161–170 of 262 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One major difference is that Facebook and Google also provide value to their users. They do good and bad things. The company in the article did only bad things.
I think the company in the article would argue that they provide value as well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
indeed! But the question is ... can tax evasion be considered an ethical violation? :)
Possibly. However tax evasion and avoidance are often confused, for a public company not avoiding taxes would most certainly be an ethical violation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But.. what about my version of ethics! If only there were a way to take a tally of issues among groups of people with different opinions of ethics and morals..
There's a very clear fiduciary duty to pay as little money in taxes as you can, there exists no such duty to pay too much taxes. This is very black and white.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ugh, the number of dark patterns trying to cost me money just to purchase a damned ticket on Ticketbastards today. Seriously by not clicking the right boxes I could have agreed to pay an extra $42 in add-ons/services for a $15 ticket that had its own $6 in fees added.
For Ticketmaster? That's odd, I deal with them quite a bit, and while they've definitely got a racket going on, usually they aren't opting you in for extra stuff (because you'll juts call to complain to their support and get it changed). I have seen them accidentally auto-select certain additions before, but that was a non-standard option on that event, and it was definitely a mistake.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The logical extension of that is a justification for current, smaller players building new "hills of skulls" in their quest to build their own new nation. Maybe you can explain this logical extension, because I don't see it. At a minimum, it's not self-evident.
You're saying we should ignore past bad behavior because Google, Facebook, etc. are good guys now. Logically, that would lead us to excuse current bad behavior by smaller companies because everyone does it, and they'll do good once they are big enough.
No, I simply asked for someone to explain on their reasoning.
> Logically, that would lead us to excuse current bad behavior by smaller companies because everyone does it, and they'll do good once they are big enough.
I don't think that's necessarily logical at all. It assumes a lot of things which we don't know. For example, what rate of companies that exhibit bad behavior survive to become companies that later exhibit good behavior? Does whether the bad behavior was endemic to the company or restricted to specific divisions matter? How much does a change in management affect outcome?
In my experience, plenty of people do things when they are young that they are ashamed of later in life, and would not repeat. Why should I believe the same can't be said of a company, which is made up of people?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For Ticketmaster? That's odd, I deal with them quite a bit, and while they've definitely got a racket going on, usually they aren't opting you in for extra stuff (because you'll juts call to complain to their support and get it changed). I have seen them accidentally auto-select certain additions before, but that was a non-standard option on that event, and it was definitely a mistake.
I paid for extra insurance without meaning to last time I visited their site. Pretty sure the "opt in" button was checked by default.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a very clear fiduciary duty to pay as little money in taxes as you can, there exists no such duty to pay too much taxes. This is very black and white.
No, there isn't. There is a fiduciary duty to act in the best interest of shareholders. To extrapolate that out to tax evasion is just plain silly.
tax avoidance=/=tax evasion
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While a public company answers to it's shareholders, it also has a responsibility to support the community it lives within, because often success can be directly attributed to where the company started. Aggressively avoiding taxes could very well be considered unethical by some parties.
Some may consider avoiding taxes to be unethical, others might say not avoiding them would violate a fiduciary duty.
Yes, in theory it's their fiduciary duty to minimize taxes, but I've never heard of a board being sued because they didn't squeeze every last dollar out of their tax bill.