> leaving only the benefits.
Well.. those and the liabilities and risk.
Well.. those and the liabilities and risk.
And what liabilities do they have?
All of them associated with operating their business. The most pertinent to this discussion would obviously be workers compensation in cases of work related injury or illness.
Is insurance that offers unlimited coverage free? No? That's a liability, then. You will have to pay this insurance whether you are profitable or not. That's a risk, you see?
> there is the corporate veil for that.
Very few business actually structure themselves in such a way to receive this benefit. It's not automatic either, you'll still need lawyers to make this argument for you in court should you be sued.
> Just declare bankruptcy and start over.
You do realize there are multiple different types of bankruptcies and not all of them allow you walk away and "start over."
> Not like you are losing the money you extracted from the company.
Yes, those are called "profits" and they are taxed. Most companies are not entirely liquid and the majority of the value is in the operation not in past "extracted" money.
Owning a $100 million business is not at all like having $100 million in the stock market.
My post is not targeted to the people who have started a lifestyle business or someone who has built a $100M enterprise from the ground up.
Much of the worlds wealth is concentrated through inheritance and the effect of compounding interest.
A person of normal intelligence with a large inheritance can easily live off other peoples work by a diverse portfolio, accumulated by previous generations. Large wealth inheritance creates obvious power imbalances in any economic system, unless every participant(or most, anyway) in the system has themselves large amounts of inherited economic wealth.
My (skilled) labour is valued somewhere at $50-$250/h. Yet, the offspring of the ultra rich("the owning class") receive x10-x100 of what i receive without lifting a finger.