6 ms·

Yes, privacy. Corporations are often used for trusts and investments. I wouldn't call those nefarious at all, though yes they are mostly only useful for more we

by tensor 3y ago

Yes, privacy. Corporations are often used for trusts and investments. I wouldn't call those nefarious at all, though yes they are mostly only useful for more wealthy individuals. These structures all still pay taxes and are 100% legal. Arguments about tax law being good or bad are really a separate issue, and those should be addressed directly by updating the law, not erasing privacy for wealthy. As much as the wealthy rightly get shit on for various things, they are still entitled to the same rights as everyone else.

lostlogin 3y ago
> they are still entitled to the same rights as everyone else. Has there ever been a time when the wealthy had less rights than the poor? The speeding ticket fine which is charged as a percentage of ones wage comes to mind. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/06/finnish-businessman-hit-with-121000-speeding-fine https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/06/finnish-busine...
- vlovich123 3y ago
  That’s not really less rights though. That’s like saying the rich have fewer rights under progressive taxation. And no, generally the more rich and/or powerful you are the more rights society provides you. Even countries which strive for more equality simply try to shore up the most egregious instances but there’s always a difference. That’s because not all rights matter equally to everyone. For example, rich and poor both don’t have the right to sleep on a park bench but in practice that right is only particularly relevant to one party.
- sdeframond 3y ago
  Do you mean that fining more for richer people is unfair? That's an interesting view. One could argue that a flat fine allows rich people to break the law more, because they can afford it. Which IMHO seems pretty unfair.
  - lostlogin 3y ago
    I agree with it and think there should be more penalties like it.
hobs 3y ago
It is illegal for both the rich and the poor man to steal a loaf of bread. The idea that the wealthy could ever have "less rights" than the hoi polloi is an absolutely hilarious thought. If any billionaire wants all the "extra" rights of being a normal citizen I'd be glad to swap anytime.
- janalsncm 3y ago
  A more prescient example might be the fact that both everyday folks and billionaires are free to say whatever they want on social media in their real name. However only one of them needs to worry that medical bills will bankrupt them if they say the wrong thing.
wredue 3y ago
Corporations are not people. People deserve privacy. Corporations do not necessarily also deserve privacy. Who runs a corporation 100% should not be a secret, ever.
- Aloisius 3y ago
  If people deserve privacy and corporations are run by people, then logically the people who run corporations deserve privacy. I'd argue instead that the public's need to know sometimes outweighs an individual's right to privacy.
  - wredue 3y ago
    No. You do deserve privacy, however, you cannot expect it in all circumstances. You cannot expect privacy when walking down a sidewalk, you cannot expect to own a company without anyone knowing that.
    - IG_Semmelweiss 3y ago
      Privacy is not deserved. Privacy is a right granted in the US constitution.
      - janalsncm 3y ago
        There is no explicit right to privacy in the Constitution. People have inferred that right from things like the third and fourth amendments. But in any case, even if privacy was broadly recognized and protected (it isn’t, otherwise the government wouldn’t be allowed to buy your information from data brokers) that still leaves open the question at hand.
adra 3y ago
The paying tax and 100% legal is only tested when brought to court, which seems that be chronically underfunded conveniently and I laugh loudly at the belief that 100% of all corporations are in legal compliance. You said that the rich are entitled to the freedoms as anyone else but shrugs off that only the rich have the effective means to make use of these instruments. They are quite capable of being completely invisible to public scrutiny by holding all their assets as an individual. They choose to take steps to leverage opaque often intentionally complicated corporate layering schemes to minimize risk, skirt (legally or not) tax, or to layer the sources of bad money. Whatever the reason for engaging in these games, I believe they are no longer "living life like every citizen deserves privacy" (note your comment spoke of total privacy from oversight which no citizen pretty much anywhere actually has). I'm at least happy that my home of Canada is starting to chip away the corporate veil.
- jen20 3y ago
  > 100% legal is only tested when brought to court A tangent, but this is in and of itself completely nuts. One should be able to read the text of the law, as written, and understand what you are and are not permitted to do - end of story. There should be no need to look at precedents. Courts only recourse if a law is unclear should be to send it back to an elected legislature for refinement.
- tensor 3y ago
  Your home in Canada just recently demanded blind trusts all report their members personal information to the government. Far from engaging only the rich, that demand hit millions of every day citizens with shared bank accounts with their parents or kids. Those are setup for a variety of reasons, one of which is to circumvent probate tax! Yep, by everyday non-rich people! However, note that the CRAs information collection did not make your personal bank account information public. Would you prefer that it had? I used the example of a blind trust here because "non-blind" trusts are one of the common uses of non-commercial corporate entities. Also, I never once said "total privacy from oversight", all these corporate entities already supply financial and ownership information to the government, whose job it is to hold them to account. This is not the same and making information public so a rabid mob of people can enact vigilante justice, or whatever people like you hope comes out of it.
criddell 3y ago
I'm still not seeing it. What are some specific benefits for hiding the benefitting owner of a company? How would society be worse off if the person or people behind a company could always be known?
- arcastroe 3y ago
  If you recently won the lottery. You might fear for your safety should your name and address become public knowledge. Some states allow you to claim anonymously, while others don't. For those that don't, you may be able to claim under an LLC, with your name and address "hidden". Edge case, but I think it's legitimate.
  - yencabulator 3y ago
    USA is pretty unique in its inability to separate identity of a person from their address. There's no reason for that to be so, it's just a path dependency you maneuvered yourselves into.
- IG_Semmelweiss 3y ago
  Here you go https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/1938-nazi-law-forced-jews-register-their-wealthmaking-it-easier-steal-180968894/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/1938-nazi-law-forced-...
h1fra 3y ago
If privacy was the only reason they would allow any company in any country to be anonymous and identifiable when requested with legitimate reasons (like Domain Names) and accessible to journalists.
- BadHumans 3y ago
  Why would it be accessible to journalist? Being a journalist doesn't suddenly make you ethical and responsible.
RajT88 3y ago
[flagged]
sealeck 3y ago
> As much as the wealthy rightly get shit on for various things, they are still entitled to the same rights as everyone else. We're not talking about individual assets though here – we're talking about the distribution of resources in our society and the people who own these resources have power over lots of other people. Essentially - have US$1bn is structurally different to owning US$1 million.
maxerickson 3y ago
I think they are proposing that rights would change for everyone, not just for the wealthy? Also, "It's 100 legal" is a pretty hilarious rejoinder to someone discussing changing what is legal.
BLKNSLVR 3y ago
> These structures all still pay taxes and are 100% legal Any offshoring calls that into question. > they are still entitled to the same rights as everyone else No, they're entitled to more because they can afford the services of those who can setup shell company structures to hide their wealth and their identities.
struant 3y ago
It is trivial for a wealthy person to be treated like everyone else. They just have to ditch their money. Unless they want do that, they can endure extensive scrutiny.

