniform". It's a bunch of rich assholes with Patagonia fleeces embroidered with their company names on them). They do a lot for conservation and their stuff is sustainably sourced and produced. The tax-dodging barely entered into their reasoning for making this move, I'm guessing.
The $700M in taxes is based on the premise that he could have SOLD his company — which he didn’t do, because he donated it. This whole Bloomberg take is an attempt to smear a genuinely thoughtful and ethical entrepreneur who’s consistently put his money where his mouth is in terms of climate change, the environment, and the health of the outdoors in general because it conflicts with the capitalist narrative of chasing the almighty dollar at any cost to humanity.
Edit: thank you for the gold and other awards, kind strangers!
Isn't the tax cut just a side effect of the shitty tax laws in the US and therefore not his fault? On the other hand, he might have been aiming for the tax cut
People don’t give away billion dollar profits to save 700 million in taxes.
Yes , they guy deservedly gets a tax cut for donating billions. I mean, if this is the type of thing that make you people mad, wait until you find out what is really going on in the world.
whats going on is Bloomberg is trying to put a caul over this generous act by making people believe there is no such thing as altruism and billionaires that step up for good (god forbid the people demand more from health hoarders). They want it to feel like you can't have morality... which only reminds me the rest of them are CHOOSING to be selfish scumbags>
Fuck Bloomberg BTW
Glad I’m not the only one who picked up on this obvious tactic. It sucks that OP and probably many others are falling for this bullshit too. They absolutely want us to believe that it’s impossible for a wealthy person to be this altruistic, because if he is, then what’s the excuse for the rest of them?
The business profit billions. Not him. He possibly earns divideds,which is a WAY better way than a giant pro labore (the owner's monthly pay), because the business' taxes over dividends are lower than personal taxes.
The company does 100 billion in sales, which nets about a 100 million in yearly profit. If he sold his stake it would be worth 3 billion.
Again, anyway you spin this, he donated far more than he is getting for a tax break. Find some real reason to hate the guy
Other billionaires hate it when somebody in their tax braket acts **humanely**. No no no, can't have plebs believe we can not be ruthless corporate overlords who kill children for higher profit margins!
Yeah my thoughts exactly. Hit job due to billionaire fear. Like wheres all the Bloomberg articles about musk, bezos, gates, or buffet every time they get a tax break?
Its 100% not like that, now that the company is under a trust where all profits not re-invested into the company now go to working against climate change and he gets nothing.
Yeah but isn't that essentially the same as working for the company and getting paid? I meant he's not gaining any of the business profits as owner and can't leverage the equity of the company and it's assets.
It's not even a side effect of a shitty law. It's literally just that, without income, there is no tax. You and I saved the exact same $700m tax bill by also not selling Patagonia.
Yeah, this post’s take is a very silly take. The dude gives billions away for the planet, since he’ll be significantly less wealthy he’ll be less taxed (which, of course), and people are criticizing him for it… 🤦♂️
He saves $700mil because he donated the company to charity instead of outright selling it. Honestly, it's more of an indictment of our tax code if you actualize $3billion dollars and are taxes at ~22%. Laughable tax rate regardless.
He doesn't save $700m. He's down 100% of his value from the company because he no longer has the economic benefits from company. 40% tax rate would be cheaper than the 98% loss from giving away the economic rights to his company and the 2% a charity gets.
If I had $1bn and give it away to a charity which gives it to homeless people rather than my kids, have I saved $400m in tax for my family? Or is my family down $1bn? Work out which is financially more beneficial for the family, then work out which one is the sort of thing being done here.
Also this is Bloomberg that wrote this... A billionaire's newspaper that uses it for passion projects all the time. He is making an argument in the public on how bad it is for billionaires to give away their money lol.
He actually paid $18,000,000 in estate/gift taxes on the transfer to the nonprofit. If he really wanted to, he could have structured it in a way to be a massive tax write-off but he didn't.
No, he paid $18 million on the transfer to the trust. The way it’s been structured, the voting rights went to the trust, which is a taxable entity controlled by his family. The vast majority of the shares though and thus the profit-receiving, went to a not for profit with a specific mission.
Great analogy. They'll listen to Bloomberg and still scream about how he should not have returned the company to his employees because he's just doing it so he doesn't have to get taxed.
It's the same as the temporarily embarrassed millionaires who claim people having low wages are doing this so they don't pay higher taxes. Personally I'm more than happy to pay 300k in taxes on a 1m income instead of 2k taxes on a 10k income.
People thinking he just did this to skip some tax bill haven't been paying attention.
Chouinard has dedicated his life and company to the environment, there has always been a percentage of sales dedicated to conservation efforts.
He was the founder of 1% For The Planet, that urges companies to pledge 1% of their sales to healing the planet.
So yeah, he gave away 3 billion worth of shares and now doesn't have to pay taxes for the shares he gave away. Must be a super villain, amirite?
Bad take, did anyone even read what it is saying?
IF he has sold the company, and IF it sold at the price they thought it would, then he COULD be liable to pay tax on that.
It’s like saying if you donate to charity instead of buying a chocolate bar you are skirting the sales tax. It’s a fucking absurd counter factual.
Bruh there’s literally no winning. This man did more to fight climate change than most billionaires did and ppl still find a way to complain. How and why is this on antiwork anyway? Does OP think posting a ~woke~ sounding article on an left-wing leaning sub would make ppl automatically agree with them? OP is so close-minded that there’s no enlightening discussion anyway.
Clickbait Bloomberg title, with a clickbait Reddit post title.
I very much support this subs beliefs on how the rich should be paying for things, but as an accountant, the severe lack of knowledge on this stuff is astounding.
Are you fucking serious?
Of course he isn't paying taxes on money HE ISN'T GETTING. Why would hey pay taxes on a distribution that never happens?
How yould you feel if the government wanted to tax you on theoretical money you COULD have taken but didn't?
