Forum menu
If you haven't already, read Let My People go Surfing.
https://www.gov.uk/charities-and-tax/blockquote >
And? How is that relevant?
Assume he's saying its a tax scam, but if the profits are going to charitable causes and not the directors pockets then it's good they don't pay tax.
Would make me look at buying thier kit more now. Usually out of my price range though....
Assume he’s saying its a tax scam, but if the profits are going to charitable causes and not the directors pockets then it’s good they don’t pay tax.
They’ve had to pay $17.5m in tax to give the company away.
https://www.gov.uk/charities-and-tax/blockquote >
Didn't take long did it? Why is this place so ****** up?
Guessing Paton hasn’t read the full article…..
The Chouinards then donated the other 98 percent of Patagonia, its common shares, to a newly established nonprofit organization called the Holdfast Collective, which will now be the recipient of all the company’s profits and use the funds to combat climate change. Because the Holdfast Collective is a 501(c)(4), which allows it to make unlimited political contributions, the family received no tax benefit for its donation.
“There was a meaningful cost to them doing it, but it was a cost they were willing to bear to ensure that this company stays true to their principles,” said Dan Mosley, a partner at BDT & Co., a merchant bank that works with ultrawealthy individuals including Warren Buffett, and who helped Patagonia design the new structure. “And they didn’t get a charitable deduction for it. There is no tax benefit here whatsoever.”
Why post a link to a UK tax website for a Californian company?
And this is in the USA so tax liabilities will be different to the UK anyway…
Assume he’s saying its a tax scam, but if the profits are going to charitable causes and not the directors pockets then it’s good they don’t pay tax.
Doesn't the article say the opposite- that they've incurred a significant tax charge because of how they've structured the divestment?
What a great thing to do - and typical of Patagonia.
As for the idiotic post by paton - it's a US based company so uk tax law is irrelevant; should have fully read and understood the report; 4 Fs apply -first find the _ facts; it's yet another pointless post attempting to make a point and it's a behaviour becoming more prevalent on the forum.
The article includes a good illustration of some people not getting the point
Some experts caution that without the Chouinard family having a financial stake in Patagonia, the company and the related entities could lose their focus. While the children remain on Patagonia’s payroll and the elder Chouinards have enough to live comfortably on, the company will no longer be distributing any profits to the family.
“What makes capitalism so successful is that there’s motivation to succeed,” said Ted Clark, executive director of the Northeastern University Center for Family Business. “If you take all the financial incentives away, the family will have essentially no more interest in it except a longing for the good old days.”
The Chouinards have realised that if you have enough money for your needs, more money isn't an incentive. For them, however, saving the planet is an incentive that motivates them.
I have an 11 year old Nanopuff smock that I've worn intensively over that period (I was sleeping in it on Tuesday evening). Getting a bit frayed round the hems but a great bit of kit that I got half price from Needlesports. Would I buy the current version (now has pockets and a hood) at full price when this one eventually needs replacing? Yep, even though I'm on a low income, and the company's stance on environmentalism and sustainability is a factor in that choice.
Bloody pinko lefty snowflakes! Don't they appreciate I could have made some money on their IPO if they weren't so selfish and had decided to go public instead!
*Adds Patagonia to the "good egg' list of retailers to buy from in future*
I assumed the link to Tax.gov was a post in the wrong thread! People are nuts. I can’t see how this move by Patagonia is anything but a good thing.
They’ve had to pay $17.5m in tax to give the company away.
Yep
Doesn’t the article say the opposite- that they’ve incurred a significant tax charge because of how they’ve structured the divestment?
Yep
So we agree that paton is even more wrongerer than I first thought he was.
Why post a link to a UK tax website for a Californian company?
I've often wondered if it's a bot that just posts the first hit on google/youtube, however irrelevant to the actual topic?
So we agree that paton is even more wrongerer than I first thought he was.
Its also too late to edit the post, so its stuck there as a little memorial now.
Call me cynical but hasn’t this guy made his fortune by taking the earths resources and turning them into private wealth. Now he has moved the company into a charity which he has a controlling interest in. I dont really see this as much more than a PR stunt hiding a tax dodge just as Bill Gates is doing. Surely if he was that bothered about the earths resources and climate change he would shut the company down so it stopped using the resources and polluting the planet
Well, we need clothes frankly.
And its hardly Primark is it.
