| ▲ | solidsnack9000 3 days ago |
| There is no legal basis for this for taking the salaries of everyone who worked at the company in any level of management at any time. No large undertaking could ever function with such broad exposure to liability, anyways. |
|
| ▲ | SlavikCA 3 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| That's right: no legal basis exists now. The proposal is to create such legal basis. And if "No large undertaking could ever function with such broad exposure to liability" - that would be great, i think we would prefer that such firms doesn't exists. |
| |
| ▲ | Ajedi32 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | "such firms" being any and all IT companies? They would still exist, just not in any country insane enough to pass a ridiculous law like this. | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > that would be great, i think we would prefer that such firms doesn't exists They stop existing within your jurisdiction. Also, the idea that the public would go along with any of this for this issue is silly. Let's start with crimes that actually cost lives. | | |
|
|
| ▲ | rectang 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Then such businesses should not exist. What right do they have to gamble with the wealth of 150 million people unrelated to their enterprise? |
| |
| ▲ | nxm 3 days ago | parent [-] | | This can't happen to government agencies? Well then let's not have governments either! |
|
|
| ▲ | cmiles74 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| All the better, I've long suspected that these companies are collecting this data and selling some portion of it. Having this category of business entirely disappear sounds like a solid win to me. |
|
| ▲ | wat10000 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I see no problem with a rule that effectively says no company can exist if it holds such detailed records on millions of people. |
| |
| ▲ | solidsnack9000 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Something much more targeted is appropriate there. Maybe we need a regulatory framework where people own their own data. Make it impractical, expensive and burdensome to hold personal data you don't absolutely need. That has nothing to do with changing the whole approach to -- really undermining the whole idea of -- corporations. Limited liability is the only way they can work. It's a cornerstone of every developed economy. | | |
| ▲ | wat10000 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Corporate officers can already be held individually liable for some things. This would just add another one, it wouldn’t be undermining the whole idea of corporations. If individuals can be held personally liable for their company’s failure to pay payroll taxes and corporations still manage to exist and do business, then I don’t see why this would be so different. | | |
| ▲ | solidsnack9000 2 days ago | parent [-] | | What situation do you have in mind when you say "...individuals can be held personally liable for their company’s failure to pay payroll taxes..."? | | |
| ▲ | wat10000 2 days ago | parent [-] | | I’m not quite sure how to answer that. The situation I have in mind is the one described in the bit you quoted. A company doesn’t pay legally required payroll taxes, then depending on circumstances, corporate officers may be personally liable for them. See: https://www.irs.gov/irm/part5/irm_05-017-007 | | |
| ▲ | solidsnack9000 2 days ago | parent [-] | | IRM 5.17.7 (https://www.irs.gov/irm/part5/irm_05-017-007), is about corporate officers who have a duty "...to account for, collect, and pay over..." taxes and failed to perform that duty. I don't think this is at all similar to jsrozner's solution, which is to assign liability to "...every person who has ever worked for IDScan at any level of management...". The IRM is describing officers with culpability as individuals whereas jsrozner is really proposing to do without any individuate consideration of wrongdoing at all. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | shimman 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Restitution is the legal basis, let's not act like the rich don't force the poor to pay for their civil violations. What it sounds like is the rich don't like it when the law is applied fairly to them too. |
| |
| ▲ | solidsnack9000 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | It seems like there is something specific to this that you are missing. Holding all managers personally accountable for actions of a corporation runs up against the legal structure of a corporation -- a legal structure that is definitely not one of joint and several liability. That is what I mean when I say there is no legal basis for it. The whole point of a corporation is that the corporation is liable (which is a great convenience in many respects). Restitution is not about who is liable but about making a wrong right. It's a different layer. | |
| ▲ | singleshot_ 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Restitution is an equitable remedy, not a legal basis. | |
| ▲ | 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
