It highlights how ridiculous “the rich will give to charity” is.
Every corp will offload costs to taxpayers and avoid paying their own taxes as much as legally possible. Anything else would make stock prices go down, and that is actually illegal. They’re legally required to “maximize share holder value”. Giving crumbs to charity and PR, so it’s fine.
Actually paying their fair share, would make the oligarchs want to make an example of whatever CEO did it.
A business corporation is organized and carried on primarily for the profit of the stockholders. The powers of the directors are to be employed for that end. The discretion of directors is to be exercised in the choice of means to attain that end and does not extend to a change in the end itself, to the reduction of profits or to the nondistribution of profits among stockholders in order to devote them to other purposes.
[Directors are] employed to [further the corporation’s purpose of creating profit for the stockholders]. The discretion of directors is to be exercised in the choice of [how to create that profit]. [Their discretion] does not extend to a change [in the goal of creating shareholder profit], to the reduction of profits, or to [withold profits from] stockholders in order to devote them to other purposes.
TLDR: Their purpose is to create profits for shareholders and investors. They may choose how to do that, but they have an obligation to not intentionally reduce the corporation’s profits or take actions that would deprive shareholders from accessing the profits.
The implication of that highlights exactly how disgusting corporate and industry lobbying is.
Increasing expenses to sway politicians on some topic is, in itself, an expense that runs contrary to the goal of increasing profits. Therefore, the only way it would be justifiable to spend money on lobbying is if there’s a genuine belief or expectation that it will result in a return on investment that exceeds the amount spent.
It highlights how ridiculous “the rich will give to charity” is.
Every corp will offload costs to taxpayers and avoid paying their own taxes as much as legally possible. Anything else would make stock prices go down, and that is actually illegal. They’re legally required to “maximize share holder value”. Giving crumbs to charity and PR, so it’s fine.
Actually paying their fair share, would make the oligarchs want to make an example of whatever CEO did it.
That’s a lie based on a misunderstanding of Dodge v. Ford Motor Co. that’s perpetuated as an excuse, but it isn’t actually true.
It doesn’t matter if we think it isn’t true since they and the courts do.
Which courts? Got an example?
Is there an article or a video that ELI5s this in context?
Because what the court said was:
And I am not even remotely fluent in legalese.
I’m not a lawyer, but this is how I read it:
TLDR: Their purpose is to create profits for shareholders and investors. They may choose how to do that, but they have an obligation to not intentionally reduce the corporation’s profits or take actions that would deprive shareholders from accessing the profits.
So instead of “legally required to maximize shareholder profits” it’s “don’t intentionally lose or hide shareholdermoney.”
The implication of that highlights exactly how disgusting corporate and industry lobbying is.
Increasing expenses to sway politicians on some topic is, in itself, an expense that runs contrary to the goal of increasing profits. Therefore, the only way it would be justifiable to spend money on lobbying is if there’s a genuine belief or expectation that it will result in a return on investment that exceeds the amount spent.