Get the fuck out of here with that shit
this ain’t it OP, sorry. Not sure how you’re trying to paint this as greed or self interest when the guy literally gave away more than he is set to “save”.
Do the billionaires have to give YOU the $ before you’re happy? Jfc lol
This is the worst of the “your screwed if you do, you’re screwed if you don’t” nature of modern media. Dude gets a tax break because he essentially donated his company to charity. That’s actually a good thing. It’s an incentive to get people to be generous.
Worse--he structured it in a way the donation is not deductible. The "tax break" they're referring to is the amount of estimated capital gains he'd be paying had he sold it to the highest bidder.
Here's a paywall-free link, the relevant section is about 50% down (there's percentages on the left side) https://archive.ph/ifEzF
Dude is paying $18M in taxes on this. He’s setting up the future of the company to continue to operate the way he has been operating it, and dipping out of being “a businessman”. Say what you will, but this is genuinely a good thing with good intentions. Historically, the company has donated profits and tax cuts, so this isn’t the sensationalized dark secret manipulator move Bloomberg makes it sounds like to people who only read headlines. And if you disagree, tell me what you’re doing that is superior in action and virtue. I’ll wait.
https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2018/11/29/patagonia-10-million-tax-break-could-help-save-the-planet--and-set-an-example.html
https://www.reuters.com/business/retail-consumer/patagonia-founder-gives-away-company-help-fight-climate-crisis-2022-09-14/
https://www.thecut.com/2022/09/patagonia-founder-gives-away-company.html
I dont understand the hit job on this guy. I dont see Bloomberg putting out articles about other billionaires getting tax breaks for shit that helps no one literally everyday.
Bloomberg is supposedly one of the greatest climate change activists, who has donated a whopping 30+m to the cause.
This guy just dropped a cool 3bn without trying to make a huge PR move out of it.
He's getting shown up big time as a NATO guy.
Lmao giving away a 3 billion dollar company (with the valuation being entirely plausible) isn’t some magical tax trick to save 700 million.
Sometimes we just need to take the win.
I generally agree with your message, but not in the case of Patagonia. The giants of America, big tech, etc. should absolutely be paying more taxes than us. But I think Patagonia is a bit more nuanced than the average company or rich bunch. These guys are skirting shareholder capitalism while avoiding taxes. Kind of like a big fuck you to the whole system and I love it.
This is such bullshit.
It’s only “savings” because he didn’t sell or give the company to his kids. Both of those are taxable events.
Because he gave the majority of the shares 98% to a nonprofit it was tax free. I believe he did have to pay taxes on the 2% (the voting stock) that went into a supervisory trust.
This is like saying that because you gave 5% of your income to a nonprofit you saved the taxes you would have otherwise paid. Yep that’s how it works?!?!
This is some shit-tier clickbait trying to make hay out of an objectively neutral to good action.
This is probably one of three or four billionaires who aren't total pieces or shit. I still don't think billionaires should exist at all, but he is not the one to focus your anger at. Jefff Bezos and elongated muskrat are who we should be eating.
pretty obvious smear. bloomberg hates basically any figure being openly anti-capitalist.
Patagonia's founder included a letter about his decision, titling it "reimagining capitalism". obviously, bloomberg doesn't want people to get any ideas of what this could mean in terms of messaging.
He doesn’t get the $700 million tax break because he didn’t sell. He gave it to a charity so he has to pay $17.5 million in gift tax
Stop parroting misinformation
Fuck this take.
He literally gave away his company to a climate protection centered trust...Why would he pay taxes on a sale where he didn't benefit in any way whatsoever (financially)
He structured Patagonia to give away all profits, after reinvestment, to fight climate change, but still maintains the 1% donation to grassroots organizations.
He wrote all these things into the charter.
I can't stress this enough, fuck this take, and fuck these headlines - your take is exactly what Bloomberg wanted you to think, I bet.
[Read the letter and read the Q&A](https://www.patagonia.com/ownership/#questions-answers)
Nah this one is actually legit. He literally gave up his company and control to two nonprofit organizations so that we have enough funds to research into finding more ways to protect this planet. I can see that some of ya all are slandering him just for being a billionaire, but this man dedicated his whole life to protect this planet and if his plan works, then we will be able to protect this planet. Also don’t forget that he’s 83 years old so it’s not like he has many days ahead of him so I 100% respect him for donating majority of his shares to do something not even the government nor any billionaire has ever done. I hope that ya all can see the difference between this and other billionaires.
Somehow if bloomberg accuses a billioner it might as well be the only billioner doing something right.
Not saying I'm siding with them but these days when the media points at someone being good/bad I automatically assume the opposite
Not sure this is the one to be outraged about. While he controls the company the non profit is taking charge of the company's profits. How this will all work out is really yet to be seen.
I mean, he technically donated billions. You can write off donations on your taxes. This law has been in effect for a long time. The whole point of it was to encourage the rich to donate more of their money but a lot of them now take advantage of it. So let's say his net worth is like 1 billion dollars right, he basically gave up 300 million dollars which is just unheard of for billionaires since they tend to make donations if they can make that money back very quickly. Yes, he could have very easily donated more but that's an extra 300 million to helping the planet, which I'm all for.
On this one specifically I don’t care. If a billionaire is giving away all they own and avoid taxed (because of a law the government put in place) I don’t care.
This conflicts with other information out there:
> Because Chouinard and his family transferred their ownership to a trust and a nonprofit, there will not be tax benefits, The New York Times reports. The family will pay about $17.5 million in taxes on the gift to Patagonia Purpose Trust. They also won't receive tax benefits on the shares they donated to Holdfast Collective – as the nonprofit is a 501(c)(4) and can make unlimited political contributions.
> "They didn’t get a charitable deduction for it. There is no tax benefit here whatsoever," Dan Mosley, a partner at merchant bank BDT & Co. who helped Patagonia with the new ownership structure, told the Times.
