[martincmartin]

Isn't actually collecting judgements hard? I thought I read, in some article about how Alex Jones hasn't paid any of his judgement, that it's not uncommon to take decades before seeing any money. Often people settle for a greatly reduced sum that they can get right now, for that very reason.

[sanderjd]

Is it? Yes. Should it be? No.

It's long past time to stop letting rich people manipulate the legal system to get away with their criminality.

[ryandrake]

> rich people

That seems to be the key. If I, as a peon, owed child support or something, the government has many ways to squeeze that pittance out of me, including asset seizure and wage garnishment. But if instead I was a millionaire business owner owing $millions, I can just... not pay it. Have my lawyer whisper some arcane incantation to a judge, and suddenly the government is all "Oh, woe is me! How can we possibly get this money??" Two different systems, folks.

[WalterBright]

It's not so easy to get non-rich people to pay, either. The court can order it, but the court doesn't do enforcement. The party owed the money has to go pay another outfit to do wage garnishment. Of course, the debtor can just quit and go get another job, and that step has to be repeated.

[fasa99]

I enthusiastically agree with this. Try having your car/vehicle stolen, the offending party caught and pled guilty, ordered by a judge to pay back the damage they have done ... and do nothing (despite making, technically, massive untaxed sales on untaxed drug income) (the hustle and bustle of big city life!) still waiting, philadelphia

[Gare]

In my country (in Europe) wage garnishment is handled by the government, so once you have the right to collect it is easily enforced.

[overstay8930]

it’s the same in the US but you can’t garnish the wages of a corporate entity

[r00fus]

So corporations are people but don’t have to play by the rules. WTF.

[jjav]

> If I, as a peon, owed child support or something

Just here a few days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39815731

But if you're very rich and owe tens or hundreds of millions, you can just ignore it and move on.

[taneq]

"The miracle of credit, my dear boy. The more we owe them, the better they treat us!" - 'Dr. Absalom', Westmark (Lloyd Alexander)

[justrealist]

It's more about wage garnishment (easy) vs asset seizure (hard).

[mzi]

In Sweden we have "The Enforcement Agency", a government agency that does both with the same process. And it's the same process for both companies and private persons. Credit risk is a lot lower in Sweden for that reason, compared to similar markets such as Denmark.

[mahkeiro]

Just for information this is the same in Switzerland, but please note we are not the same :)

[temporarely]

It is the same system. It is the system. It is the entire point of the system.

Our government prints money as if it is nothing. The stupendous sums beings sent overseas but if it gets to domestic expenditure they ("our representatives") get all contentious and start counting pennies. Another manifestation of the system.

The system requires an underclass. It is that simple.

[gumby]

> The stupendous sums beings sent overseas but if it gets to domestic expenditure they ("our representatives") get all contentious

Most of the money "sent overseas" is actually spent locally (US "foreign aid" spent in US; Japanese "foreign aid" spent in Japan, etc).

For example, Ukraine is getting shells pulled from inventory (like giving the older, almost expired cans from your pantry to the food kitchen). The "Ukraine" money the WH and Senate want to spend will be spent on replentishment and building up capacity because the US has lost its capacity to rapidly build up production, and is worried about needing to fight another war.

A lot of food aid is actually sending surplus overseas to keep agricultural output high. Farm subsidies are a huge welfare plan to wealthy farmers (not poor ones) but the federal government doesn't want to risk a food shortage, so they support overproduction and send some of it overseas because there isn't enough local demand or much less foreign demand from rich trading partners.

[temporarely]

So you are confirming that it is the system. Yes, MIC is getting the war funds and "spending it in US" means MIC gets the money and then they do with it whatever it is they do with their massive pile of monies. I hear they get parked 'overseas'.

[77pt77]

> including asset seizure and wage garnishment

For child support it's usually contempt of court which implies jail time.

That's usually how debts (civil matters) turn into criminal problems.

[bruce511]

Well yeah, there are two systems, and so two paths that get followed.

I don't mean legal systems, I mean financial systems.

Most people live in a world where they have to own something to have it. They buy a house to live in, a car to drive and so on. The law can decide you owe something so they take an asset that you own.

