3 ms·

It is indeed already normal for rich people to do things that are sketchy as hell. Maybe let's make it not normal?

by creatonez 5mo ago

JuniperMesos 5mo ago
I really don't trust your definition of sketchy as hell and don't want it to have legal or normative force.
- nullsanity 5mo ago
  [dead]
- creatonez 5mo ago
  For-profit companies jurisdiction shopping without any physical presence is so clearly sketchy that it's wild anyone could see it otherwise. I can't imagine a normal person not being shocked in disbelief when they first learn about the concept of tax havens.
  - kube-system 5mo ago
    Maybe when it’s Panama. But there is not a single sketchy reason why companies choose to incorporate in Delaware, for instance. There are very legitimate reasons to incorporate in another location. Some are not only not sketchy, but even altruistic, e.g. incorporating in another state for the purpose of incorporating as a PBC.
    - lenerdenator 5mo ago
      What are the altruistic aspects of operating a corporate entity that effectively operates as a casino where you can bet on literally anything? Did they incorporate as a PBC? Is there actual case law of people using a company's status as a PBC to effectively hold it to account for detrimental corporate conduct?
      - kube-system 5mo ago
        I think you might be misreading my comment as if I was defending Polymarket. I'm disputing the claim that "jurisdiction shopping is always sketchy".
    - creatonez 5mo ago
      Delaware is quite literally a tax haven set up to assist in evading as many local laws as possible. Do we just excuse it because it's a US state and speaks English?
      - kube-system 5mo ago
        No it isn’t. There are states with zero corporate taxes, and Delaware isn’t one of them. Businesses choose Delaware because their corporate law and court system are are both well developed and streamlined which makes investors comfortable. There are plenty of other states that are better choices for tax reasons.
  - JuniperMesos 5mo ago
    Why is it shocking to suggest that multi-national companies deliberately arrange to have their headquarters in a legal jurisdiction that has favorable tax laws for them? This makes perfect sense and it's something I would consider doing myself if I was starting a company.
    - RugnirViking 5mo ago
      its one thing to actually put your headquarters somewhere. Quite another to use tricks to put your "headquarters" somewhere, and the office where you and most of your employees go to work halfway across the world. And what of incorporating somewhere, having your headquaters somewhere else, having your main office in a third place, and this all owned by a shell company in a fourth place, with all your assets owned by a fifth company, which rents it back to you for extortionate rates, your EU subsidiary in a sixth place, the actual EU offices in a seventh place, etc etc etc. Thats not even approaching the trickery and deceit that is accepted as completely normal - let alone the ones that actually get in trouble Do these sorts of things have legal benefits for the companies involved? (yes) If I had a company over a certain size, I'd probably do it too. But it has sharply negative consequences for the rest of society, and for trust in the system in general.
- otterley 5mo ago
  You haven't heard their definition yet.
tt24 5mo ago
Registered agents are sketchy now?
- creatonez 5mo ago
  If the only shell(s) for a business are in a completely different jurisdiction with no connection whatsoever to any of the humans involved in operating the organization... yes. It's an outrageous way to escape the force of the law that has been rubber stamped by corrupt politicians.
  - kube-system 5mo ago
    It is exceeding common for US companies to incorporate without a presence in Delaware for the exact opposite reason of dodging the law. It is done to make legal compliance easier and more streamlined.
    - no-name-here 5mo ago
      Is Polymarket registered in Panama to make legal compliance easier/for the opposite reason of dodging the law?
      - lazide 5mo ago
        Registering in Panama isn’t even the sketchy thing! They listed a false agent of process, hah.
      - kube-system 5mo ago
        No, Polymarket is sketchy as fuck. I was disputing the allegation that there's something inherently wrong with having a registered agent in another locale.
    - kelnos 5mo ago
      Oh, c'mon, that's a huge exaggeration. US companies commonly incorporate in Delaware due to its generally-friendly business regulation with a ton of legal precedent surrounding it, and a court system well positioned to handle business-related cases. If they're incorporated there because that makes regulatory compliance easier, then that's not "dodging", that's just... doing what's allowed. And it's not like incorporating in Delaware is a get-out-of-jail-free card. If the company does have a presence in other states, the laws of those states are binding in many circumstances; the state of incorporation is irrelevant there. And there's always US federal law. Choice of state isn't going to change anything when the feds come knocking. The issue at hand is Polymarket claiming they are based in Panama, outside the US's jurisdiction, but presumably being headquartered in the US. You might say this is no different from a company being incorporated in, say, the UK, doing business there, hiring people, maintaining an office, and then also having offices in the US, but... this is not the same, and it's a little odd that you seem to be missing that fact. And on top of that, often multi-nationals will have a legal entity in every country where they operate. Do they have one in the US? If not, and they are de-facto headquartered here, that's beyond sketchy. And even if they do, if they've structured things such that they can shield their assets from US legal judgments for crimes or torts committed on US soil, that's also pretty damn sketchy.
k33n 5mo ago
Do poor people ever do anything sketchy as hell?
- croes 5mo ago
  Do the sketchy things of poor people affect as much other people as the sketchy of rich? Who more often jail time for sketchy things? Poor or rich?
  - lazide 5mo ago
    Are we talking drug gangs as poor? Because the foot soldiers sure are.
    - PearlRiver 5mo ago
      I would blame those on the middle class cocaine users who fund the drug gangs.
    - croes 5mo ago
      The foot soldiers are part of the sketchy things of rich drug lords
  - k33n 5mo ago
    Sure. Poor people ruin millions of families every year with pointless violent robberies, sexual assaults in back alleys, and worse. Does anyone of sound mind make it a class issue? Of course not. It would make about as much sense as blaming every rich person for random white collar crimes.
    - croes 5mo ago
      What is the per capita of ruined lives per poor people? If they get caught, do they get jail time or a fine? How many poor people do you need to get the same number of victims compared to the sketchy things of rich people?
      - 5mo ago
Henchman21 5mo ago
Could you please define "sketchy" for the sake of this conversation?