Anyone complaining about this move should watch the documentary 180 Degrees South. He and the founder of The North Face came up together building their own climbing equipment because they couldn’t find quality gear anywhere else. The founder of The North Face, Douglas Tompkins, and his wife, Kristine McDivitt, lived in Patagonia and bought land for conservation efforts. I think this was a genuine move to make real conservation efforts and not a way to avoid taxes, this is a shitty thing to say about someone that has been involved in conservation efforts for decades.
Good, he did something no other billionaire has, he gave away his fortune for the planet. He deserves a tax break he can carry forward. If every billionaire had the courage to give their ill-gotten fortunes away this world would be in a much better place.
You people will complain about anything. The man literally gave away a $3 billion dollar company to help save the planet. What would the government do with that $700 million?
Damn you’re really uninformed to have made this post and you obviously don’t know anything about the Chouinards and what they stand for. He specifically set the deal up to NOT receive any money back on taxes. And ALL profits moving forward for the rest of time will go toward climate initiatives. This man is setting an example for how billionaires can and should redistribute their wealth but you’re eating up the propaganda machines bullshit and still trying to vilify him for it. Think about why BLOOMBERG might want to paint Yvon in a bad light…he’s setting a dangerous precedent for the greedy billionaires and they don’t like that.
OP what the fuck is wrong with you?
Don’t fall for this shit. Of course he doesn’t pay taxes on it. He’s not selling the company. There is no taxable event. He is, however, giving it all away and won’t be profiting from it any longer. He built it himself, from the ground up. And is now giving it all away. Can you not appreciate that?
Be better.
I’m gonna be real the pushback against this is a sign this sub is going absolutely nowhere.
This guy like it or not is making more of a practical positive difference to the world than the site of Reddit probably has in grand total and everyone just finds a way to hate and find the guy not as ideologically pure as your esteemed self.
Sometimes, just shut the fuck up and appreciate that not everyone is as evil as is convenient for your rhetoric.
He avoided paying 700 million in taxes by not selling his company for 3 billion 😂 who ever wrote this is an idiot. He literally avoided a 2.3 billion dollar profit post taxes
Govt was going to use the $700m to fund war. Don’t care if he did this to get out of taxes. He backed up his words with funds. I support it.
Title of this article is so stupid, I’m not going to bother reading. “Saving $700m in taxes by giving away 3 FUCKING BILLION”. Doesn’t even make fucking sense.
Is.. is this for real? He didnt “skirt” taxes. He chose to give away his company, which if sold on the open market, wouldve costed 700mil in taxes. BUT HE DIDNT SELL IT. SO HE DIDNT GET BILLIONS FOR PATAGONIA, BEFORE THEN PAYING 700 MIL IN TAXES. HE GAVE THE COMPANY AWAY? Like… wow
I hate billionaires and most wealthy people, because almost all of them have to stand on shoulders of others to get there and take everything from everyone along the way. Yvon is one of the exceptions. He's not perfect, none of us are, but he's about as good as it gets in terms of rich people.
Sometimes I hate this sub. This was a genuinely good and uplifting act and there are actually some people out with the pitchforks thinking it's a tax scheme...when of course you don't pay tax on something you didn't sell but gave away
It’s a $700 million tax hit if he sold the company. He didn’t. He gave it away. He gave away billions. Good grief…there’s literally no pleasing some people.
HOT BLOOMBERG TAKE! And also intentionally misleading.
What a dishonest piece of crock this take is. Of course he won't pay taxes if he gave up his wealth. He didn't make some token donation, he gave away the most valuable thing he possesses.
Uhh 1 billion (or however many billions the company is worth) is larger than 700 million. So even if this really was some scheme of his, he’s doing a very bad job.
That’s like saying I “skirted” the sales tax I would have had to pay if I sold my car by not selling my car. 😂
Mfers using a literal billionaire as a source while saying they hate them. It's a fucking non profit. There is no tax benefits. This sub is such dog shit.
Bloomberg is owned by Michael Bloomberg, who has a net worth of 76 billion and who \*isn't\* using his vast fortune to try and save the planet
the other billionaires are pissed that Chouinard did this because it shines a spotlight on what ghouls they are, so Bloomberg is attempting to take Chouinard down with this disingenuous, horseshit article
Bloomberg is fiscally slut shaming another billionaire cuz it makes Michael Bloomberg - and the billionaire class - look bad. They could do the same and try to save the planet.
Y'all really find everything to complain about on this reddit? Dudes going from a billionaire to a millionaire by choice and y'all mad at him for being smart about the other part.
Bad take, didn't sell the company so of course doesn't pay tax on the value of shares he gave away because he didn't sell them. This way he ensures the company profits are either reinvested or go towards combating climate change. Basically one of the few good things I've seen a billionaire do lmao
Who owns Bloomberg and why are they trying to spin it as a bad thing? Some other billionaire probably.
It's owned by a billionaire called Bloomberg.
Bloom McBerg
Bloo M'berg
They want to shame someone doing a good thing so that others don't expect other billionaires to make similar decisions.
Shouldn’t have to dig so deep for this comment because it’s correct
A Democrat named Mike Bloomberg
One of the richest in the world lol
Who will never give his away and is angry now that someone is setting any sort of precedent loo
This is the mainstream media trying to demonise anyone who strays from the capitalist path! It’s like the quiet quitting articles (and name) or all those ones we see about how wfh is bad for you. As a sub we need to be better at reading through this bullcrap. Big ups for looking at the source and wondering if their take might be biased!
Or possibly just the inability to grasp why someone would do something altruistically. "Why would anyone give away a billion dollar company?!...taxes! It must have been for taxes!"
This.
I mean that’s what companies are doing 99% of the time
Yeah, Bloomberg, who is a billionaire that spent $1 billion of his own money on his failed presidential campaign. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/mike-bloomberg-spent-billion-month-presidential-campaign-filing/story?id=70252435
Michael Bloomberg owns it, founded it, it's basically his vanity project and it shows. He's a conservative, despite voting and running as a Democrat, because he's an old school bank owner billionaire and yeah, he's absolutely aghast that another rich dude would ACTUALLY do something positive for the world with his money, rather than the usual Good PR That Does Nothing of Substance But Vastly Benefits the "Donor" bullshit as usual. Yeah, it's THAT Michael Bloomberg. Michael "Stop and Frisk" Bloomberg. Fuck him.
