15 ms·

I think the "right thing to do" for shareholders is probably a better way to describe the situation. Duty so much as to reduce their costs (with taxation being

I think the "right thing to do" for shareholders is probably a better way to describe the situation. Duty so much as to reduce their costs (with taxation being a cost).

jbooth 16y ago
Yeah, but that's a crappy thing to do. Lots of unethical practices are legal but we don't encourage companies to do them. Why this?
- eru 16y ago
  We don't encourage them to do this. The shareholders elected the board that is currently minimizing the taxes. If you don't like that, you can become an activist shareholder (or just an activist) and campaign for changing this company policy. This is no question of company ethics. It might be a question of the ethics of shareholding.
  - kd0amg 16y ago
    Having been elected to a position does not absolve you of moral responsibility for the actions you take while holding that position.
    - eru 16y ago
      Indeed. But the shareholders will find somebody to do their bidding. Also you could argue that doing what you were elected to do, within the legal limits, is fine. I'd say tax minimization is a patriotic duty.
      - jbooth 16y ago
        Patriotic duty, heh. Making sure you never give to charity either is a mitzvah?
        eru 16y ago
        At least most charities won't start wars with your money.
  - jbooth 16y ago
    This thread is full of people who presumably aren't even significant apple shareholders clamoring for tax avoidance on principle, like it's some sort of honorable thing to do, sticking it to the man or something, and you hear the same in the real world as well. We do encourage them.
    - eru 16y ago
      And why not. I am all for using loopholes while they exist, too. Just make sure you also campaign for closing loopholes.
_delirium 16y ago
If there isn't actually a legal duty to the shareholders, though, then you're basically in a territory of normal ethics, with subjective tradeoffs and competing interests, aren't you? There might be some ethical concerns about being "fair" to your shareholders, even beyond what the law requires, but there's also concerns about paying a "fair" amount of taxes to the state you reside in, and all sorts of other things to balance.
- Eliezer 16y ago
  How does having a legal duty put you outside the realm of ethics? If you have a legal duty to do something unethical, you're still doing something unethical.
  - _delirium 16y ago
    It means we're arguing different points. A duty to shareholders is one thing, which probably has a reasonably objective answer (though laws can be fuzzy). My argument is that there is no "duty to shareholders" to jurisdiction-shop in order to minimize taxes. (I might be wrong on that, but I don't think I am.) The "right thing to do" is a much fuzzier question, which can include a lot of possible concerns. Perhaps there is an "ethical duty to shareholders to jurisdiction-shop", but certainly you'd have to analyze more than just obligations to shareholders, since there are potentially conflicting ethical obligations to all sorts of other people as well. In the other direction, there might be an ethical obligation not to jurisdiction-shop, depending on your ethical precepts.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]

I think the "right thing to do" for shareholders is probably a better way to describe the situation. Duty so much as to reduce their costs (with taxation being a cost).

jbooth 16y ago

Yeah, but that's a crappy thing to do. Lots of unethical practices are legal but we don't encourage companies to do them. Why this?

eru 16y ago
We don't encourage them to do this. The shareholders elected the board that is currently minimizing the taxes. If you don't like that, you can become an activist shareholder (or just an activist) and campaign for changing this company policy. This is no question of company ethics. It might be a question of the ethics of shareholding.
- kd0amg 16y ago
  Having been elected to a position does not absolve you of moral responsibility for the actions you take while holding that position.
  - eru 16y ago
    Indeed. But the shareholders will find somebody to do their bidding. Also you could argue that doing what you were elected to do, within the legal limits, is fine. I'd say tax minimization is a patriotic duty.
    - jbooth 16y ago
      Patriotic duty, heh. Making sure you never give to charity either is a mitzvah?
      - eru 16y ago
        At least most charities won't start wars with your money.
- jbooth 16y ago
  This thread is full of people who presumably aren't even significant apple shareholders clamoring for tax avoidance on principle, like it's some sort of honorable thing to do, sticking it to the man or something, and you hear the same in the real world as well. We do encourage them.
  - eru 16y ago
    And why not. I am all for using loopholes while they exist, too. Just make sure you also campaign for closing loopholes.

_delirium 16y ago

If there isn't actually a legal duty to the shareholders, though, then you're basically in a territory of normal ethics, with subjective tradeoffs and competing interests, aren't you? There might be some ethical concerns about being "fair" to your shareholders, even beyond what the law requires, but there's also concerns about paying a "fair" amount of taxes to the state you reside in, and all sorts of other things to balance.

Eliezer 16y ago
How does having a legal duty put you outside the realm of ethics? If you have a legal duty to do something unethical, you're still doing something unethical.
- _delirium 16y ago
  It means we're arguing different points. A duty to shareholders is one thing, which probably has a reasonably objective answer (though laws can be fuzzy). My argument is that there is no "duty to shareholders" to jurisdiction-shop in order to minimize taxes. (I might be wrong on that, but I don't think I am.) The "right thing to do" is a much fuzzier question, which can include a lot of possible concerns. Perhaps there is an "ethical duty to shareholders to jurisdiction-shop", but certainly you'd have to analyze more than just obligations to shareholders, since there are potentially conflicting ethical obligations to all sorts of other people as well. In the other direction, there might be an ethical obligation not to jurisdiction-shop, depending on your ethical precepts.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]