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.

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."

> 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.

> 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?

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.

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

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.

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!

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

By making those creditors poorer?

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.

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.

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

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>

I understand and completely get where you are coming from. People seldom thank you for pointing out their poor life choices :)

Through your own efforts and experience you have acquired a useful block of knowledge. I encourage you to share it in cases where that knowledge can make a difference to someone else.

But yeah, in the wrong context it can hurt more than help.

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?

I understand how you can read it that way. But that is not my intent, and clearly also not true.

There are plenty of rich people who are happy to keep everything in their own name, and just live with the risk. Most of those people turn out OK.

Some percentage make the news everyday as having "lost everything". Keeping everything together mean's it all stands and falls together. A bad decision in your business means the loss of your house.

So no, I'm not saying people who disagree with me are poor. I'm saying that rich people who disagree with me have a higher appetite for risk than I do. I'll work for 40 years, I'm not prepared to lose all that accumulation in year 39. Good structures remove that risk, which is something I'm happy to pay for.

Of course this hinges on your definition of rich. Perhaps you think a billion makes you rich. Or perhaps a million. Or perhaps 20k. It doesn't really matter. Whatever you have you can decide if you can afford to lose it all, or not.

Of course by the time you have a million you have a financial advisor, who will be advocating for the same risk reduction. Which is why this approach may seem tainted to you. I'll never have a million, which is why I'm not going to risk what I do accumulate, losing it would be painful.

Here's your words:

"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."

You literally said that if you think the financial system is unfair you're probably poor, and you don't care what they think.

>> if you think the financial system is unfair

The financial system is certainly unfair. Life is unfair, from the moment you are born to the moment you die. This has nothing to do with "fairness". This has to do with personal financial management. There are rules to the game. Use them, don't use them, it's completely up to you.

If you want to change the rules to make them more fair, then by all means go for it. I'm not sure that any system you divide will ultimately be fair since it has to operate in an unfair world. The current system protects wealth at pretty much any scale. You are welcome to leave your wealth unprotected if you choose. That's your right.

Yep, as you alluded to, the rules of "the game" are not static. It's good to advocate for changing the rules to make them more fair, and it's bad to advocate for the unfair status quo (which is what you've been doing), or changing them to be even more unfair.

If you don’t have a million your probably have most of your wealth in your home (typically protected by homestead exemptions) or retirement accounts (IRAs up to 1 million and 401k have no limit). Then a simple cheap umbrella policy could fill any gaps.