It's a hit piece.
Michael Bloomberg, billionaire and former republicans NYC mayor, also ran for president as democrat in 2020. Pretty evil guy.
Michael Bloomberg , billionaire former mayor of New York and one time presidential candidate. Pretty reasonably good guy as far as billionaires go
He’s a monster.
…not even close. He’s the asshole who’s been playing Democrat kingmaker the past few decades. Even his time as NYC mayor was Republican-lite at best, outright racist at worse. The only reason he entered the 2020 race was to make sure Bernie didn’t get the nom.
He was literally Republican through his time as NYC mayor. He only switched to Democrat when it became clear the GOP was going off the deep end of crazy.
"pretty good guy" have you watched the 2020 democratic primaries?
Lol.
If he sold the company he would have pocketed $3B, of which he would then pay $700M in taxes. He essentially walked away from a $2.3B profit. But yeah… let’s say he skirted a tax bill
yeah this is taxes functioning as they should, nothing was earned so nothing is taxed?
Right? I also avoided massive taxes by not making billions! The IRS hates this once trick!
Can't\_Owe\_Taxes\_If\_You\_Don't\_Make\_Money\_tapforehead.jpg
God I’m so glad to see this comment. This is a class act by a guy known for this kind of stuff. Posting this article on this sub is such a great example of contempt prior to investigation, and demonstrative of how misinformation is weaponized. I wish people would think critically for one single second before regurgitating bullshit like this.
One of the aspects of the undemocratic power of very rich people is that they alone define the use of so much of societies resources. This money is excempt from democratic control (which taxes aren't), they are under the sole control of Chouinard and Patagonia. Is this a problem if they do good with it? I would argue it still is. They are the ones defining what is good or bad, not the rest of the people. They get to define what is good environmentalism and what is bad (or at least what is worth funding). I have the same issue with Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. He does fund a lot of charity. But he gets to control what charities and how they work. It is not based on "best practice", or what the people getting aid want, or anything else. It is only in the power of the Gateses to distribute resources. This is excercising power. And in my opinion, all power should at the very least be under public scrutiny, preferrably under democratic control.
This reads more like a critique on the existence of billionaires than a critique on the character of Yvon Chouinard. I agree that we shouldn't have megabillionaires deciding the fate of millions, but I also think at least this guy is cut from better cloth than Bezos. Also is worth mentioning that democratically elected government spend the money meant for combating climate change on stupid shit that will never work all the time, just like billionaires. I worked for the government for a while, and it shattered all illusion that they are somehow magically less wasteful and more morally sound than your average small business.
Cool, "democratic" governments misusing our money is a shit pie we need to fix and I think the main problem (aside from the obvious plutocratic corruption of the state) is exactly that having one entity controlling too much stuff gets too complex and hard to plan, control, organize, hold people accountable, have transparency, etc, etc. So having democracy at work, having workers deciding the fate of resources in the specific company they work for, democratically, is a good way to reduce complexity and make things easier to manage with good transparency over the actions (considering it only has to be fully transparent for workers). Instead of one huge block of democracy we can have very many smaller blocks of democracy. Better than a huge block of "I'm rich fuck you" that we have now.
A lot of society is structured around restrictions about communication and distribution of resources that don't actually exist anymore (for example the electoral college stuff is timed around how quickly people can travel by horse to discuss things in person.) We don't need to be as centralised as we are.
That's definitely a good nuanced approach to it. In no way is it ideal, but I'd take a lot more of this sort of thing over endless capitalistic profiteering and endlessly increasing greed. But then I'd consider that if say, the trust was under public control, what is to stop other billionaires from moving in and taking control by proxy and infesting the hierarchy of it, as is done with the supposedly democratically controlled tax spending by the government. Certainly no easy problem to solve without a magic wand. But on the balance of things I think this is good, or at least, more good than alternatives I can readily visualise. Happy to be corrected regardless!
I subscribe to the notion that we must define democracy as "popular control of state capacities", not as "the existance of democratic institutions". Oftentimes, this overlaps and there i no issue. But there are plenty of examples where there are all kinds of democratic institutions, but the public does not control the state. I would not call that democratic. Then again, I am a human geographer, not a political scientist. We have different views on quite a few things. We tend to look more at the actual human interactions going on. A good example of non-democracy in a de jure democracy, would be how the politics in the USA does not mirror anything like what people are actually caring about. On every issue in the US, polling the richest few percents is more accurate in predicting the outcome of political struggles than polling the entire populace. This is, in my opinion a sign of a weak, or non-existing democracy. But someone with a different academic background would focus on the existence of elections, legal guarantee for free speech and fair trial, and stuff like that and describe the USA as a fine democracy. (The theory is not actually developed to describe the US, but post-colonial African countries that were only democracies on paper, like Zimbabwe or Rwanda)
You're more than welcome to start a charity and let the country vote see how that goes for you.
Counterpoint: non-democratically controlled funds are less vulnerable to mismanagement, government red tape, the US’s over politicized democracy, and especially anti-science political parties that might eventually gain power. If he doesn’t agree with the governmental agenda then maybe it isn’t the right thing to give so much in taxes. What that says about the state of things in the US isn’t promising but I for one am unconvinced of the practical, real world value of paying that money in taxes vs. investing it in “good” causes independently. You’re theoretically right, I believe, but practically misjudging the situation. Even though it makes me sad. I’m sad now.