Surely if he was that bothered about the earths resources and climate change he would shut the company down so it stopped using the resources and polluting the planet
The company’s profits may allow them to put back more than they take out?
Call me cynical but hasn’t this guy made his fortune by taking the earths resources and turning them into private wealth. Now he has moved the company into a charity which he has a controlling interest in. I dont really see this as much more than a PR stunt hiding a tax dodge just as Bill Gates is doing. Surely if he was that bothered about the earths resources and climate change he would shut the company down so it stopped using the resources and polluting the planet
<div class="as-m-collapse__header">
<h2 class="as-a-heading as-a-heading--m">Product details</h2>
</div>
<div class="as-m-collapse__body">
<div class="as-t-box margin-bottom-mobile-2 margin-top-tablet-3">
<div class="as-a-text as-a-text--s as-a-text--product-details glossary-highlight">
<div>
- Materials:
- Main body: 100% Recycled Econyl nylon H2No Performance Standard shell
- Polycarbonate PU membrane with 13% biobased content
- Tricot backer
- DWR finish
- Fair Trade Certified sewn
- Bluesign approved
- Jacket self-stuffs into left handwarmer pocket with carabiner clip-in loop
- Snag-free center-front zipper with external and internal storm flaps
- Two-way-adjustable hood with stowable laminated visor
- Adjustable drawcord hem seal out precipitation
- Microfleece-lined neck with waterproof barrier
- Self-fabric hook-and-loop cuff closures
- Two zippered handwarmer pockets
- Zipper-garage chin guard
- Venting pit zips
- Fit: Regular
- Weight: 394g
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<h2>PRODUCT DESCRIPTION</h2>
<div class="contentWrap">
<div class="product attribute description">
<div class="value">
- 100% recycled polyester jersey
- Organic-cotton-twill-lined crown tape and sweatband for itch-free comfort
- Ties at the end of earflaps cinch down for extra warmth or up if you need them out of the way
- High-pile-fleece-lined earflaps and neck flap keep your head warm and dry
- Fair Trade Certified™ sewn
- Made in China.
</div>
</div>
</div>
- <b>Patagonia</b> recycled cotton and recycled polyester-blend T-shirt
- 50% recycled cotton, 50% recycled polyester
- Pulls on
- Crewneck, ribbed trim at neck, short sleeves, printed branding at chest, branded graphic print at back
- Machine wash cold
- Model is 6ft 2in/1.88m and wears a size medium
- Lightweight, slight stretch
Based on my extensive research based on clicking on the first three products when google shopping search for Patagonia, it seems like they go out their way to use recycled products and fair trade manufacturing. I presume (without researching) that they probably have a fairly solid modern slavery policy too.
That's rubbish - he is giving us the consumers a choice of where we buy out outdoor gear. Now lets see if people have the intelligence to buy from a company which really cares about the planet rather than one that chooses to exploit it.
Alternatively the same descriptions could be written as
PU membrane 87% made from fresh oil
50% freshly grown cotton and 50% new ployester from our preferred oil refinery
Isnt all cotton organic? It’s a farmed crop made from plants
Its marketing mumbo jumbo. It still doesn’t get away from the fact that if the company shut it would use no oil, no cotton and is global transport / logistics would use no carbon or other planet damaging substances.
It still doesn’t get away from the fact that if the company shut it would use no oil, no cotton and is global transport / logistics would use no carbon or other planet damaging substances.
And where do your clothes come from?
Extending your argument, as production of and/or processing of raw materials used in all clothing manufacture has some adverse impact on the environment it should all stop.
Reductio ad absurdum - but you, hopefully, get the point.
Isnt all cotton organic? It’s a farmed crop made from plantsIts marketing mumbo jumbo. It still doesn’t get away from the fact that if the company shut it would use no oil, no cotton and is global transport / logistics would use no carbon or other planet damaging substances.
Nope - organic vs non organic is about pesticides, fertilizers etc. I know farmers with organic status in the UK and it's really onerous/rigorous to get it and maintain it.
I'm basically with you on the other point though - isn't there enough clothes already in existence to clothe the entire population of the Earth for the next twenty years or something? Hell, there's enough in my wardrobe to mean I haven't bought a single item this year (though I was given some socks and got a few race t-shirts).
People will buy stuff they don't need though, and I'd rather it was from Patagonia than most other companies.
