Comment by Sven7 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Sven7 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

That is besides the point. The main point highlighted by the committee is that companies like Apple, large companies that operate across the world have a choice in how much tax they can pay.

Your small start up or your uncle's deli does not have that choice. Apple decides it will pay tax on profits generated in Mexico, Canada and Brazil in the US (~6 Billion) but profits generated in the rest of the world just sit in Ireland collecting dust.

So tomorrow Apple can easily decide to move profits from Mexico, Brazil and Canada to Ireland too. Which is all fine. Just means less US tax revenue. Less kids get STEM scholarships and more H1B visas.

Apple and the rest of the MNC's are never going to admit this has a cost to America but it does. All they are saying is we have a legal right to do it.

Sort of like a son telling the father thanks for paying for my upbringing and college now I am moving to China and dont look at me if your need anything in you old age cause I dont have any legal obligations.

>Apple and the rest of the MNC's are never going to admit this has a cost to America but it does. All they are saying is we have a legal right to do it.

And if they have a legal right to maximize their profits under the law in this way, one could argue that they have a duty to their shareholders to do it. The problem (for society) is that corporations' primary duty is to maximize shareholder value, and not to benefit society. If a corporation has a choice between doubling their investors' money or curing cancer, they have a duty to choose the former.

And that is wrong.

Just as medical insurance companies cannot deny you insurance and lets you die just because it dents their profit. Lots of people had to stand up and say that is wrong for the law to change.

Just as Switzerland has changed its laws to stop protecting personal income tax evaders. Why did they do it after decades of benefiting from it? Because lots of people stood up and said it was wrong. Public opinion about the swiss swayed the debate.

This debate is hardly about Apple. Its about something much bigger. It's about making people think about what is right and wrong. If you allow people to just hide behind what is currently acceptable they will happily never make that choice.

It seems reasonable on paper, but good luck getting entrenched powers to agree to eliminate fiduciary duty for officers of the corporation. It's one of the fundamentals of modern business. The argument against will be simple: investors are free to use the profits from the corporation for whatever charitable purposes they see fit, and it's not the officers' place to determine what the 'positive social impact' should be.

>Less kids get STEM scholarships and more H1B visas.

And more taxes would just put well meaning hard-working fellow Tech community members out of work at Apple. It's not such a clear trade-off as you make it seem with your logic. And frankly, the issue comes down to the key quote in the WSJ article:

"The investigation found no evidence that Apple did anything illegal."

You should be upset at your Congressmen/women that make the laws rather than the "big bad corporations" that obey them.

Congress cannot make any laws when people are cheering on and supporting what corporations already do.

And you don't have to do anything illegal to harm your families long term future. You just have to be short sighted.

It's quite the opposite. Congress makes laws to protect corporations. (i.e. Hollywood, TeleCos, Insurance, Health Care, etc...). It's not people championing and cheering companies for their business practices. I think you're confusing it with the way people might support companies by buying their products or services. But here's the trick question. When no company is truly good and your government, essentially wrote the book on the shareholders dilemma; who is really at fought?

Sounds like the government crying over milk they spilled.

Give me a break. When Rand Paul and his posse of clowns demand that Apple is owed an apology, they are the ones doing the confusing.

Like I said in my previous posts, the point the committee has made is multinational companies like Apple have a choice in how much tax they want to pay on profit.

This is the only point worth making. Any other point being raised about good or evil, competence, legality etc just distracts from ever addressing that point.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com