But people with wealth don't generally live like this. They structure their financial lives to separate value from risk. They control wealth, they use wealth, but they don't "own" it.

Joe Public and the media are bad at understanding this distinction. They equate wealth with ownership. The law understands it though, so Joe Public doesn't understand the law.

The solution here is not to rail against the system. The solution is to understand it, leverage it, educate and be educated. There are legal structures that exist to protect assets. Yes, you need to reach some level of success to make use of them, but lots of people reach that level and don't use them, thus exposing unnecessary risk to those assets. If you "own" a business of any size, you should get educated on this.

[k8svet]

What on Earth difference does this distinction make to "Joe Public", exactly, given that they lack the wealth to navigate these systems?

"Ooh wow, I better understand how the system is specifically structured to grant inherit privileges to those with wealth, now I feel... ???"

[bruce511]

Your definition of wealth, and mine, might be different. I would describe anyone who owns a home, or business, to be wealthy. (If you own both, also risky).

Navigating these systems takes an education you can get for free, and a few hundred $ a year. Obviously there are lots of people who are not wealthy, for whom there is no risk and hence no need to reduce risk.

Getting educated about asset protection is not bad to do before you acquire assets. Just like the legal structures and implications for marriage are best learned before, not after, getting married.

You don't need to be wealthy to be educated on the topic. Those that plan to get wealthy might find it beneficial to learn about this before they "lose it all". Lots of people learn how the world works "the hard way". I'd prefer you didn't.

Naturally those with unprotected assets are also the juiciest prey for those who thrive on the misfortune of others.

[k8svet]

Maybe I'm just really ignorant but I don't totally understand how to mitigate the "risk" (?) of home ownership? For a few hundred dollars a year? Does this just refer to home owner's insurance, or something more?

I have (by my stnadards) a high NW, much of which is non-retirement accounts, but some of that is due to my having virtually zero non-monetary assets to my name. I guess I'm curious what I should be looking out for, if and when I pick a place to settle and purchase something.

I guess at the very least, this is something of a reminder that I should be purchasing decent traveler's insurance, especially in lieu of an American rent.

BTW, I appreciate you engaging me kindly, when I had somewhat glib replies earlier.

[Repulsion9513]

Ah right so because you can afford your mortgage payment you should also... be able to pay a lawyer and form an LLC and throw a bunch of money at it every year?

(Also as I said elsewhere in some states - Texas - they can't seize your home anyway, excepting stuff like mortgages)

[K0balt]

Significant assets (anything over say, 10k in value) should probably be owned by a trust, corporation, or anonymous offshore LLC or foundation. (Escalating by value). The cost of doing this runs about 300-1000-3000 a year.

[nothercastle]

It’s hard to get access to a professional that understands how to do this legally and can advise appropriately. Most financial advisors just peddle overpriced high fee index funds. Like how do you even find someone like that.

[sanderjd]

No, I disagree that the solution is to understand and leverage this system. It is good to identify things that are bad and advocate for changing them. Yes, it is a useful step to understand the details of how things work and how they came to be the way they are, but that does not imply accepting them as inevitable and playing along.

[Repulsion9513]

> Joe Public and the media are bad at understanding this distinction. They equate wealth with ownership. The law understands it though, so Joe Public doesn't understand the law.

Or Joe Public believes the law is wrong and understand (correctly) that the relevant metric is practical wealth rather than whether or not some fictional entity theoretically owns it.

[gorgabal]

But if the system is unjust it is also our moral duty to attempt to dismantle it no?

Just accepting the system and abusing it is not going to make the world a better place. This is why other commenters are upset, as you blatantly abuse immoral structures.

[bruce511]

The systems exist for a reason. Losing my life's accumulation at age 60 to a greedy or unscrupulous character is not a risk I personally want to take.

But if you feel that you can dismantle the system, then by all means go for it.

Personally I don't want to dismantle the system as it allows me to better manage risk.

[Repulsion9513]

> The systems exist for a reason.

Because the rich like them.

> Losing my life's accumulation at age 60 to a greedy or unscrupulous character is not a risk I personally want to take.

So why is the answer "allow people to avoid their liabilities" instead of "don't give people liability to greedy or unscrupulous characters"?

