4 ms·

> The customer taking advantage of a mistake to receive an unfair deal and Amazon not paying taxes are more or less the same behavior. Disagree. Amazon are for

by shawnz 7y ago

> The customer taking advantage of a mistake to receive an unfair deal and Amazon not paying taxes are more or less the same behavior. Disagree. Amazon are forced and obligated to use legal tax avoidance strategies to be competitive and to fulfill their fiduciary duty. You might say that tax avoidance isn't in the spirit of the law but then why don't lawmakers implement mitigations for it? Because they don't want to, they want to preserve the possibility of tax avoidance to appease corporations. So to me that means that tax avoidance actually is in the spirit of the law as it stands currently.

oarsinsync 7y ago
> Amazon are forced and obligated to use legal tax avoidance strategies to be competitive and to fulfil their fiduciary duty Any precedent where shareholders have successfully sued a company for failing to exploit legal tax avoidance strategies would be appreciated. Otherwise, "forced and obligated" feels a bit of a stretch.
- shawnz 7y ago
  Forced because of their competitors. Obligated for legal reasons.
  - gamblor956 7y ago
    Neither is true. Corporations are not fiduciaries for their shareholders and they do not have a fiduciary obligation to maximize shareholder value or even to protect their shareholders' investments. The board of a corporation is tasked with protecting the shareholders' investments by overseeing the selection of a CEO and corporate structural issues. And that's it.
    - shawnz 7y ago
      > The board of a corporation is tasked with protecting the shareholders' investments by overseeing the selection of a CEO and corporate structural issues. And that's it. Right. So they have a duty to select a CEO who doesn't enable the unnecessary waste of corporate money on optional taxes.
      - gamblor956 7y ago
        No, that's exactly wrong. They don't have a duty to minimize waste, otherwise they would have a duty to not award golden parachutes or large executive compensation packages or even to pay themselves more than a few hundred bucks a year.
        shawnz 7y ago
        > otherwise they would have a duty to not award golden parachutes or large executive compensation packages That's actually true though, they do have such a duty. http://www.shareholderoppression.com/excessive-compensation http://www.shareholderoppression.com/excessive-compensation
        gamblor956 7y ago
        That only applies to approving their own excessive compensation.. It helps to read things before you link to then....
      - showdead 7y ago
        > So they have a duty to select a CEO who doesn't enable the unnecessary waste of corporate money on optional taxes. Waste is one of a very short list of categories that are considered something no one wants: https://medium.com/bull-market/there-is-no-effective-fiduciary-duty-to-maximize-profits-939ae50d0572 https://medium.com/bull-market/there-is-no-effective-fiducia...

by shawnz 7y ago

oarsinsync 7y ago

> Amazon are forced and obligated to use legal tax avoidance strategies to be competitive and to fulfil their fiduciary duty Any precedent where shareholders have successfully sued a company for failing to exploit legal tax avoidance strategies would be appreciated. Otherwise, "forced and obligated" feels a bit of a stretch.

shawnz 7y ago
Forced because of their competitors. Obligated for legal reasons.
- gamblor956 7y ago
  Neither is true. Corporations are not fiduciaries for their shareholders and they do not have a fiduciary obligation to maximize shareholder value or even to protect their shareholders' investments. The board of a corporation is tasked with protecting the shareholders' investments by overseeing the selection of a CEO and corporate structural issues. And that's it.
  - shawnz 7y ago
    > The board of a corporation is tasked with protecting the shareholders' investments by overseeing the selection of a CEO and corporate structural issues. And that's it. Right. So they have a duty to select a CEO who doesn't enable the unnecessary waste of corporate money on optional taxes.
    - gamblor956 7y ago
      No, that's exactly wrong. They don't have a duty to minimize waste, otherwise they would have a duty to not award golden parachutes or large executive compensation packages or even to pay themselves more than a few hundred bucks a year.
      - shawnz 7y ago
        > otherwise they would have a duty to not award golden parachutes or large executive compensation packages That's actually true though, they do have such a duty. http://www.shareholderoppression.com/excessive-compensation http://www.shareholderoppression.com/excessive-compensation
        gamblor956 7y ago
        That only applies to approving their own excessive compensation.. It helps to read things before you link to then....
    - showdead 7y ago
      > So they have a duty to select a CEO who doesn't enable the unnecessary waste of corporate money on optional taxes. Waste is one of a very short list of categories that are considered something no one wants: https://medium.com/bull-market/there-is-no-effective-fiduciary-duty-to-maximize-profits-939ae50d0572 https://medium.com/bull-market/there-is-no-effective-fiducia...