Timeline for How can Rupert Murdoch be having a problem changing the beneficiaries of his trust?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 hour ago | comment | added | adam.baker | In 2024 this is as close as we get to stickin it to the man... | |
| 2 hours ago | comment | added | Hobbamok | @Themoonisacheese "various political reasons" is a very, very generous phrasing of "it's a plutocracy with good pr" | |
| 4 hours ago | comment | added | Themoonisacheese | @quarague: personally I agree, but this is a matter for politics. | |
| 4 hours ago | comment | added | quarague | @Themoonisacheese True but that doesn't change that the tax law here allows very rich people to do things that I consider to be very undesirable for society as a whole. | |
| 4 hours ago | comment | added | Themoonisacheese | @quarague: this wasn't a "deal" between the tax office and Murdoch, it's just how tax law exists as it stands (stood?). Tax law is not decided by the tax office, and for various political reasons the law allows this to happen. | |
| 5 hours ago | comment | added | quarague | That is of course a political opinion, but it seems to me even without the current court case, the tax office got a pretty bad deal if they lost $7.9 billion in taxes for the sole benefit that ownership of Murdoch's empire will be evenly split between his 4 oldest children. | |
| 8 hours ago | comment | added | Nate Eldredge | And as I mentioned above, there doesn't seem to be any intention of changing who gets the assets. They'll all still get the same shares. The question is over who will control the companies. This of course influences the value of those assets. Rupert argues that value would be maximized by putting Lachlan in charge; the other children disagree. | |
| 8 hours ago | comment | added | Nate Eldredge | The article suggests that another reason the trust was set up as irrevocable was that it was part of a bargain between Rupert and his second wife Anna, to ensure that his four eldest children from his first two marriages (Prudence, Lachlan, Elisabeth and James) were guaranteed a substantial share of the assets, and could not be disinherited in favor of Rupert's younger children with his third wife (Grace and Chloe). | |
| 12 hours ago | history | edited | ohwilleke | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 5 characters in body
|
| 12 hours ago | history | edited | ohwilleke | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 671 characters in body
|
| 12 hours ago | history | answered | ohwilleke | CC BY-SA 4.0 |