JUST BECAUSE A GROUP OF CEOS SAID THAT THE INTERESTS OF OTHER “STAKEHOLDERS” SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN CORPORATE DECISIONS DOESN’T MEAN THAT'S THE LAW
As Professor Bainbridge points out once again, the law is not what the CEOs say, or think it should be. Shareholder wealth maximization is the law. CEOs who act otherwise are endangering their own employment and the survival of their companies.
I readily concede that corporate social responsibility has its place, but only when it is consistent with the corporation’s duty to maximize the return on its shareholders’ investment.
I HAVE SAID IT BEFORE, AND I WILL SAY IT AGAIN: BUSINESSES DO NOT EXIST TO SERVE ANY “STAKEHOLDERS” OTHER THAN THEIR SHAREHOLDERS
Business corporations exist to create value for their owners by delivering goods and services. Period. I don’t care what some group of CEOs says to the contrary.
If those CEOs direct their corporations to serve the interests of parties other than the shareholders of their corporations, the market will respond negatively, and those CEOs will deserve to lose their jobs.
It’s no surprise that the idea of calling income tax exclusions and deductions “tax expenditures” came from a federal bureaucrat, is it? The idea is based on the notion, as explained in an article linked at the TaxProf Blog, that all income, with only certain theoretically defined exceptions, is the tax base.
It has huge emojis painted on it! What a great idea. I’m surprised that I haven’t heard of that particular form of expression being painted on a house before. The neighbors are angry, but based on the many similar situations I have written about, I think the emoji house owner is likely to win the argument over whether or not the city can tell her, no emojis on your house, just as she would if the city told the owner that she can’t paint her house purple.
I would have linked directly to the newspaper article, but the link in the blog where I saw this story didn’t work, so I’m just giving you the link to that blog.
The question is, what happens to a one-foot wide strip of property that remained in the ownership of the builder after construction of two attached houses on two lots on either side of the one-foot wide strip?
Pro tip: don’t buy the one-foot wide strip at the tax lien sale. Buyer beware.
NOW IT IS DEFINITELY A REGULAR SERIES: WHAT DO YOU MEAN, I CAN’T PLANT VEGETABLES ON MY OWN PROPERTY (IN THE FRONT YARD)?
Lowering the Bar spotted this example of government trying to control what citizens can do on private property. I think I have heard of “no gardens in the front yard because they are unsightly” rules before, but as long as there are busybodies in a position to make rules, there will be rules that say you can’t [fill in the blank], no matter how innocuous [fill in the blank] is, on you own property.
MY JULY REAL ESTATE LAW UPDATE IS ABOUT, YOU GUESSED IT, RULES GOVERNING WHAT YOU CAN AND CANNOT DO ON YOUR OWN PROPERTY
Last time it was moving dirt and trees. This time it’s fixing cars. Next time it will be something else. The rule makers are relentless.
Read all about it in my new Real Estate Law Update for the month of July, posted in the publications section at DeconciniMcDonald.com. Let me know what you think.
THERE’S A GUY RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT WHO IS SERIOUSLY ADVOCATING FOR A UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME; IT’S STILL A REALLY BAD IDEA
I’m not going to link to any news items about him, because I don’t want to do anything that will promote him or his ideas. I’m mentioning it because I want to do what I can to spread the word that universal basic income is a bad idea whose time has not come and never will. Just because a guy running for president is promoting it doesn’t mean it has any merit.
What’s worse, the guy wants to pay for the universal basic income by imposing a value added tax in the United States. That’s an idea that has its own major problems, as I have pointed out before.
I am often critical of law review articles. Usually it’s because I think the writers have an insufficient grasp of the potential real-world effects of their ideas.
A law review article linked at TaxProf Blog (which is where I usually read about them) last week seems different. It sounds like a straightforward analysis and proposed fix of the federal tax code treatment of sales of interests in partnerships.
Yeah, partnership tax. For me, the final frontier.
The contents of this blog, this web site, and any writings by me that are linked here, are all my personal commentary. None of it is intended to be legal advice for your situation.