Good price for a Patagonia hoodie.
All colours and sizes seem to be available.
Extra 20% off discount is applied once added to cart.
Patagonia P-6 Logo Uprisal Hoody $67.17 (RRP $119) + $9.95 Delivery ($0 TAS C&C/ $100 Order) @ Find Your Feet
380
Beanwe on 23/09/2022 - 18:17 findyourfeet.com.au (3931 clicks)
Last edited 23/09/2022 - 18:56 by 2 other users
Last edited 23/09/2022 - 18:56 by 2 other users
Related Stores
closed Comments
Their stuff are overpriced, but this is the sort of company that I would rather support.
https://theconversation.com/patagonias-founder-has-given-his…Don't be fooled by the grand notion. It's a way to avoid a 700 million dollar tax bill and to keep the family in control via a newly established family trust with very little details.
I have long been a supporter of Patagonia and ownany of their products to down jackets and bags, but have my doubts about the legitimacy of this move. It also shields the assets against a heavy inheritance tax when he passes away.
Whilst there's no doubt that there will be good done by the move, people are mostly unaware that the roughly 100 million dollars in profit that the trust will be able to donate, the trust is set up in a way that can donate unlimited resources towards political campaigns. The jury is still out for me on the benefits of this move.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-09-15/patagonia…
2nd hand clothes the only way really. Or true vintage that somehow hasn't been worn.
Ecologically speaking yes, but then you’re taking away income from the poor. It’s an awful balance of catch-22s that are too depressing to think about.
Why not just get naked? We need a political party for nudists
Thats the best part about the company, not beholden to shareholders chasing profits
It's not right to say the family avoided a $700m tax bill. That 'tax bill' would only have eventuated if they had proceeded down the path of selling the company (and generate a profit that would have to be taxed).
By doing what they have done now (i.e. giving away the company and not selling it), they have not made any profit (hence there is no tax to pay).
Similarly, there is no inheritance tax to pay because the shares in the Patagonia company will no longer be passed to the owner's heirs. There is no inheritance tax to 'shield' against.
The family trust that you mention does hold the voting shares (hence the family will continue to make decisions regarding the direction of the company). However these voting shares only comprise 2% of total shares in the company. The remaining 98% has been donated to a non-profit organisation.
True, the family will still be able to direct resources towards political campaigns of its choosing. But there's nothing wrong with that.
Overall, the family has given away its ownership of the company while still retaining some control over the direction of the company. But that's in line with the founder's stated aim of wanting to fight climate change etc.
I didn't say they avoided a 700 million tax bill, you're twisting my words around. I said it is a way to avoid a 700 million tax bill, i.e. in the future. The statement is not incorrect. There has been more than once instance in Patagonia's history that its founder has floated the desire to sell the company. If he does so now, he will avoid paying capital gains tax. There is precedent of this kind of structure before.
He is following the path of electronics manufacturing mogul Barre Seid, who "donated his company Tripp Lite to a 501(c)(4), Marble Freedom Trust, which then sold the business for $1.65 billion, sparing Seid from paying capital gains taxes on the transaction. The organization is led by a conservative activist whose activities helped cement the conservative dominance of the US Supreme Court and counter abortion rights, voting rules and climate policy"
You also misunderstand who is in control of the share distribution and the non-profit. Yes, 2% voting shares went to a trust and 98% shares went to a nonprofit. The non-profit is still controlled by him and his family. And so is the trust. The family basically now has 100% control with no outside influence, no need to answer to shareholders. There are scant details available on this trust and no doubt will be shrouded in secrecy moving forward.
But once again, I need to highlight, in the US there is a 40% levy on fortunes transferred to heirs. That now no longer needs to be paid.
I don't doubt that Patagonia, its founder and its controlling interests have good intentions and will do much good for climate change, but don't be fooled to believe that this was the sole motivation. It's restructuring to save on future taxes that should be paid, masquerading as the fight against climate change.
@NoApostrophePlurals: But a tax bill will only ever arise if there is a profit. We agree on that right? By doing what they've done, there won't ever be a profit in future, because ownership of the company does not belong to the family anymore. The shares in the company are no longer the family's to sell.
Sure, you might argue that they might 'avoid' a $700m tax bill in the future, but a tax bill is only relevant if there is a (larger) profit. In this case, the profit is no longer going to eventuate. So in fact, they have given up a much larger potential profit (if they would have sold the company).
I haven't misunderstood "who is in control of the share distribution and the non-profit.". I understand the structure of it. But for the purposes of our discussion, what's relevant is that the family no longer owns the company. Sure they still have control of the company (as they still control the voting shares), but they don't have any ownership of 98% of the company.