It is indeed already normal for rich people to do things that are sketchy as hell. Maybe let's make it not normal?

JuniperMesos 5mo ago

I really don't trust your definition of sketchy as hell and don't want it to have legal or normative force.

nullsanity 5mo ago
[dead]
creatonez 5mo ago
For-profit companies jurisdiction shopping without any physical presence is so clearly sketchy that it's wild anyone could see it otherwise. I can't imagine a normal person not being shocked in disbelief when they first learn about the concept of tax havens.
- kube-system 5mo ago
  Maybe when it’s Panama. But there is not a single sketchy reason why companies choose to incorporate in Delaware, for instance. There are very legitimate reasons to incorporate in another location. Some are not only not sketchy, but even altruistic, e.g. incorporating in another state for the purpose of incorporating as a PBC.
  - lenerdenator 5mo ago
    What are the altruistic aspects of operating a corporate entity that effectively operates as a casino where you can bet on literally anything? Did they incorporate as a PBC? Is there actual case law of people using a company's status as a PBC to effectively hold it to account for detrimental corporate conduct?
    - kube-system 5mo ago
      I think you might be misreading my comment as if I was defending Polymarket. I'm disputing the claim that "jurisdiction shopping is always sketchy".
  - creatonez 5mo ago
    Delaware is quite literally a tax haven set up to assist in evading as many local laws as possible. Do we just excuse it because it's a US state and speaks English?
    - kube-system 5mo ago
      No it isn’t. There are states with zero corporate taxes, and Delaware isn’t one of them. Businesses choose Delaware because their corporate law and court system are are both well developed and streamlined which makes investors comfortable. There are plenty of other states that are better choices for tax reasons.
- JuniperMesos 5mo ago
  Why is it shocking to suggest that multi-national companies deliberately arrange to have their headquarters in a legal jurisdiction that has favorable tax laws for them? This makes perfect sense and it's something I would consider doing myself if I was starting a company.
  - RugnirViking 5mo ago
    its one thing to actually put your headquarters somewhere. Quite another to use tricks to put your "headquarters" somewhere, and the office where you and most of your employees go to work halfway across the world. And what of incorporating somewhere, having your headquaters somewhere else, having your main office in a third place, and this all owned by a shell company in a fourth place, with all your assets owned by a fifth company, which rents it back to you for extortionate rates, your EU subsidiary in a sixth place, the actual EU offices in a seventh place, etc etc etc. Thats not even approaching the trickery and deceit that is accepted as completely normal - let alone the ones that actually get in trouble Do these sorts of things have legal benefits for the companies involved? (yes) If I had a company over a certain size, I'd probably do it too. But it has sharply negative consequences for the rest of society, and for trust in the system in general.
otterley 5mo ago
You haven't heard their definition yet.