by tensor 3y ago

lostlogin 3y ago

> they are still entitled to the same rights as everyone else. Has there ever been a time when the wealthy had less rights than the poor? The speeding ticket fine which is charged as a percentage of ones wage comes to mind. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/06/finnish-businessman-hit-with-121000-speeding-fine https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/06/finnish-busine...

vlovich123 3y ago
That’s not really less rights though. That’s like saying the rich have fewer rights under progressive taxation. And no, generally the more rich and/or powerful you are the more rights society provides you. Even countries which strive for more equality simply try to shore up the most egregious instances but there’s always a difference. That’s because not all rights matter equally to everyone. For example, rich and poor both don’t have the right to sleep on a park bench but in practice that right is only particularly relevant to one party.
sdeframond 3y ago
Do you mean that fining more for richer people is unfair? That's an interesting view. One could argue that a flat fine allows rich people to break the law more, because they can afford it. Which IMHO seems pretty unfair.
- lostlogin 3y ago
  I agree with it and think there should be more penalties like it.

hobs 3y ago

It is illegal for both the rich and the poor man to steal a loaf of bread. The idea that the wealthy could ever have "less rights" than the hoi polloi is an absolutely hilarious thought. If any billionaire wants all the "extra" rights of being a normal citizen I'd be glad to swap anytime.

janalsncm 3y ago
A more prescient example might be the fact that both everyday folks and billionaires are free to say whatever they want on social media in their real name. However only one of them needs to worry that medical bills will bankrupt them if they say the wrong thing.

wredue 3y ago

Corporations are not people. People deserve privacy. Corporations do not necessarily also deserve privacy. Who runs a corporation 100% should not be a secret, ever.