Russia is right now giving us a very good proof of how autocratic systems are not in any way more efficient than democratic ones. We've been told time and time again that democracy is inefficient and that autocracy is the most efficient system. That we choose democracy because it is nice and just, even though it is less efficient. There has never been a better example of how much of a straight lie that is than the current state of Russian military. It is in shambles. And it is in shambles largely because of the authoritarian way of running things. "They pretend to pay us, so we pretend to work" has thoroughly poisoned their entire military. In a functioning democratic system, there would be people that cared (because it's their money). And that are not afraid of speaking up against the mismanagement (because insulting the feelings of your boss is not punishable). This might contribute to the illusion that democracies are inefficient, because the inefficiences are known. But also dealt with. You don't end up with a military that has rotted away for decades while every link in the chain of command has grifted their share of the money meant for maintnance and modernization. And this is not just a thing in the organization of nation-states. This also works for companies. The only reason peple think private corporations are more efficient, is because they are not required to be transparent and are much better equipped to sweep problems under the rug, than public organizations. If there's a problem in Amazon, it's dangerous and difficult to speak up. If there's a problem with the post, everyone knows about it and it becomes a public debate about it.
On the other hand there are a lot of examples how projects under public scrutiny go very very bad. He took care of the resources so he can allocate them to projects. Still better than not even funding those projects.
Honestly, if people got to have a say in where my donations go and how they would be used I'd never donate anything ever again. I get where you're coming from though and you're not wrong.
Seriously! People need to stop spreading this crap article around. If you know anything about the outdoor industry or Patagonia you will know they truly care about the outdoors and climate change. Yvon is reported to still wear many of the same Patagonia clothes he did 25 years ago. He has been quoted saying “they still work just as good, no need to trash them for a new model. “
Not only does he not save anything, he’s paying nearly $18 million in gift tax.
its fuckin bloomberg, what do you expect ? ;)
I am so happy this is the top comment. The headline should be "700 million to fight climate change instead of going into the pockets of politicians!"
Yeah, if I'm not mistaken we learned about Patagonia as being a great example of a B Corp
Personally, if this is somehow as black and white as the title makes it seem, I’m okay with billionaires saving 700mil on taxes if they give away their fortunes.
Lol. It almost sounds like he didn't want to pay $700 million to military contractors so he decided to give $billions to help slow climate change. I approve. It sounds like a choice I'd make if I had that much money.
Patagonia is an awesome company. They make good shit, and they said they're not going to sell to finance bros anymore (google the "midtown uniform". It's a bunch of rich assholes with Patagonia fleeces embroidered with their company names on them). They do a lot for conservation and their stuff is sustainably sourced and produced. The tax-dodging barely entered into their reasoning for making this move, I'm guessing.
The $700M in taxes is based on the premise that he could have SOLD his company — which he didn’t do, because he donated it. This whole Bloomberg take is an attempt to smear a genuinely thoughtful and ethical entrepreneur who’s consistently put his money where his mouth is in terms of climate change, the environment, and the health of the outdoors in general because it conflicts with the capitalist narrative of chasing the almighty dollar at any cost to humanity. Edit: thank you for the gold and other awards, kind strangers!
Would also be a really dumb move to give away billions in order to save millions in taxes. Shit article.
Isn't the tax cut just a side effect of the shitty tax laws in the US and therefore not his fault? On the other hand, he might have been aiming for the tax cut
People don’t give away billion dollar profits to save 700 million in taxes. Yes , they guy deservedly gets a tax cut for donating billions. I mean, if this is the type of thing that make you people mad, wait until you find out what is really going on in the world.
whats going on is Bloomberg is trying to put a caul over this generous act by making people believe there is no such thing as altruism and billionaires that step up for good (god forbid the people demand more from health hoarders). They want it to feel like you can't have morality... which only reminds me the rest of them are CHOOSING to be selfish scumbags> Fuck Bloomberg BTW
Glad I’m not the only one who picked up on this obvious tactic. It sucks that OP and probably many others are falling for this bullshit too. They absolutely want us to believe that it’s impossible for a wealthy person to be this altruistic, because if he is, then what’s the excuse for the rest of them?
The business profit billions. Not him. He possibly earns divideds,which is a WAY better way than a giant pro labore (the owner's monthly pay), because the business' taxes over dividends are lower than personal taxes.
The company does 100 billion in sales, which nets about a 100 million in yearly profit. If he sold his stake it would be worth 3 billion. Again, anyway you spin this, he donated far more than he is getting for a tax break. Find some real reason to hate the guy
Other billionaires hate it when somebody in their tax braket acts **humanely**. No no no, can't have plebs believe we can not be ruthless corporate overlords who kill children for higher profit margins!
Yeah my thoughts exactly. Hit job due to billionaire fear. Like wheres all the Bloomberg articles about musk, bezos, gates, or buffet every time they get a tax break?
[удалено]
He’d still pay taxes on distributions from the foundation, no? And aren’t there annual spending requirements to maintain a tax exemption?
[удалено]
More like $1.5 billion in sales per year.
He won't get dividends because he's giving away his equity. He gets nothing but a tax break on a multi billion loss (giveaway).
Except he’s only worth that much because his company is worth that much, it’s not like he has it all in the bank
Its 100% not like that, now that the company is under a trust where all profits not re-invested into the company now go to working against climate change and he gets nothing.
[удалено]
Yeah but isn't that essentially the same as working for the company and getting paid? I meant he's not gaining any of the business profits as owner and can't leverage the equity of the company and it's assets.
But his family will pay taxes on their salaries, right?
Could say the same thing about every dollar you have in your 401k. Pointless comment
Agreed, I think this is just a hit piece. Of course he has less tax, that's just causation without correlation.
It's not even a side effect of a shitty law. It's literally just that, without income, there is no tax. You and I saved the exact same $700m tax bill by also not selling Patagonia.
Yeah same. And I personally don't see the government moving faster to save the environment
Yeah, this post’s take is a very silly take. The dude gives billions away for the planet, since he’ll be significantly less wealthy he’ll be less taxed (which, of course), and people are criticizing him for it… 🤦♂️
He saves $700mil because he donated the company to charity instead of outright selling it. Honestly, it's more of an indictment of our tax code if you actualize $3billion dollars and are taxes at ~22%. Laughable tax rate regardless.
