this post was submitted on 07 Oct 2024
357 points (96.1% liked)
Technology
59753 readers
4170 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It's just playing by the rules as stated, and we have decided that limiting the liability of corporations is desired.
If you start a business, banks loan a lot to that business, and then the business goes under, you don't lose your house. That's the way it's supposed to work, and the intention is to help small business owners not lose their shirts if things go sideways.
But it also ends up benefiting wealthy people because they can use these legal entities to shelter funds. A common real estate strategy is to have a corporation own your properties, leverage them like crazy, then if the market drops and you're underwater, bankrupt the company. You'll lose the properties, sure, but you'll also lose the debt, so you can end up net-positive.
I think we absolutely need to reform how corporations work and remove liability as the value of the company increases. But in most cases, these wealthy people are just playing by the rules that have been agreed upon. IMO, the solution here is generally fewer rules to let things like fraud laws work, not to create more and more exceptions (because who has the resources to find loopholes? The uber-rich).