> Personally I don't want to dismantle the system as it allows me to better manage risk.

Personally I don't want to dismantle the system as it favors me*

[HeyLaughingBoy]

> 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!

[k8svet]

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]

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."

[bruce511]

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.

[HeyLaughingBoy]

I was dead serious and I may have gotten a bit emotional because it's a pet peeve of mine.

I was the child of a single mother who didn't have a high school diploma. Somehow I managed to graduate high school without falling into crime as did so many of my classmates. Somehow I managed to get through college, barely able to pay for it and always wondering if this was the semester we wouldn't have enough money for what scholarships and loans/grants wouldn't cover. And yes, I willingly acknowledge that it was much easier to do that 30 years ago. The cost of education these days is nothing short of criminal.

But then I got into the workplace and I was surrounded by people who did nothing but make excuses for where they were in life.

I knew nothing about money other than I should have a bank account and save. So I got books and learned how to invest, how money worked to make more money, that there were better options than savings accounts, that I was better off buying a reliable used car instead of the most expensive thing I could afford, etc. I learned that by starting a simple Sole Proprietorship business, I could essentially be paid to learn because my business expenses would be tax deductible and I could make a little cash on the side.

I learned about systems and how to use them to my advantage. I also learned to keep my mouth shut because although anyone could learn the same things that I did, people would rather bitch about how everything is stacked against them and they could never get ahead.

<rant off>

[amrocha]

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?

[mindslight]

You're brushing off that these structures require an outsized level of wealth to pay the salaries of enough other people to make every legal entity a group project with diffuse responsibility. Without that, most judges are just going to say you're personally responsible for everything regardless of the legal structures you've set up. So no, it's not just a matter of us plebs learning how to use the system - it really is designed to privilege capital over individuals. For example see the blatant dynamic of the "Limited Partnership" predecessor to the LLC.

[bruce511]

The amount of wealth required and the actions of judges will depend greatly on your situation and the local legislation. Consult a good financial advisor for the best solution in your jurisdiction.

[mindslight]

I've read a bit about asset protection. The big problem I see is that how do you trust advice/strategies from any given advisor/attorneys will actually hold up, rather than simply being an expensive piece of paperwork that gets disregarded right as it's needed. Perhaps I'd feel differently if say I were in one of the few states that explicitly respected self settled asset protection trusts. But as things stand I'm somewhat salty that say even a straightforward LLC seemingly can't be relied upon to protect from the liability exposure of owning a rental property, when done by an individual. Meanwhile corpos have successfully convinced courts to create post-facto liability shields between business units that hadn't even been structured that way ahead of time.

[int_19h]

That in and of itself is not cheap.

[Repulsion9513]

Depends. Good luck getting a drop out of anyone who's not proper rich in Texas - you can't garnish wages (federal debts & familial support only) and you can't seize the only significant assets many people have (a house and a car).

[JellyBeanThief]

As long as we keep writing discontented comments on the internet, I'm sure we'll get what we want any day now.

[elzbardico]

Please note that this is a specifically American. In most other countries, a judge simply issue an order for the banks most of the time electronically and the funds are automatically collected in a electronic manner.

[thephyber]

The Alex Jones company bankruptcy is ongoing. Courts take time. The debtors have to agree to what they are willing to accept (and in the case of AJones, he is still defending against other lawsuits that might grow his group of bankruptcy debtors).

In regards to collecting, if a business is still open and collecting revenue, it’s a fairly easy target for collecting _something_. Whether a full $40 million judgement on a person/company can be collected is a different beast. There is a tremendous incentive to throw lots of billable hours at lawyers to appeal, or lots of billable hours to financial advisors to hide assets (shell companies, offshore jurisdictions, family members, fake identities, hard currency / commodities, etc). There is some evidence that AJones has done some of this (and that the Trump company at the heart of the NY fraud case has tried to migrate to FL and send assets to other entities).

[spdustin]

If you can social engineer the name of their bank, banks are quite responsive when sent a judgment and a writ of attachment (which courts are usually quick to give when they've entered your judgment).

[lazide]

You can generally get assets seized relatively easily, depending on how things are structured.

The challenge is a lot of sketchy folks will ensure they hold very little directly themselves, which complicates things.