tt24 5mo ago

Registered agents are sketchy now?

creatonez 5mo ago
If the only shell(s) for a business are in a completely different jurisdiction with no connection whatsoever to any of the humans involved in operating the organization... yes. It's an outrageous way to escape the force of the law that has been rubber stamped by corrupt politicians.
- kube-system 5mo ago
  It is exceeding common for US companies to incorporate without a presence in Delaware for the exact opposite reason of dodging the law. It is done to make legal compliance easier and more streamlined.
  - no-name-here 5mo ago
    Is Polymarket registered in Panama to make legal compliance easier/for the opposite reason of dodging the law?
    - lazide 5mo ago
      Registering in Panama isn’t even the sketchy thing! They listed a false agent of process, hah.
    - kube-system 5mo ago
      No, Polymarket is sketchy as fuck. I was disputing the allegation that there's something inherently wrong with having a registered agent in another locale.
  - kelnos 5mo ago
    Oh, c'mon, that's a huge exaggeration. US companies commonly incorporate in Delaware due to its generally-friendly business regulation with a ton of legal precedent surrounding it, and a court system well positioned to handle business-related cases. If they're incorporated there because that makes regulatory compliance easier, then that's not "dodging", that's just... doing what's allowed. And it's not like incorporating in Delaware is a get-out-of-jail-free card. If the company does have a presence in other states, the laws of those states are binding in many circumstances; the state of incorporation is irrelevant there. And there's always US federal law. Choice of state isn't going to change anything when the feds come knocking. The issue at hand is Polymarket claiming they are based in Panama, outside the US's jurisdiction, but presumably being headquartered in the US. You might say this is no different from a company being incorporated in, say, the UK, doing business there, hiring people, maintaining an office, and then also having offices in the US, but... this is not the same, and it's a little odd that you seem to be missing that fact. And on top of that, often multi-nationals will have a legal entity in every country where they operate. Do they have one in the US? If not, and they are de-facto headquartered here, that's beyond sketchy. And even if they do, if they've structured things such that they can shield their assets from US legal judgments for crimes or torts committed on US soil, that's also pretty damn sketchy.

k33n 5mo ago

Do poor people ever do anything sketchy as hell?

croes 5mo ago
Do the sketchy things of poor people affect as much other people as the sketchy of rich? Who more often jail time for sketchy things? Poor or rich?
- lazide 5mo ago
  Are we talking drug gangs as poor? Because the foot soldiers sure are.
  - PearlRiver 5mo ago
    I would blame those on the middle class cocaine users who fund the drug gangs.
  - croes 5mo ago
    The foot soldiers are part of the sketchy things of rich drug lords
- k33n 5mo ago
  Sure. Poor people ruin millions of families every year with pointless violent robberies, sexual assaults in back alleys, and worse. Does anyone of sound mind make it a class issue? Of course not. It would make about as much sense as blaming every rich person for random white collar crimes.
  - croes 5mo ago
    What is the per capita of ruined lives per poor people? If they get caught, do they get jail time or a fine? How many poor people do you need to get the same number of victims compared to the sketchy things of rich people?
    - 5mo ago

Henchman21 5mo ago

Could you please define "sketchy" for the sake of this conversation?