FORTUNE -- At first glance, you would think that the CEOs of taxophobic U.S. corporations and our less-than-stellar leaders in Washington have nothing in common. But you'd be wrong. What they share is a lack of shame and an excess of narrow thinking.
The similarity between C-suite tax avoiders and Washington reality avoiders struck me as I watched the debt-ceiling and government-shutdown debacle unfold. Listening to politicians say "This is what voters in my district want" reminded me of watching Apple (AAPL) chief executive Tim Cook invoke "shareholder value" during his May testimony at a Senate hearing that focused on the extraordinary games that Apple plays to avoid paying U.S. taxes on what anyone other than a tax lawyer would consider U.S. income. Not only was Cook not visibly embarrassed, but he actually seemed proud of what the company was doing.
Pols and CEOs both justify their actions by citing obligations to their narrow constituencies. The fact that all Americans, conservative and liberal alike, would realize long-term benefits from having a functional government with predictable finances? The fact that shareholders would ultimately realize serious value from an increase in our nation's well-being if bigtime corporate tax avoiders decided they had an obligation to help pay for public education and infrastructure? Well, that's when people trot out the John Maynard Keynes line, "In the long run, we are all dead."
Look, it's easy to understand why companies (perfectly legally) avoid taxes. Lower taxes mean higher profits, which presumably translate into higher stock prices. However, going to extraordinary lengths to avoid taxes helps undermine companies' long-term interests by hurting society and by giving average people yet another reason to detest Big Business.
It's also easy to understand why politicians would rather pander to their constituents than act in the national interest. It's safer. If you're a Tea Party type who compromises or a liberal who tells Social Security recipients that the program in its current form is unsustainable, you risk losing your job.
I have a belief, possibly naive, that when you're entrusted with corporate or political leadership, you're supposed to lead rather than stick your finger in the air, divine the prevailing wind, and follow it. But maybe that's just me.
However, I actually see a few glimmers of hope. Some of the fanatics who caused the government shutdown and fomented the debt-ceiling crisis are catching heat for having damaged conservatives' long-term interests. Which, in fact, they did. And I've even seen a company do the right thing because it was embarrassed. Not in the U.S., but in England, where an uproar erupted last year after a superb series by Reuters (see bottom of page) about the tax-avoidance games played by Starbucks (SBUX), which, Reuters reported, told shareholders it was making big profits in England but filed U.K. tax returns showing losses. My favorite part was Starbucks U.K. buying coffee beans from a Swiss affiliate that benefited from an agricultural tax break.
As a result of the blowback, Starbucks paid £10 million (about $16 million) of U.K. taxes voluntarily. Hello? What's going on? I asked Starbucks why it was voluntarily paying taxes. The answer, from Corey duBrowa, Starbucks' senior vice president for global communications: "We believe that acting responsibly makes good business sense, and the payment of corporate tax in the U.K. is a good example of this ethos in action."
Alas, two other U.S. companies harpooned by Reuters -- Google (GOOG) and Amazon (AMZN) -- felt no obligation to do anything. But Starbucks' deciding that it's good business to pay taxes is really encouraging. So is the intra-conservative debate between pragmatists and fanatics. Liberals may be next. If we get lucky, shame and political compromise may yet become trendy.
Reuters' 2012 special report
How Starbucks avoids UK taxes
Amazon's billion-dollar tax shield
Starbucks's European tax bill disappears down $100 million hole
How the UK tax authority got cozy with big business
EBay's double tax base prompts calls for investigation
Reuters' coverage of Google's tax strategy this year
This story is from the November 18, 2013 issue of Fortune.
Why Clara Shih joined the Starbucks board.
Coffee chain Starbucks (SBUX) today announced the addition of Clara Shih to its board of directors, in a move that adds both youth and social media know-how. Shih is the 29 year-old co-founder and CEO of Hearsay Social, a San Francisco-based developer of an SaaS dashboard that helps companies manage their social media platforms.
I spoke with Shih earlier today, and what follows is an MOREDan Primack - Dec 14, 2011 6:13 PM ET
Why is Dunkin' Brands trading at a higher multiple than Starbucks?
By Howard Penney, Hedgeye
We've said it before and we'll say it again: The coffee space is in a bubble. Valuations have sky-rocketed over the past year, but Dunkin' Brands has become especially expensive since its eye-popping IPO last month. Dunkin' Donuts, of course, is a domestic regional brand with a plan to grow into new markets within the U.S. We MOREAug 2, 2011 2:00 PM ET
Facebook is overvalued and Zillow is disappointing, but give me some of that Dunkin' offering!
FORTUNE -- Twice in the last few months, I've used this space to explain exactly why I thought it a bad idea to buy two impending IPOs: those of Facebook and Zillow. I took a lot of heat for each column. In the former, I was mocked for declaring that I wouldn't buy something that no MOREDuff McDonald, Contributing Editor - May 5, 2011 12:23 PM ET
Peet's is one of the best-positioned small-cap growth names in the restaurants and coffee space. It's an opportunity Starbucks shouldn't miss.
By Howard Penney, Hedgeye
Devotees of Peet's Coffee and Tea may cringe to hear this, but Starbucks should take a good look at the chain's potential as an acquisition. The surge in coffee prices is an overhang, but not a deal-breaker to Peet's growth story. Any commodity concern-induced dips in the share price MOREFeb 23, 2011 2:37 PM ET
Starbucks announced earlier this week it's wading into the single-serve market and its entrance into the business could revolutionize the coffee machine.
by Howard Penney, Hedgeye
I'm not privy to the thought process or grand strategy of Starbucks but I have been covering the company since the day it came public. So I wasn't so surprised when the company announced earlier this week that it struck a deal with Courtesy Products to MOREFeb 17, 2011 3:08 PM ET
VIA instant coffee was ridiculed when it launched, but it turned out to be a huge success in 2010. This and other reasons to be bullish on the coffee chain, even after its strong year.
By Howard Penney, Hedgeye
It would be hard to dispute that fiscal 2010 was a strong and pivotal year for Starbucks. With about 60% of analysts now recommending the stock as a buy versus a low of MOREDec 3, 2010 2:23 PM ET
|America's economic mobility myth|
|Stocks: Where to make money in 2014|
|Treasury closes the book on GM bailout with final stock sale|
|Snowden docs had NYTimes exec fearing for his life|
|2 million Facebook, Gmail and Twitter passwords stolen in massive hack|