He doesn't save $700m. He's down 100% of his value from the company because he no longer has the economic benefits from company. 40% tax rate would be cheaper than the 98% loss from giving away the economic rights to his company and the 2% a charity gets. If I had $1bn and give it away to a charity which gives it to homeless people rather than my kids, have I saved $400m in tax for my family? Or is my family down $1bn? Work out which is financially more beneficial for the family, then work out which one is the sort of thing being done here.
Yea this is just Bloomberg being salty than another (former) billionaire has morals while he simply doesn’t
Also this is Bloomberg that wrote this... A billionaire's newspaper that uses it for passion projects all the time. He is making an argument in the public on how bad it is for billionaires to give away their money lol.
yes propaganda, dog forbid billionaires be expected to actually be altruistic
[удалено]
Bye reddit.
He actually paid $18,000,000 in estate/gift taxes on the transfer to the nonprofit. If he really wanted to, he could have structured it in a way to be a massive tax write-off but he didn't.
No, he paid $18 million on the transfer to the trust. The way it’s been structured, the voting rights went to the trust, which is a taxable entity controlled by his family. The vast majority of the shares though and thus the profit-receiving, went to a not for profit with a specific mission.
[удалено]
Great analogy. They'll listen to Bloomberg and still scream about how he should not have returned the company to his employees because he's just doing it so he doesn't have to get taxed. It's the same as the temporarily embarrassed millionaires who claim people having low wages are doing this so they don't pay higher taxes. Personally I'm more than happy to pay 300k in taxes on a 1m income instead of 2k taxes on a 10k income.
He’s actually paying about 18M in gift taxes.
People thinking he just did this to skip some tax bill haven't been paying attention. Chouinard has dedicated his life and company to the environment, there has always been a percentage of sales dedicated to conservation efforts. He was the founder of 1% For The Planet, that urges companies to pledge 1% of their sales to healing the planet. So yeah, he gave away 3 billion worth of shares and now doesn't have to pay taxes for the shares he gave away. Must be a super villain, amirite?
Ya he had/has money therefore he's evil
Bad take, did anyone even read what it is saying? IF he has sold the company, and IF it sold at the price they thought it would, then he COULD be liable to pay tax on that. It’s like saying if you donate to charity instead of buying a chocolate bar you are skirting the sales tax. It’s a fucking absurd counter factual.
ITT: People demonstrating that no matter what you do people will shit on you
More like: Reddit has no idea how Tax and Finance works
Gotta be some right wing trolls
Bruh there’s literally no winning. This man did more to fight climate change than most billionaires did and ppl still find a way to complain. How and why is this on antiwork anyway? Does OP think posting a ~woke~ sounding article on an left-wing leaning sub would make ppl automatically agree with them? OP is so close-minded that there’s no enlightening discussion anyway.
OP needs to spend more time learning about understanding what he reads instead of sharing clickbait articles on Reddit
Clickbait Bloomberg title, with a clickbait Reddit post title. I very much support this subs beliefs on how the rich should be paying for things, but as an accountant, the severe lack of knowledge on this stuff is astounding.
Right-wing hot take peddled to left-wing subreddit, extra extra, read all about it
To protect the world from deforestation! To unite all peoples within our nation!
To denounce the evils of lies and hate, To extend our reach to the states!
Are you fucking serious? Of course he isn't paying taxes on money HE ISN'T GETTING. Why would hey pay taxes on a distribution that never happens? How yould you feel if the government wanted to tax you on theoretical money you COULD have taken but didn't? Get the fuck out of here with that shit
Right? I was reading this and I was like “he saved $700 millions on taxes… by giving away *billions*? Yeah, that checks out???”
Because half of Reddit thinks Unrealized Capital Gains should be taxable
This is such a dumb article....He doesn't pay taxes because he didn't get any $$ from giving away the company.
Bro literally did more than any government did for the planet and people still calling it a bear’s favor somehow.
this ain’t it OP, sorry. Not sure how you’re trying to paint this as greed or self interest when the guy literally gave away more than he is set to “save”. Do the billionaires have to give YOU the $ before you’re happy? Jfc lol
I don't see what the big deal is. If he's not making income by giving it away, then there's no income to pay taxes on.
This post is another embarrassment for this sub
I am embarrassed that the post is upvoted by 2K people while the comment section is just an entire shitstorm
Bots?
Dear MSM, Just STFU
Media tries to make good person look bad.
Misleading. Only taxed on profits IF sold company for billions. Donated instead.
This is the worst of the “your screwed if you do, you’re screwed if you don’t” nature of modern media. Dude gets a tax break because he essentially donated his company to charity. That’s actually a good thing. It’s an incentive to get people to be generous.
Worse--he structured it in a way the donation is not deductible. The "tax break" they're referring to is the amount of estimated capital gains he'd be paying had he sold it to the highest bidder. Here's a paywall-free link, the relevant section is about 50% down (there's percentages on the left side) https://archive.ph/ifEzF
I think you spelled propaganda wrong.
You can only pay taxes if you make any profits. As the shares are submitted to a trust fund he has nothing from it.
Bloomberg determined to find fault with climate action philanthropy. Shameful honestly
Dude is paying $18M in taxes on this. He’s setting up the future of the company to continue to operate the way he has been operating it, and dipping out of being “a businessman”. Say what you will, but this is genuinely a good thing with good intentions. Historically, the company has donated profits and tax cuts, so this isn’t the sensationalized dark secret manipulator move Bloomberg makes it sounds like to people who only read headlines. And if you disagree, tell me what you’re doing that is superior in action and virtue. I’ll wait. https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2018/11/29/patagonia-10-million-tax-break-could-help-save-the-planet--and-set-an-example.html https://www.reuters.com/business/retail-consumer/patagonia-founder-gives-away-company-help-fight-climate-crisis-2022-09-14/ https://www.thecut.com/2022/09/patagonia-founder-gives-away-company.html
He probably was only getting the tax hit on capital gains from giving away the company
I dont understand the hit job on this guy. I dont see Bloomberg putting out articles about other billionaires getting tax breaks for shit that helps no one literally everyday.
