Panama Papers

[Eddie Teach]

Incidentally, it's always nations with oil that are most fucked up - be it Norway, Saudi Arabia or Alberta. I guess having a lot of free money allows them to practice idiocy that would have sunken less endowed nations much sooner.

Alberta is not a nation, Lettow.

[DGuller]

Corporations are, generally, associations of people (that's what the Latin root of the word means and in fact in the old days the word "corporation" was used much more broadly, to denote any organised group of people). There is no reason why people who associate into a corporation and act within such corporation's structure were to lose some of the rights they had outside of the corporation, except to the extent such limitation stems from the corporation's charter.

If I run my own business and my neighbour runs his own business, and we have certain rights when doing so, why would we lose such rights when we combined our businesses into a corporation, with each of us as a 50/50 shareholder?

Do you stop being an individual when you form a corporation?

[The Minsky Moment]

and there is no reason that the mere decision to form a corporation should expand the rights they have as individuals, absent some particular public policy purpose that such expansion would serve.

Is this the case?  I can't think of any rights that individuals operating through corporations have that I don't have.

Hobby Lobby.
By imputing personal speech rights to the corporation, the corporation is then permitted to disregard labor laws that conflict with the *corporation's* religious beliefs.  Control over the levers of corporate management thus becomes a lever to amplify the influence of the particular views of the corporate controller that is unavailable to those who lack that control.

[The Minsky Moment]

I mean I am just baffled by your refusal to understand and agree with the Citizens United case (barring perhaps your political hostility). Corporations are ultimately extensions of their owners - who, ultimately, are people. They are not some mystical, inhuman beings - they are vehicles for people and their capital.

I oppose Citizens United precisely *because* it treats corps as mystical beings, and not (as prior precedent provided) mere vehicles for people and their capital

[Admiral Yi]

Control over the levers of corporate management thus becomes a lever to amplify the influence of the particular views of the corporate controller that is unavailable to those who lack that control.

Sole proprietors cannot exempt out of paying for whore pills?

[MadImmortalMan]

In the US, can corporations get drafted (when you have the draft)?

It never occurred to me before. Corporations must be women. 

[crazy canuck]

and there is no reason that the mere decision to form a corporation should expand the rights they have as individuals, absent some particular public policy purpose that such expansion would serve.

Is this the case?  I can't think of any rights that individuals operating through corporations have that I don't have.

Then you misunderstand one of the main reasons to incorporate - limited liability.  If you act through a corporation the maximum you can lose is your investment in the corporation.  If you do it personally you can lose everything you have.

But dont worry the US Supreme Court made a similar error.

[crazy canuck]

I mean I am just baffled by your refusal to understand and agree with the Citizens United case (barring perhaps your political hostility). Corporations are ultimately extensions of their owners - who, ultimately, are people. They are not some mystical, inhuman beings - they are vehicles for people and their capital.

So, going back to the original discussion - if I have a right to secrecy when I keep my assets in my own personal back account, why should I lose that right if I invest those assets into a corpote vehicle (save of course to the extent preciputated by the nature of the corporation - i.e. vis-a-vis its management and other shareholders).

You would make a great Republican appointment to the US Supreme Court.  If corporations are extensions of the shareholders, why can't the shareholders be sued directly?

[Martinus]

Thanks. I will make sure to send in my cv when President Trump gets sworn in.

[Norgy]

Thanks. I will make sure to send in my cv when President Trump gets sworn in.

Too gay, but with correct opinions.

[The Minsky Moment]

Then you misunderstand one of the main reasons to incorporate - limited liability.  If you act through a corporation the maximum you can lose is your investment in the corporation.  If you do it personally you can lose everything you have.

Which was why even in the railroad age corporations were still pretty restricted - minimum capitalization, real par value requirements, limitations on corporate purposes, etc.  All that got swept away in the US in the late 19th century by a classic de-regulatory race to the bottom as states competed for charters.  The present situation has been around so long that we've come to accept that forming corporations is virtually a meaningless act.  But they were and are creatures of state statutes, nothing more. 

[The Minsky Moment]

Sole proprietors cannot exempt out of paying for whore pills?

They can because they are human beings with religious beliefs.

The fundamental misconception here is the idea of people acting "through" corporations.  That's OK to say in a colloquial sense but it's not correct.  By law the corporate is a separate, artificial person.  As an attorney, Marti knows that when you represent a corporation you represent the corporation itself.  Not the shareholders (even if controlling), not even the Board of Directors.  The corporation itself is legally separate from all the people that have certain defined rights in relation to it. 

[The Brain]

As an attorney, Marti knows

Try it again, without the sarcasm.

[Eddie Teach]

Try it again, without the sarcasm.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rX8oPjPU5x8

[Martinus]

The Economist did a very good infographics showing the reasons why people could keep an offshore shell company.