The Guardian flourishes without a paywall

Scott Trust and ownership structure

• Many comments focus on the Scott Trust, created to shield the Guardian from commercial and inheritance pressures.
• Historical account: the paper was already profitable when transferred into a trust largely to avoid heavy inheritance taxes that might have forced a sale.
• The trust is seen as “journalists for journalists” and distinct from billionaire vanity projects; others note it is still a tax-avoidance device.
• Similar trust/foundation structures are cited for Le Monde Diplomatique, Irish Times, some Danish firms, Ikea/Bosch-style foundations, etc.

Inheritance tax, wealth, and trusts

• Long subthread debates inheritance taxes: some see them as essential to preventing dynastic wealth and inequality; others call them “robbery” and unfair double‑taxation.
• Examples from the Guardian’s history and cases in the UK, France, South Korea (“Korea discount”), and Germany (Porsche) illustrate how high inheritance taxes drive elaborate avoidance, cross‑shareholdings, and sometimes innovation.
• Disagreement over whether 100% inheritance tax would be desirable or disastrous; some argue for wealth taxes instead, others for consumption taxes.
• Several point out that in practice most inheritance tax regimes hit only the upper middle class and rich due to large exemptions.

Business model: no paywall, donations, and ads

• Readers like that subscriptions/donations keep content free; some explicitly pay “for everyone else” and see paywalls as elitist.
• Others note the Guardian still runs display ads, third‑party tracking (e.g., DoubleClick), and “ad‑lite” paid tiers, and is adopting “consent or pay” cookie models many find coercive.
• Several compare revenue numbers: voluntary donations are substantial but far below what hard paywalls bring per user; the model likely needs very large scale and brand recognition.

Politics, quality, and ragebait

• Strong divide: supporters see the Guardian as one of the last high‑quality, broadly accessible newspapers, with good foreign, culture, and sports coverage.
• Critics describe it as partisan, “propaganda” or “ragebait,” especially on US politics, Israel/Palestine, gender, and identity; some say it is establishment‑liberal, hostile to the working class, or too “culture war” focused.
• Others counter that it is mainstream centre‑left by UK/European standards, and that clear editorial positioning is normal; the news side is seen as more balanced than the opinion pages.

Investigative reporting and comparisons

• Commenters cite major Guardian investigations (Snowden/PRISM, Panama Papers participation, BAe bribery, UK undercover policing, Iraq war crimes) as evidence of serious journalism.
• It is frequently compared to the FT, Economist, NYT, and WSJ; several argue the FT now offers higher‑quality, more measured reporting, while the Guardian trades more in volume and emotional framing.