3 ms·

> The solution is to understand it, leverage it Truer words were never spoken! The system exists, take advantage of it. Of course, when you do, don't tell anyo

> The solution is to understand it, leverage it Truer words were never spoken! The system exists, take advantage of it. Of course, when you do, don't tell anyone or you'll be accused of being "an asshole who is taking advantage of loopholes in the system" by those who don't understand that it isn't a loophole, it is the system!

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
k8svet 3y ago
Yeah, how dare people be upset when you wave capital in their face and say "stop being poor and then you can take advantage of your peers like I do. It's okay, its The System". Come on.
- bruce511 3y ago
  Firstly, as i mentioned, there are costs to reducing risk, so it's counter productive to educate poor people on how to structure assets when they have no assets. So the idea of "stop being poor" is not in play. This doesn't make you rich, it is the reduction of risk that comes with being "rich". (For some definition of rich). Secondly it's not "taking advantage" in a pejorative sense. It doesn't make other people poorer. It protects assets from creditors. Specifically assets that are not designated as collateral for specific credit. It's better to think about this like insurance. You pay something to reduce risk. Taking out insurance isn't an affront to poor people, or a sign of excess capital. Your comment though is a common reaction. There's this notion that making use of financial structures hurts the little guy. Or makes people poor. It does neither. Rather, I would consider that those who should use it, but don't, are either uneducated, or lazy, or irresponsible, or some combination of all 3. The education part can be fixed. Clearly, just like insurance, to use it or not is a choice. Everyone is free to make their own choices, and determine their appetite for risk. Unfortunately financial management is not taught at school, and those who never learn it tend to be those who also "end up with nothing."
  - chgs 3y ago
    > It doesn't make other people poorer. It protects assets from creditors. By making those creditors poorer?
    - bruce511 3y ago
      Creditors tend (in my experience) to be corporations, not individuals. And having seen corporations behave very poorly to many, and given the resources they have to look after their own interests, I don't set out to arrange my finances to their best possible advantage, no. I should point out that I've had creditors all my life. Landlords, Employees, Banks, Suppliers and so on. I've never stiffed any of them. Perhaps tat's because I remain in control of my own finances, and don't allow them to interfere in the business. If you feel that protecting your creditors is in your personal interest, then by all means go for it.
      - sanderjd 3y ago
        You should re-read the article we're discussing. The people legally owed money that is shielded by the legal fictions we're discussions are often not corporations.
      - chgs 3y ago
        In This case it’s individuals owed the money and people like you using corporations to prevent their need to pay them.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - thayne 3y ago
    > Secondly it's not "taking advantage" in a pejorative sense. It doesn't make other people poorer. Maybe not by itself. But by reducing risk, it also reduces accountability which allows people to take advantage of people in other, often illegal or unlawful ways, without any meaningful consequences when they get caught. In the OP, the owner of the business has caused multiple deaths through negligence, but at least from the contents of that article there hasn't been any meaningful consequence.
bruce511 3y ago
I'm not sure if uour answer is sarcastic, or serious. I suspect you got a downvote for that ambiguity. Yes, I think there are people who ascribe negative connotations to making use of financial systems. Where I've encountered them, for the most part, they tend to be less-wealthy folk looking for some external reason for their perceived lack of success. To be honest I don't really care what they think. I do care somewhat about making people's lives better, and some of that "better" means less risky. Having insurance doesn't make you a bad driver. Structuring your finances well doesn't make other people poor, and doesn't make you somehow riskier. Yes there are those who infer that, and that's fine. I'm not spending my retirement worrying about folk who didn't agree with my life choices. I'll spend it spending the assets I have left.
- amrocha 3y ago
  You do realize that what you're saying is that anyone who disagrees with you is poor and you don't listen to poor people right?
  - bruce511 3y ago
    I understand how you can read it that way. But that is not my intent, and clearly also not true. There are plenty of rich people who are happy to keep everything in their own name, and just live with the risk. Most of those people turn out OK. Some percentage make the news everyday as having "lost everything". Keeping everything together mean's it all stands and falls together. A bad decision in your business means the loss of your house. So no, I'm not saying people who disagree with me are poor. I'm saying that rich people who disagree with me have a higher appetite for risk than I do. I'll work for 40 years, I'm not prepared to lose all that accumulation in year 39. Good structures remove that risk, which is something I'm happy to pay for. Of course this hinges on your definition of rich. Perhaps you think a billion makes you rich. Or perhaps a million. Or perhaps 20k. It doesn't really matter. Whatever you have you can decide if you can afford to lose it all, or not. Of course by the time you have a million you have a financial advisor, who will be advocating for the same risk reduction. Which is why this approach may seem tainted to you. I'll never have a million, which is why I'm not going to risk what I do accumulate, losing it would be painful.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

k8svet 3y ago

Yeah, how dare people be upset when you wave capital in their face and say "stop being poor and then you can take advantage of your peers like I do. It's okay, its The System". Come on.

