[jhancock]

"Make a boatload of money. Pay your taxes. Lots of taxes. Hire people. Train people. Pay people. Spend money on rent, equipment, services. Pay more taxes."

Don't most wealthy people hire lawyers and lobbyists to help them not pay taxes? Don't they also move jobs overseas to reduce how much they pay to their own economy?

Cuban seems to be living in a dreamworld.

[pchristensen]

They pay much more in taxes despite the fact that they do this. By "pay more taxes" he means that the more money you make, the more taxes you have to pay. I'm sure that if you asked him, he'd say it's also your duty to pay as little tax as required.

[jhancock]

Have you been keeping up with UBS private banking trial? Many wealthy have access to loopholes or simply hide behind legal and banking confidentiality to illegally hide wealth.

Sure, most wealthy pay more on an absolute scale. Not always so on a relative scale.

Cuban's core rational is that rich people make things move, shape change. I agree somewhat. So it follows that if they make less efficient things more efficient, then removing all tax loopholes and aggressively going after illegal tax behavior would force these wonderful, really smart rich people to make the tax system and government spending of it more efficient. As long as they have a way around paying, they have no incentive to make the tax usage more efficient.

[run4yourlives]

They pay much more in taxes despite the fact that they do this.

I'm pretty sure Warren Buffet proved otherwise:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ec...

[fallentimes]

You're talking percent, he's talking gross.

[run4yourlives]

I don't want to speak for him, but I'm pretty sure Cuban is talking percent too, given that he seems to be encouraging the paying of full taxes sans loopholes.

[Locke1689]

To be sure, this happens, but I'm not sure I'd accuse him of living in a dreamworld...

For one, he's not saying you can't go through hoops to avoid paying taxes, he's saying don't do it. Of course, if we wanted to we could legislate to prevent this exploitation of tax law, although I'm not sure how far that would get without a considerable social realignment.

[jhancock]

Wasn't trying to completely dismiss Cuban on this. I simply do not see enough wealthy not using loophole that are available to them. This is why I say he's living in a dreamworld. Your right, to fix this, you have to legislate out all the loopholes. And this would take considerable social alignment.

[dschobel]

People don't move jobs abroad. Corporations (with a legal mandate to make as much profit for their shareholders as possible) move jobs abroad.

[jhancock]

"a legal mandate to make as much profit for their shareholders as possible".

I have never seen a law that says such a thing. Shareholders get to vote respective to the rights of their share class...That's about it. Other than embezzlement and other forms of fraud, a company can do as they like.

[dschobel]

for-profit corporations exist for the sole purpose of advancing their shareholder's interest (profit). period. end of story.

check out any company's s-1 filing. here's google's for reference: http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/pdf/ne/2004/google.pdf

just search through that for the phrase 'shareholder'. here's just a small taste: We will make decisions on business fundamentals... and always with the long term welfare of our company and shareholders in mind

and 'lest you forget, the board of yahoo was actually sued for initially rebuffing the microsoft takeover bid.

[jhancock]

I"m sorry, you still haven't pointed out any laws on this issue. Your references are to corporate and cultural hyperbole, which do sometimes have weight in a courtroom.

As to Yahoo or anyone else getting sued by shareholders, sure you can sue. The courts may take into account actions of corporate execs and decide they haven't been listening to the shareholders. But it really depends on what the shareholder rights are in any given corp. Was Yahoo required to put a buyout offer to a shareholder vote, but did not? If so, the shareholders have legal standing. But its not the reason you state: "exist for the sole purpose of advancing their shareholder's interest (profit). period. end of story."

In fact, I'll wager you cannot find such a clear law that supports your position.