|
I am all for the inquiry to discover if companies are subverting the law, or if they are not subverting it but still aren't paying the level of taxation expected, then the inquiry should make appropriate recommendations for changes in the law.
But otherwise I agree with Harry. Shareholders have legal rights and expectations. Some companies do make certain charitable donations, however paying more tax than legally required would not normally come under the heading of charity. ... But what else would you call it if a company you had shares in included in their annual report "$2M legally required tax, plus $8M extra tax because we thought that was more reasonable" ? And if that extra meant a significant hit to your dividends, how happy would you be?
Of course, complicated company structures involving various international intermediaries makes it all very messy. But most shareholders would be similarly unhappy if the company chose structures that meant the company was no longer competitive and began to lose ground to others. Anyway, as we see here on MR, many individuals are content to purchase through overseas intermediaries in order to circumvent regional constraints, often bypassing things like regional taxes, and yet that is okay?
The law has to deal with constantly changing situations, which is why it usually lags behind.
It seems a bit odd to be arguing on this side when recently I was critical of publishers charging regional premiums for books ... but, hey, I never claimed to be perfectly consistent. The principles are actually much the same: if the company can get away with it they are almost obliged to do so, both in the name of their responsibilities to shareholders and in their need to remain competitive. That's Capitalism for you. If we want to force people and companies to be socially responsible we'll have to move to a different framework.
|