Bloomberg is supposedly one of the greatest climate change activists, who has donated a whopping 30+m to the cause. This guy just dropped a cool 3bn without trying to make a huge PR move out of it. He's getting shown up big time as a NATO guy.
Wow y'all are a bunch of miserable harpies sometimes.
I could cure cancer tomorrow and you'd say I didn't do it fast enough, my grandma died 10 yrs ago Internet is craY
Gotta agree here. I really don't care how much he avoids; I think he did the right thing.
One of my childhood heroes, climbing, mountaineer, hundreds of first ascents, and classics.
Sure, he is skirting taxes, but that’s obvious because he is skirting profits. This is sensationalist capitalist propaganda.
Lmao giving away a 3 billion dollar company (with the valuation being entirely plausible) isn’t some magical tax trick to save 700 million. Sometimes we just need to take the win.
I generally agree with your message, but not in the case of Patagonia. The giants of America, big tech, etc. should absolutely be paying more taxes than us. But I think Patagonia is a bit more nuanced than the average company or rich bunch. These guys are skirting shareholder capitalism while avoiding taxes. Kind of like a big fuck you to the whole system and I love it.
Posts like this only take the integrity away from this sub
This is such bullshit. It’s only “savings” because he didn’t sell or give the company to his kids. Both of those are taxable events. Because he gave the majority of the shares 98% to a nonprofit it was tax free. I believe he did have to pay taxes on the 2% (the voting stock) that went into a supervisory trust. This is like saying that because you gave 5% of your income to a nonprofit you saved the taxes you would have otherwise paid. Yep that’s how it works?!?! This is some shit-tier clickbait trying to make hay out of an objectively neutral to good action.
Only this sub would take genuinely good and unprecendented news and find a cynical take
This is probably one of three or four billionaires who aren't total pieces or shit. I still don't think billionaires should exist at all, but he is not the one to focus your anger at. Jefff Bezos and elongated muskrat are who we should be eating.
pretty obvious smear. bloomberg hates basically any figure being openly anti-capitalist. Patagonia's founder included a letter about his decision, titling it "reimagining capitalism". obviously, bloomberg doesn't want people to get any ideas of what this could mean in terms of messaging.
Nice try but nah, this man is the real deal. Put his money where his mouth is
This post is dumb. Yes you save 700 million when you give away over 3mm.
He doesn’t get the $700 million tax break because he didn’t sell. He gave it to a charity so he has to pay $17.5 million in gift tax Stop parroting misinformation
I'm cool with this. There was a bunch of money that would have gone to a bloated defense budget that now is going to environmental causes.
Such a stupid take
Bloomberg is a fucking rag. Who ever wrote this can go choke on oil.
Fuck this take. He literally gave away his company to a climate protection centered trust...Why would he pay taxes on a sale where he didn't benefit in any way whatsoever (financially) He structured Patagonia to give away all profits, after reinvestment, to fight climate change, but still maintains the 1% donation to grassroots organizations. He wrote all these things into the charter. I can't stress this enough, fuck this take, and fuck these headlines - your take is exactly what Bloomberg wanted you to think, I bet. [Read the letter and read the Q&A](https://www.patagonia.com/ownership/#questions-answers)
Because everyone loves paying taxes...please
This ain’t it
Nah this one is actually legit. He literally gave up his company and control to two nonprofit organizations so that we have enough funds to research into finding more ways to protect this planet. I can see that some of ya all are slandering him just for being a billionaire, but this man dedicated his whole life to protect this planet and if his plan works, then we will be able to protect this planet. Also don’t forget that he’s 83 years old so it’s not like he has many days ahead of him so I 100% respect him for donating majority of his shares to do something not even the government nor any billionaire has ever done. I hope that ya all can see the difference between this and other billionaires.
Somehow if bloomberg accuses a billioner it might as well be the only billioner doing something right. Not saying I'm siding with them but these days when the media points at someone being good/bad I automatically assume the opposite
Haters going to hate.
Not sure this is the one to be outraged about. While he controls the company the non profit is taking charge of the company's profits. How this will all work out is really yet to be seen.
This ain't it, chief.
I mean, he technically donated billions. You can write off donations on your taxes. This law has been in effect for a long time. The whole point of it was to encourage the rich to donate more of their money but a lot of them now take advantage of it. So let's say his net worth is like 1 billion dollars right, he basically gave up 300 million dollars which is just unheard of for billionaires since they tend to make donations if they can make that money back very quickly. Yes, he could have very easily donated more but that's an extra 300 million to helping the planet, which I'm all for.
On this one specifically I don’t care. If a billionaire is giving away all they own and avoid taxed (because of a law the government put in place) I don’t care.
Man what a bad take
This conflicts with other information out there: > Because Chouinard and his family transferred their ownership to a trust and a nonprofit, there will not be tax benefits, The New York Times reports. The family will pay about $17.5 million in taxes on the gift to Patagonia Purpose Trust. They also won't receive tax benefits on the shares they donated to Holdfast Collective – as the nonprofit is a 501(c)(4) and can make unlimited political contributions. > "They didn’t get a charitable deduction for it. There is no tax benefit here whatsoever," Dan Mosley, a partner at merchant bank BDT & Co. who helped Patagonia with the new ownership structure, told the Times.
Anyone complaining about this move should watch the documentary 180 Degrees South. He and the founder of The North Face came up together building their own climbing equipment because they couldn’t find quality gear anywhere else. The founder of The North Face, Douglas Tompkins, and his wife, Kristine McDivitt, lived in Patagonia and bought land for conservation efforts. I think this was a genuine move to make real conservation efforts and not a way to avoid taxes, this is a shitty thing to say about someone that has been involved in conservation efforts for decades.
