2 ms·

The government responsible for the jurisdiction in which your private agreement occurs should have a register of this information. It doesn't need to be availa

The government responsible for the jurisdiction in which your private agreement occurs should have a register of this information. It doesn't need to be available to the public at large, but should be available to those responsible for the jurisdiction that could be affected by that agreement. Re: Car parked somewhere. If it has a numberplate, then there's a government agency that can track it's ownership (pending whether it's been registered to a company that then has some opaque international ownership structure). Re: Lemonade stand. Minimum level of asset value for registration?

codexb 3y ago
But why does the government need this information, for everyone, and everything? Again, what is the legitimate reason? I understand tax liability, sure, but so long as someone is responsible for paying the taxes on a thing, why is it important who has control of the thing.
- BLKNSLVR 3y ago
  Gut feel response: Because of the power differential between an employee who's given the responsibility of X versus a director/owner who threatened to fire said employee if they don't do legally questionable / flat out illegal thing in regards to X. 99.99999% of the time it's OK. It's those instances when it's not OK that it becomes societally important to demonstrate consequences for illegality. I think it'd become a problem that governments around the world would prioritise if every individual conducted their private affairs through a shell company structure. I said elsewhere that doing so is going to be a potential retirement project of mine.
- Veserv 3y ago
  Because it is important to know who has control of the thing if they control the thing to park illegally, scam people, or dump toxic waste into the river. It does not need to be public, but the responsible party should be identifiable and accountable. To the extent that harm is minimal or can be efficiently mitigated if no responsible party can be identified, it is probably socially acceptable to sacrifice a little bit of accountability for convenience and reduced friction. But at scale it is ridiculous to allow the intentional and calculated ablation of responsibility against legitimate legal grievances.

codexb 3y ago

But why does the government need this information, for everyone, and everything? Again, what is the legitimate reason? I understand tax liability, sure, but so long as someone is responsible for paying the taxes on a thing, why is it important who has control of the thing.

BLKNSLVR 3y ago
Gut feel response: Because of the power differential between an employee who's given the responsibility of X versus a director/owner who threatened to fire said employee if they don't do legally questionable / flat out illegal thing in regards to X. 99.99999% of the time it's OK. It's those instances when it's not OK that it becomes societally important to demonstrate consequences for illegality. I think it'd become a problem that governments around the world would prioritise if every individual conducted their private affairs through a shell company structure. I said elsewhere that doing so is going to be a potential retirement project of mine.
Veserv 3y ago
Because it is important to know who has control of the thing if they control the thing to park illegally, scam people, or dump toxic waste into the river. It does not need to be public, but the responsible party should be identifiable and accountable. To the extent that harm is minimal or can be efficiently mitigated if no responsible party can be identified, it is probably socially acceptable to sacrifice a little bit of accountability for convenience and reduced friction. But at scale it is ridiculous to allow the intentional and calculated ablation of responsibility against legitimate legal grievances.