Comment by jchb | Hacker News Reader

Comment by jchb | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

It was not a specific tax that targeted IKEA. But there was a set of taxes and regulations that one could say targeted all major "owners of capital".

Until 1989, the corporate tax was 52%. Yes there were various deductions, but still, 52%. Then a wealth tax of 2.5% on assets (all asset classes) over 1.6 million kronor - about $1.5 million in todays monetary value. This wealth tax could also be collected from a corporation when its liquid holdings exceeded double than that that of its debt.

Add to that, a intense political debate about introducing the so called Employee Funds - a mechanism in where a large part of the collected corporate tax would be dedicated to buying shares in the taxed corporation, shares that would then be distributed among the employees with a goal of collective ownership.

Perhaps indicative of the business climate in 1970s Sweden, Astrid Lindgren, the author of Pippi Longstocking, famously wrote a short satirical story about her over 100% margin tax rate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pomperipossa_in_Monismania.

And yet Lindgren remained a committed Social Democrat even in spite of this. Drawing a parallel between her and a tax-dodging, fascist sympathizer is quite the leap. Lindgren despised the Nazism Kamprad embraced and never really fully repudiated.

Not sure where I drew that parallel. I think we aren't discussing the facist angle in this sub-thread. What you are saying regarding Lindgren is correct, but the point is that the Social Democrats went to far, as they drew heavy criticism from even a loyal supporter. But then the party partially reversed direction in the 1990s.

Note that Ingvar Kamprad wasn't the only one to leave Sweden for tax related reasons in the 70-80s era. To name a few others: Hans Rausing (TetraPak), Stefan Persson (H&M), Ingmar Bergman, Björn Borg..

You used Lindgren and her story as an example of the "business climate" of Sweden in the 70s and as an implied defense of Kamprad/IKEA's actions. But her critique, when coupled with her continued commitment to socialism, isn't comparable to Kamprad/IKEA's actions.

Essentially, there's an important and material difference between saying, "I'm a socialist, but these taxes, which I'll continue to pay, are excessive" and "I'm an unreprentant fascist who must hide my wealth from these undeserving thieves," even if the latter can opportunistically profit from the former's sentiment to justify their own actions.

The way you are framing it, it sounds like Lindgren did a bad thing in criticising the Social democrats, but in the end she remained committed to socialism, so she ended up on the "safe side". Or being "good socialist" is one end of the scale, and "bad fascist capitalist" is on the other end. That doesn't make much sense, as that is mixing up two different scales. Fascism is a political system (could be described as a militaristic nationalism) that is opposed to democracy, while capitalism is an economical system. In fact, what Lindgren did remain committed to was not really socialism, but rather a form of social democracy with a "mix" economy including both state and private ownership - which is what Swedens Social Democratic party came to represent in the 1990s.

"Add to that, a intense political debate about introducing the so called Employee Funds - a mechanism in where a large part of the collected corporate tax would be dedicated to buying shares in the taxed corporation, shares that would then be distributed among the employees with a goal of collective ownership."

That is a really interesting idea.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com