Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by simonh 4920 days ago
That argument works for individuals who are only responsible for their own finances and moral conduct, but companies have legal obligations to their shareholders to maximise shareholder value. Arguably that means if they find a legal way to reduce their tax costs they are obligated to do so. It's an interesting and non-trivial ethical question.
1 comments

I wish we'd stop that. There's the concept of a [Benefit Corporation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benefit_corporation) which is sadly underused. It's a corporation that, while not non-profit, exists to create something other than pure wealth/shareholder profit.

More immediately, I'd like to see several rulings at once that state that future sustainable profits are more important than immediate ones, and that the suing shareholders can be held liable for court fees and damages for negative press if they sue the company/board an lose. Companies and their executives should be allowed fairly broad strokes to make a company valuable, including value of goodwill and paying attention to/not exploiting loopholes in the law.