My reply was mostly in jest -- a topical segue if you will -- but I guess it hit a nerve. You make some good points Dino, however, there is an inherent contradiction in your statement, as well as other facets you did not consider.
Mark Cuban is an influential billionare, and his views are a direct representation of himself as a shareholder. So, if he is, or is interested in becoming a shareholder in a company using or considering these tax loopholes, your own words indicate a company should more deeply consider moving offshore.
The other layer that should not be ignored, is a company's loyalty and support to their employees. These are the individuals that allow a company to prosper, or not. They must be careful not to alienate them. So perhaps the off-shore nonsense is short-term thinking, and closing of these loopholes would render all that transitioning a foolish waste of time and resources. The inversion approach is nothing but a fancy scheme, a clever tactic, which was conceived by the politicians with their own personal gain in mind (with the help of these industry/corporate lobbies, no doubt).
Let's face it, the middle-class is being exploited and diminished, while the income disparity between the grossly rich and everyone else grows. These corporate maneuvers have a lot to do with this phenomenon.
