There's nothing really wrong with stock buybacks. They're just a tax efficient method for companies without strong growth opportunities to return value to shareholders.
Now that said, stock buybacks on their own are not necessarily a "bad" thing, and if a company has no uses for a bunch of cash on hand then giving it to shareholders via buybacks can make sense rather than hold on to it. But I do think it's a fair complaint that if we're "giving" a company money in the form of tax breaks and they're using it to do stock buybacks (effectively saying they have no real use for it, as you mentioned) then it's unclear the tax breaks are actually useful to begin with. If they weren't allowed to use that money to do stock buybacks then they would have had to find some other use in the company for it (though in reality, since budgets are pretty flexible it wouldn't be too hard to get around that kind of requirement...)
A better approach would be to cut corporate income taxes to zero. But make it revenue neutral by increasing taxes on shareholders, bondholders, and highly paid employees.
And so you delve into a subjective area. Part of me feels that there is a literal 'passing of the buck' where the company sort of dilutes and distributes sort of, societal investment responsibility, which is where even my own philosophy solicits an internal eyeroll.
The problem I have with buybacks is that I agree it is frequently a signal that 'a company has no uses for a bunch of cash on hand'. But does society suffer when businesses are so wed to capital efficiency? Does society benefit from corporate investment, period? Are earnest investments beneficial to society even if they don't work out?
Basically, how does the money distributed from buybacks impact society, and could that be improved?
I'm not sure if this is exactly what you're getting at, but I think there's an argument to be made that companies are a bit too comfortable with simply giving cash back to shareholders rather than using it to improve their position, I think effectively the interests of the company and the interests of the shareholders aren't aligned in this situation. When you give it to shareholders in the form of buybacks, there's no guarantee you'll ever be getting it back, and like we saw in 2020 the times you most want to have a lot of cash are the same times investors aren't really interested in buying your stock.
> Basically, how does the money distributed from buybacks impact society, and could that be improved?
This one is somewhat easier to answer, because the majority of stocks are owned by the wealthy (a quick google suggests the top 1% own 40% of stocks, and bottom 80% only own ~7% of stocks). How they then use that money is a different matter, which would depend on a lot of other stuff and the economy at the time.
Not saying I really agree, they typically offer a premium (which is just like rolling a dividend into it) and it would seem highly unusual to have a company that seemed growth/non-growth according to whether you had inside information.
I suppose there might be examples like AMC or GameStop (not that, inside information wouldn't have helped you there!) that seemed on the outside to be dying, they absolutely should return or value to shareholders and cease operations; but actually they had ambitious plans to revitalise etc...
a company acts in the interest of its shareholders.
If you're saying that a majority shareholder hides this info from the rest of the shareholders, triggers a buy back under a false pretense, then realize that growth (making the share worth more), then that's just financial fraud.
If a company has an opportunity for growth, this information is unlikely to be private to the shareholders, and thus, the buyback would price in that possibility (discounted by the success rate and risk). So the scenario, where a company buys back shares (from current shareholders), then somehow improves it's performance/growth suddenly, is not likely.