[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."

[thayne]

> Secondly it's not "taking advantage" in a pejorative sense. It doesn't make other people poorer.

Maybe not by itself. But by reducing risk, it also reduces accountability which allows people to take advantage of people in other, often illegal or unlawful ways, without any meaningful consequences when they get caught.

In the OP, the owner of the business has caused multiple deaths through negligence, but at least from the contents of that article there hasn't been any meaningful consequence.

[usefulcat]

> But by reducing risk, it also reduces accountability which allows people to take advantage of people in other, often illegal or unlawful ways, without any meaningful consequences when they get caught.

Is the above also an argument against insurance? If not, why not?

[rblatz]

Insurance companies payout, unlike people with assets structured in a way that protects them. Thus insurance companies are heavily incentivized to reduce the likelihood of having to pay out claims. They are experts at estimating risk and managing risk.

[int_19h]

In some places it is illegal to insure against liabilities stemming from criminal activity, for this exact reason.

[bruce511]

Structures don't make people do illegal things, people do illegal things.

Yes, "hiding your money" might seem like it reduces accountability, but the law has a solution to that (called prison).

Yes, as we all well know the law is imperfect, and administered by imperfect people.

None of this removes the legitimate value people get from using financial tools properly. Just because cars are used as getaway vehicles doesn't mean we should ban cars.

[sanderjd]

This might be a good argument if "this person did something really bad and escaped accountability by shielding their assets" were a crime that results in prison time. But it ain't!

[chgs]

> It doesn't make other people poorer. It protects assets from creditors.

By making those creditors poorer?

[bruce511]

Creditors tend (in my experience) to be corporations, not individuals. And having seen corporations behave very poorly to many, and given the resources they have to look after their own interests, I don't set out to arrange my finances to their best possible advantage, no.

I should point out that I've had creditors all my life. Landlords, Employees, Banks, Suppliers and so on. I've never stiffed any of them. Perhaps tat's because I remain in control of my own finances, and don't allow them to interfere in the business.

If you feel that protecting your creditors is in your personal interest, then by all means go for it.

[sanderjd]

You should re-read the article we're discussing. The people legally owed money that is shielded by the legal fictions we're discussions are often not corporations.

[chgs]

In This case it’s individuals owed the money and people like you using corporations to prevent their need to pay them.