bruce511 3y ago
Firstly, as i mentioned, there are costs to reducing risk, so it's counter productive to educate poor people on how to structure assets when they have no assets. So the idea of "stop being poor" is not in play. This doesn't make you rich, it is the reduction of risk that comes with being "rich". (For some definition of rich). Secondly it's not "taking advantage" in a pejorative sense. It doesn't make other people poorer. It protects assets from creditors. Specifically assets that are not designated as collateral for specific credit. It's better to think about this like insurance. You pay something to reduce risk. Taking out insurance isn't an affront to poor people, or a sign of excess capital. Your comment though is a common reaction. There's this notion that making use of financial structures hurts the little guy. Or makes people poor. It does neither. Rather, I would consider that those who should use it, but don't, are either uneducated, or lazy, or irresponsible, or some combination of all 3. The education part can be fixed. Clearly, just like insurance, to use it or not is a choice. Everyone is free to make their own choices, and determine their appetite for risk. Unfortunately financial management is not taught at school, and those who never learn it tend to be those who also "end up with nothing."
- chgs 3y ago
  > It doesn't make other people poorer. It protects assets from creditors. By making those creditors poorer?
  - bruce511 3y ago
    Creditors tend (in my experience) to be corporations, not individuals. And having seen corporations behave very poorly to many, and given the resources they have to look after their own interests, I don't set out to arrange my finances to their best possible advantage, no. I should point out that I've had creditors all my life. Landlords, Employees, Banks, Suppliers and so on. I've never stiffed any of them. Perhaps tat's because I remain in control of my own finances, and don't allow them to interfere in the business. If you feel that protecting your creditors is in your personal interest, then by all means go for it.
    - sanderjd 3y ago
      You should re-read the article we're discussing. The people legally owed money that is shielded by the legal fictions we're discussions are often not corporations.
    - chgs 3y ago
      In This case it’s individuals owed the money and people like you using corporations to prevent their need to pay them.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- thayne 3y ago
  > Secondly it's not "taking advantage" in a pejorative sense. It doesn't make other people poorer. Maybe not by itself. But by reducing risk, it also reduces accountability which allows people to take advantage of people in other, often illegal or unlawful ways, without any meaningful consequences when they get caught. In the OP, the owner of the business has caused multiple deaths through negligence, but at least from the contents of that article there hasn't been any meaningful consequence.

bruce511 3y ago

I'm not sure if uour answer is sarcastic, or serious. I suspect you got a downvote for that ambiguity. Yes, I think there are people who ascribe negative connotations to making use of financial systems. Where I've encountered them, for the most part, they tend to be less-wealthy folk looking for some external reason for their perceived lack of success. To be honest I don't really care what they think. I do care somewhat about making people's lives better, and some of that "better" means less risky. Having insurance doesn't make you a bad driver. Structuring your finances well doesn't make other people poor, and doesn't make you somehow riskier. Yes there are those who infer that, and that's fine. I'm not spending my retirement worrying about folk who didn't agree with my life choices. I'll spend it spending the assets I have left.

amrocha 3y ago
You do realize that what you're saying is that anyone who disagrees with you is poor and you don't listen to poor people right?
- bruce511 3y ago
  I understand how you can read it that way. But that is not my intent, and clearly also not true. There are plenty of rich people who are happy to keep everything in their own name, and just live with the risk. Most of those people turn out OK. Some percentage make the news everyday as having "lost everything". Keeping everything together mean's it all stands and falls together. A bad decision in your business means the loss of your house. So no, I'm not saying people who disagree with me are poor. I'm saying that rich people who disagree with me have a higher appetite for risk than I do. I'll work for 40 years, I'm not prepared to lose all that accumulation in year 39. Good structures remove that risk, which is something I'm happy to pay for. Of course this hinges on your definition of rich. Perhaps you think a billion makes you rich. Or perhaps a million. Or perhaps 20k. It doesn't really matter. Whatever you have you can decide if you can afford to lose it all, or not. Of course by the time you have a million you have a financial advisor, who will be advocating for the same risk reduction. Which is why this approach may seem tainted to you. I'll never have a million, which is why I'm not going to risk what I do accumulate, losing it would be painful.