[jrs235]

Revenue and earnings made via a government provided and recognized privilege of limited liability are fair game for the government to regulate (edit: and tax).

If individuals wish to operate outside of limited liability, un-shielding all their assets to the consequences of their actions, then they can keep all their revenue/earnings.

I think it's BS that limited liability orgs commit acts that damage the environment and others, pay dividends to share holders, salaries (and bonuses) to officers and employees, and then go bankrupt when they are then being held to account for their actions and leaving little to nothing to their victims because there is no ability to claw back the money they paid out.

Quid pro quo. They get limited liability for being regulated. Don't like being regulated? Then forego limited liability.

[nybble41]

For the most part limited liability is a private agreement between you and your creditors, not a get-out-of-jail-free pass to avoid any and all consequences when you cause deliberate or negligent harm to someone who never agreed to those terms. To be sure, there have been instances where the government shielded someone from liability unjustly or failed to "pierce the corporate veil" when doing so was arguably warranted. However, such cases are very much in the minority compared to instances where limited liability is used purely to protect personal assets from being seized to pay the corporation's debts in the event of a business failure or contractual dispute.