Yeah, good on him and his family. Surely it's no surprise, it's just Yvon Chounaird continuing to say FU to the the established (business) order?
Call me cynical but hasn’t this guy made his fortune by taking the earths resources and turning them into private wealth.
You are cynical.
Read a bit more about the guy and the company. They actively promoted only buying stuff you need, not because it was fashion led. See https://eu.patagonia.com/gb/en/stories/dont-buy-this-jacket-black-friday-and-the-new-york-times/story-18615.html He's given away most of the wealth he accumulated, to an organisation set up to promote protecting the earth, in which he doesn't now have a controlling interest.
if the company shut it would use no oil, no cotton and is global transport / logistics would use no carbon or other planet damaging substances
and then people would buy their stuff from a company that doesn't care, and some of whose profits would go to people who waste money and resources on 'billionaire' lifestyle.
Yeah, good on him.
Still have a good number of hexentrics from bitd. Re-sling them and they'll be good again I reckon. And over the years I have had some bits of clothing, all good too. Certainly will be on the radar when anything needs replacing.
Friend of mine has a caravan and tells me the forum he uses has a few characters that are completely ignored.
The characters keep posting but everyone ignores them.
Think that would be worth a try here.
The characters keep posting but everyone ignores them.
didnt the bike/outdoors magic sites do that? soft blocking. users could be blocked so they could post but no-one could actually see their posts. you wonder how long they would take to realise...
In reference to the op's post:
Good for him.👍
Of only this behaviour was the norm rather than the exception.
to be fair to the cynics... Firstly, Chounaird is the exception that proves the rule. There aren't too many folks like him steering massive companies. But my main point: whilst he's absolutely a great guy and all that, we can't rely on one or two folks like him to tackle climate change. I mean great effort and everything as much for the news value as anything else, but it's only governments that can make serious dents in climate change. If this increases public awareness and pressure on governments then great - as it's that will make more of a difference than anything any one company can do.
(Though great that quite a few outdoor brands now claim to be climate neutral. As we jet about the world in their stuff.)
if the company shut it would use no oil, no cotton and is global transport / logistics would use no carbon or other planet damaging substances
Fundamentally clothes will continue to be made. I would far rather Patagonia continued to be a high profile brand demonstrating a positive ethos of minimising our future purchases (by making quality products that last well, by offering and encouraging repair rather than replace and sticking to aesthetics not driven by short term fashion trends) and a company business ethic not driven purely by maximising profits to set an example for other brands to see can work rather than just closing for very little global benefit - the hole would close over in seconds to be replaced by manufacturers not setting the same standards.
The thorny issue is that Patagonia has a tiny market share - for all the good they do, the world is still dominated by the Primark model of fast fashion for the west's clothing - both as a purchase of choice/necessity and as a money making vehicle for industry. Not sure how that battle is won, or even if it can be.
My god you would think he had sold it to sports direct with some of the comments.
They have done a good thing
I get why people are so cynical, it's a natural response to the general shitness and sociopathy of corporatism. But why not point that ire at the bad guys, not the guys who- at the very worst, most cynical interpretation- are still doing it better than probably 99% of the corporate world?
Top boy. The quote about billionaires "driving Lexuses" amused me 😃
Would I buy the current version (now has pockets and a hood) at full price when this one eventually needs replacing? Yep, even though I’m on a low income
Ah, another adherant of Vimes' Boots Theory.
TBH I've never looked at their stuff but I certainly would now.
I would far rather Patagonia continued to be a high profile brand demonstrating a positive ethos of minimising our future purchases (by making quality products that last well, by offering and encouraging repair rather than replace and sticking to aesthetics not driven by short term fashion trends)
I agree with this entirely, there kit is very expensive but it does last for ever which has to be a good thing. I still have a duvet jacket that’s 20 years old.
Chapeau to Mr Chounaird and his family. I've always had a liking for Patagonia gear and this gives me more reason to continue to buy it in the future.
Let My People Go Surfing has a good section on why he didn't just sell the company a long time ago and just invest in environment activity.
Man is an inspiration!
Chapeau to Mr Chounaird and his family.
indeed, his son makes some great surfboards too.
Great book and I've just bought a new waterproof off them. My last one of theirs lasted 12 years. Person trying to do good stuff as far as I can see which is a lot further than some on here can look.