3 ms·
Corporations should have to designate an individual who is legally responsible for the actions of the corporation.
by throwaway48476 1y ago
Corporations should have to designate an individual who is legally responsible for the actions of the corporation.
- throwawaymaths 1y agowoukd be fun if "the degree to which liability is limited is proportional to the percent of income tax the corporation pays". if you pay zero tax, full liability, blammo!
- mattmanser 1y agoThe entire point of incorporating as a company is to stop being personally liable.
- worthless-trash 1y agoSo dis-incorporate all companies.
- crote 1y ago"Not being personally liable" was never intended to mean "you can do literally anything you want - provided you first say the magic phrase 'I am a company'". Limited liability makes a lot of sense in the context of protecting small business owners from being in debt until their death if anything goes wrong in their business - even if it wasn't through any fault of their own. It has been extended an awful lot since then.
- robocat 1y agoThe cleaner. Maybe pay the cleaner a small stipend to be liable. Or create a new position "patsy" or "chief scapegoat" that employees can fight for.
- teeray 1y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whipping_boy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whipping_boy
- ronsor 1y agoIn some jurisdictions, there's one (or more) corporate directors who are legally responsible for a subset of activities. In that case, there are "nominee director" services where you pay someone else to take that position. The point is that if you require some one person to be legally liable, then you'll simply create a new industry of scapegoats to hire.
- protocolture 1y agoThere are simple tests to determine effective directorship. Like can they move company funds.
- FireBeyond 1y agoVery much so. "Can they sign a binding contract for the corporation?", etc.