Aloisius 3y ago
If people deserve privacy and corporations are run by people, then logically the people who run corporations deserve privacy. I'd argue instead that the public's need to know sometimes outweighs an individual's right to privacy.
- wredue 3y ago
  No. You do deserve privacy, however, you cannot expect it in all circumstances. You cannot expect privacy when walking down a sidewalk, you cannot expect to own a company without anyone knowing that.
  - IG_Semmelweiss 3y ago
    Privacy is not deserved. Privacy is a right granted in the US constitution.
    - janalsncm 3y ago
      There is no explicit right to privacy in the Constitution. People have inferred that right from things like the third and fourth amendments. But in any case, even if privacy was broadly recognized and protected (it isn’t, otherwise the government wouldn’t be allowed to buy your information from data brokers) that still leaves open the question at hand.

adra 3y ago

The paying tax and 100% legal is only tested when brought to court, which seems that be chronically underfunded conveniently and I laugh loudly at the belief that 100% of all corporations are in legal compliance. You said that the rich are entitled to the freedoms as anyone else but shrugs off that only the rich have the effective means to make use of these instruments. They are quite capable of being completely invisible to public scrutiny by holding all their assets as an individual. They choose to take steps to leverage opaque often intentionally complicated corporate layering schemes to minimize risk, skirt (legally or not) tax, or to layer the sources of bad money. Whatever the reason for engaging in these games, I believe they are no longer "living life like every citizen deserves privacy" (note your comment spoke of total privacy from oversight which no citizen pretty much anywhere actually has). I'm at least happy that my home of Canada is starting to chip away the corporate veil.

jen20 3y ago
> 100% legal is only tested when brought to court A tangent, but this is in and of itself completely nuts. One should be able to read the text of the law, as written, and understand what you are and are not permitted to do - end of story. There should be no need to look at precedents. Courts only recourse if a law is unclear should be to send it back to an elected legislature for refinement.
tensor 3y ago
Your home in Canada just recently demanded blind trusts all report their members personal information to the government. Far from engaging only the rich, that demand hit millions of every day citizens with shared bank accounts with their parents or kids. Those are setup for a variety of reasons, one of which is to circumvent probate tax! Yep, by everyday non-rich people! However, note that the CRAs information collection did not make your personal bank account information public. Would you prefer that it had? I used the example of a blind trust here because "non-blind" trusts are one of the common uses of non-commercial corporate entities. Also, I never once said "total privacy from oversight", all these corporate entities already supply financial and ownership information to the government, whose job it is to hold them to account. This is not the same and making information public so a rabid mob of people can enact vigilante justice, or whatever people like you hope comes out of it.

criddell 3y ago

I'm still not seeing it. What are some specific benefits for hiding the benefitting owner of a company? How would society be worse off if the person or people behind a company could always be known?

arcastroe 3y ago
If you recently won the lottery. You might fear for your safety should your name and address become public knowledge. Some states allow you to claim anonymously, while others don't. For those that don't, you may be able to claim under an LLC, with your name and address "hidden". Edge case, but I think it's legitimate.
- yencabulator 3y ago
  USA is pretty unique in its inability to separate identity of a person from their address. There's no reason for that to be so, it's just a path dependency you maneuvered yourselves into.
IG_Semmelweiss 3y ago
Here you go https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/1938-nazi-law-forced-jews-register-their-wealthmaking-it-easier-steal-180968894/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/1938-nazi-law-forced-...

h1fra 3y ago

If privacy was the only reason they would allow any company in any country to be anonymous and identifiable when requested with legitimate reasons (like Domain Names) and accessible to journalists.

BadHumans 3y ago
Why would it be accessible to journalist? Being a journalist doesn't suddenly make you ethical and responsible.

RajT88 3y ago

[flagged]

sealeck 3y ago

> As much as the wealthy rightly get shit on for various things, they are still entitled to the same rights as everyone else. We're not talking about individual assets though here – we're talking about the distribution of resources in our society and the people who own these resources have power over lots of other people. Essentially - have US$1bn is structurally different to owning US$1 million.

maxerickson 3y ago

I think they are proposing that rights would change for everyone, not just for the wealthy? Also, "It's 100 legal" is a pretty hilarious rejoinder to someone discussing changing what is legal.

BLKNSLVR 3y ago

> These structures all still pay taxes and are 100% legal Any offshoring calls that into question. > they are still entitled to the same rights as everyone else No, they're entitled to more because they can afford the services of those who can setup shell company structures to hide their wealth and their identities.

struant 3y ago

It is trivial for a wealthy person to be treated like everyone else. They just have to ditch their money. Unless they want do that, they can endure extensive scrutiny.