I dunno if that's very different. Personal risks are socialized too -- via a mechanism known as bankruptcy. Anyway, again, it's a question of who you're targeti

I dunno if that's very different. Personal risks are socialized too -- via a mechanism known as bankruptcy. Anyway, again, it's a question of who you're targeting. If you think limited liability specifically is something that ought to incur a tax of that amount, then, sure, tax them that amount. But then company owners ought to be able to drop the limited liability feature and receive a lesser tax burden, right? I'm suspect Apple's owners would be happy with that trade. Unlimited liability in exchange for a zero percent tax rate? Bring it on. What, realistically, is the most damage that a computer is going to cause? The damages from patent infringement are often limited by the economic harm, which is at any rate likely to be far less than profits. Not to put words in your mouth, but if I had to guess you would not be willing to offer companies this out. I think that should make you question whether limited liability, specifically, is why companies should be taxed.