You said that the family "basically now has 100% control with no outside influence, no need to answer to shareholders". But the family was always the only shareholders and always had 100% control. They never had to answer to anyone else to begin with. So that can't be a criticism. Patagonia was a private company to start with and never had any need to answer to any other shareholders.
At the end of the day, your point is wrong. You said "it's restructuring to save on future taxes that should be paid." They haven't 'saved' on future taxes, because in fact they have given up ownership of the company. The taxes that you refer to are only relevant if the transactions that give rise to them actually occur (e.g. sale of shares for a profit, or transfer of fortunes to heirs). Those events will no longer occur (and the economic benefit of these transactions will no longer accrue to the family), because the ownership of the company has been given away.
As an analogy, let's say I own an apartment block as an investment. It's worth $10m and I paid $2m years ago. I decide to donate it to someone, but I manage to somehow retain control of the strata committee and I want the building to forever remain painted green. Would you accuse me of avoiding future capital gains tax? No, because I will never see the $8m profit since I've given the property away.
(I am in no way trying to be condescending or anything like that, but I just wanted to point out that I do have a law degree, though I am not a practising lawyer. Just to give some context.)
@thehub: "they still have control of the company (as they still control the voting shares), but they don't have any ownership of 98% of the company." They may not have ownership of the 98% but they do do have full control of that nonprofit and also the trust. The 2% to make decisions for the company's day to day operations and the 98% of the company and its profits and how those profits are distributed.
As opposed to if they floated the company on the stock exchange or if they sold the company in its entirety and donated that money to charity/fighting climate change, this helps the company avoid future tax bills if not set up this way.The founder will pass away one day. If he hadn't have done it this way, that's a 40% levy that has been avoided. How was this not ever going to eventuate? That levy can do a lot of good in fighting climate change, but it's still tax that would otherwise gone towards the government to spend on how it sees fit. So my point isn't wrong, they are saving on future taxes. How else would this be avoided otherwise?
A nonprofit isn't as literal as the name suggests on face value. A nonprofit is still allowed to make profit. It's how the nonprofit is driven how profits are distributed. A nonprofit can still legally sell the whole company's shares if it wanted to. I'm not saying that will happen, but it can legally. And the family has full control of this nonprofit.
Let's be clear first, after casting my initial doubt aside, Patagonia intends to do well with its move, but it is done in a way that will definitely have a reduction in taxes. These tax savings will definitely benefit fighting climate change, but the media is framing it just how Patagonia wants people to see it.
In regards to your analogy, it's not even the same thing. You can't donate the block to just someone. You have to donate it to a nonprofit controlled by your family members. Those family members can decide to sell it for a profit if they see fit in the future. You're also using yourself as an example of avoiding tax. I am not specifically singling out the founder. You haven't avoided future tax. You've avoided an immediate taxable incident. The trust can sell it in future, there's many different ways to avoid tax but that's a totally different thing and whole different discussion and why it's a bad analogy.
Maybe I'm not articulating myself well enough and I apologise if this is the case. Please read this article that echoes my sentiments in a much clearer manner:
https://qz.com/patagonia-s-3-billion-corporate-gift-is-also-…
@NoApostrophePlurals: I think we are both correct to be honest. The difference is that my argument is from the family's perspective, whereas you're looking at it from the government's perspective (or the taxpayers' perspective).
For me, I don't see it as avoiding tax because the family now won't ever be entitled to any profit from the sale of the shares, which are supposedly worth a few billion (although they still have control of the company). The only control they have is how the company's profits are used, and even then it's only within the confines of the nonprofit organisation and what it's allowed to do.
You're arguing the government has lost the opportunity to levy those taxes. Which is also factual and I agree. But the benefit of these taxes being avoided hasn't gone to the family, I guess it's gone to the overall cause of fighting climate change.
The family may have control over the nonprofit organisation, and the nonprofit organisation may decide to sell the 98% ownership of Patagonia. But even then, the family will not be entitled to those profits anymore. My (very very limited) understanding of the rules is that if the nonprofit organisation were to distribute the profits to the family, there will be a tax imposed on this (hence no tax avoidance will be achieved).
Overall, maybe my interpretation of what they've done is more positive than yours. The way I see it, they've done a huge thing by giving up a few billion dollars to support their desire to help the environment. Sure, it means the government (taxpayer) has missed out on taxes, and the family still has a lot of say in how the profits are used, but they've given up the economic interest of ownership of those shares (which is worth a lot more than the taxes).
Thanks op!
looks like only XL remaining in all colours
Highway robbery can by same material at Kmart for $19
yes but this fabric is not woven by slaves.
You sure about that ?
costlier but worth it for quality in warmth.
The warm feeling of knowing you're wearing a $120rrp hoodie?
Thanks for that been wanting one of these for a while