[gh-throw]

Lack of choice in tax regimen is entirely fine for corporations. They're creations of the state. We should bring them to heel, if they're finding ways to avoid what we're trying to get them to do. Don't like it, don't incorporate, and don't enjoy the state-given benefits thereof. I don't care a bit about increasing choices for corporations, unless doing so improves our ability to harness them to generate whatever we're trying to get out of them (economic growth, infrastructure development, taxes, whatever). I'd surely entertain arguments against this in those terms, though (i.e. "actually this will cause us to be less able to harness corporations to our benefit, for reasons X, Y, and Z")

[IG_Semmelweiss]

I'd like to better understand what your repulsion is against corporations.

What are the state-given benefits that they get, and other entities have no access to?

what makes them worse than say an LLP or an LP?

[gh-throw]

Repulsion? Where do you get that idea?

Corporations wholly creations of the state. They have no meaning or existence absent it. We shouldn't empower our government to grant the privileges of incorporation unless it's in the polity's interest, surely? There's no repulsion. They're not bad. But we don't owe them anything whatsoever, either, and we shouldn't hesitate to ask what we think we can or should in return.

[CryptoPunk]

A corporation is a contractual construct. People can form one voluntarily in the absence of the government. With the exception of limited liability for tort - which should be repealed - every right that corporations are bestowed, like legal personhood in the context of contract law, can be fully justified by free market principles.

[gh-throw]

I think you're considering a broader set of things a "corporation" than I am. Wikipedia:

> A corporation is an organization—usually a group of people or a company—authorized by the state to act as a single entity (a legal entity recognized by private and public law 'born out of statute"; a legal person in legal context) and recognized as such in law for certain purposes.[1]:10 Early incorporated entities were established by charter (i.e. by an ad hoc act granted by a monarch or passed by a parliament or legislature).

Webster's 1913:

> A body politic or corporate, formed and authorized by law to act as a single person, and endowed by law with the capacity of succession; a society having the capacity of transacting business as an individual.

Modern Merriam-Webster's retains essentially the same definition.

That's why I hold that position about their relationship with the rest of society, and in particular with their parent government. I'll grant some other kind of organization, not being definitionally a creation of government, may not have the same relationship.

[CryptoPunk]

>>authorized by law to act as a single person,

This can be common law, recognizing the legal authority the shareholders grant the corporate entity to act on their behalf.

There is a common law justification to treat that entity as a legal person because it acts as a single entity, as willed by the shareholders.

I am not suggesting that the corporate legal structure has never come into existence by legislation. I am just saying that the corporate structure can also emerge entirely through the common law enforcement of contracts.