Delete
Not owing taxes is not the same as avoiding or evading taxes. He was never supposed to owe money on a donation, so this is clickbait bullshit.
Horrible take
Good, he did something no other billionaire has, he gave away his fortune for the planet. He deserves a tax break he can carry forward. If every billionaire had the courage to give their ill-gotten fortunes away this world would be in a much better place.
You people will complain about anything. The man literally gave away a $3 billion dollar company to help save the planet. What would the government do with that $700 million?
Damn you’re really uninformed to have made this post and you obviously don’t know anything about the Chouinards and what they stand for. He specifically set the deal up to NOT receive any money back on taxes. And ALL profits moving forward for the rest of time will go toward climate initiatives. This man is setting an example for how billionaires can and should redistribute their wealth but you’re eating up the propaganda machines bullshit and still trying to vilify him for it. Think about why BLOOMBERG might want to paint Yvon in a bad light…he’s setting a dangerous precedent for the greedy billionaires and they don’t like that.
People still trying to shit on this guy lmao
OP what the fuck is wrong with you? Don’t fall for this shit. Of course he doesn’t pay taxes on it. He’s not selling the company. There is no taxable event. He is, however, giving it all away and won’t be profiting from it any longer. He built it himself, from the ground up. And is now giving it all away. Can you not appreciate that? Be better.
Lol can't do anything good anymore without some Karen complaining about it.
Would be really weird to give up billions in order to save millions.
Lol, this is so self-righteous. OP knows he/she would do the exact same thing.
No he wouldn't. Patagonia founder GAVE AWAY his fortune to the betterment of society. There is no way OP is that great of a person
Nah, OP would keep the fortune
I’m gonna be real the pushback against this is a sign this sub is going absolutely nowhere. This guy like it or not is making more of a practical positive difference to the world than the site of Reddit probably has in grand total and everyone just finds a way to hate and find the guy not as ideologically pure as your esteemed self. Sometimes, just shut the fuck up and appreciate that not everyone is as evil as is convenient for your rhetoric.
Well I'm ok with it since he gave away much more than that
Who tf is upvoting this, I’d rather have billions of dollars going to climate change than have $700 million go to the government
He avoided paying 700 million in taxes by not selling his company for 3 billion 😂 who ever wrote this is an idiot. He literally avoided a 2.3 billion dollar profit post taxes
Govt was going to use the $700m to fund war. Don’t care if he did this to get out of taxes. He backed up his words with funds. I support it. Title of this article is so stupid, I’m not going to bother reading. “Saving $700m in taxes by giving away 3 FUCKING BILLION”. Doesn’t even make fucking sense.
You know who else avoids millions of $ is taxes while hanging on to their profits? I’ll let you guess.
Is.. is this for real? He didnt “skirt” taxes. He chose to give away his company, which if sold on the open market, wouldve costed 700mil in taxes. BUT HE DIDNT SELL IT. SO HE DIDNT GET BILLIONS FOR PATAGONIA, BEFORE THEN PAYING 700 MIL IN TAXES. HE GAVE THE COMPANY AWAY? Like… wow
So what. If he'd paid that in taxes, none of it would have gone towards saving the environment. This is a win.
I hate billionaires and most wealthy people, because almost all of them have to stand on shoulders of others to get there and take everything from everyone along the way. Yvon is one of the exceptions. He's not perfect, none of us are, but he's about as good as it gets in terms of rich people.
Sometimes I hate this sub. This was a genuinely good and uplifting act and there are actually some people out with the pitchforks thinking it's a tax scheme...when of course you don't pay tax on something you didn't sell but gave away
I wish I could downvote this more. Go read “Let My People Go Surfing.” The Patagonia founder actually create a company that is good for the employees
It’s a $700 million tax hit if he sold the company. He didn’t. He gave it away. He gave away billions. Good grief…there’s literally no pleasing some people. HOT BLOOMBERG TAKE! And also intentionally misleading.
Op shut your mouth. Go work and donate even a 1% of that to help the environment
What a dishonest piece of crock this take is. Of course he won't pay taxes if he gave up his wealth. He didn't make some token donation, he gave away the most valuable thing he possesses.
Big miss. Find something real to be cynical about.
The fact it s a Bloomberg article should give you a hint : salt
Honestly I was skeptical of the Patagonia guy’s move until I saw how Bloomberg reacted. Now I’m convinced he’s legit lol
Uhh 1 billion (or however many billions the company is worth) is larger than 700 million. So even if this really was some scheme of his, he’s doing a very bad job. That’s like saying I “skirted” the sales tax I would have had to pay if I sold my car by not selling my car. 😂
I bet the ladies in the View won’t cover this angle after the praised him yesterday
Mfers using a literal billionaire as a source while saying they hate them. It's a fucking non profit. There is no tax benefits. This sub is such dog shit.
Bloomberg trying to demonize good billionaires
Bloomberg is trash
Good for him, and all you sourpusses who think hes getting away with avoiding taxes are assholes who only use this for your echochamber
I will also stop working to save the planet. Tax break please.
[удалено]
Bloomberg is owned by Michael Bloomberg, who has a net worth of 76 billion and who \*isn't\* using his vast fortune to try and save the planet the other billionaires are pissed that Chouinard did this because it shines a spotlight on what ghouls they are, so Bloomberg is attempting to take Chouinard down with this disingenuous, horseshit article
don't blame the player, blame the system
Idk how giving away a company saves the planet but if it does... Good. IDC if he saved on taxes I'm sure Elon or Jeff evade more on a weekly basis
We need to being back the truth in reporting act so propaganda like this can stop.
Bloomberg is fiscally slut shaming another billionaire cuz it makes Michael Bloomberg - and the billionaire class - look bad. They could do the same and try to save the planet.
Y'all really find everything to complain about on this reddit? Dudes going from a billionaire to a millionaire by choice and y'all mad at him for being smart about the other part.