Ethics of Asset Protection
- Thread starter Terryw
- Start date
Absolutely not.
Sorry, I should have written "future potential creditors".
Do potential creditors only go after what's fair and equitable, or do they only go after what's in your capacity to pay?
There's two sides to the coin and each tries to end up on top.
There's two sides to the coin and each tries to end up on top.
Last edited:
Good to know you have no problem if someone who owes you thousands of $$ for in wages or work/services does'nt pay you cause they think your not "deserving".
Though it is a very generic question, and there are many situations that may arise.
If I employ you Terryw to represent me for 6 mths, and then don't pay you, is it ethical?
If I contract you to employ me in a court case and I lose, is it ethical not to pay you?
If I buy 100k of "Independent Thought Alarms" from Mark, is it ethical not to pay him?
Unless there is a breach in the "duty of care" or misleading advertising or false promises, is it ethical not to pay them?
If you walk into my workshop (unauthorised) and get offended by a topless calendar, is it ethical to pay 30k?
If the workers go on strike because they don't like the brand of sunglasses and it costs your company 1mil bux which causes it's bankruptcy, is it ethical to pay them wages?
If I employ Jim and he hits on a secretary in the office (ignoring company policy) is it ethical to pay her 37.5mil?
What is ethical is not that simple.
Last edited:
no - you still have to comply with the laws
Absolutely not.
As someone who lost big time in a lawsuit over one asset because we did not protect our other assets, ethics doesn't even come into the equation for me.
hi terry
good question but the two are not the same nor should they be in the same basket
one is ethics and the other is protection
first ethics depend on an individuals choice and they have to decide if some thing is ethical as per others posts
a car a boat a plane a house a screwdriver in its self can't be unethical these are tools is there use thats unethical if used thatway
2 asset protection
again its usually a structure and that structure is design to protect from the damage to the structure just the same as a house is designed to protect from rain
again both are no unethical
you are asking should you design the structure to allow some assets to be protected and some possibly not
well do you build a house to let some rain thru and some not
no
a structure is designed to protect all assets in that structure is should not be designed to protect against litigants but the reality is that the design does protect if designed correctly
its a feature of the design.
yes you can design as you can with a house to have a few tiles missing to allow some avenue for some thing to come thru
but it would not make sense to do so
the same with any structure
the structure are not designed to stop claiments they are designed to protect assets and because in that protection they stop receivers, liquidators litigants or even courts to break thru those walls of defence for me this is not ethical or unethical this is just good design.
because something works does not mean that because it works on some thing that in itself its ethical or unethical
no where the ethical part does come in is from the attacker or the attackee
not the structure
any one that does not assett protect for me is some one stood under a tree asking why that person live in that house
yes the tree doesgive some form of protection but the house is alot more proetection
and you need to decide if what is in your bag while under the tree is better there or in the house
for me its in the house some say I am happy to walk around with my assets in the bag over my shoulder and anyone can attack me any time I don't care
thats fine
but I would have thenm in the house, vault, corporate vault what ever
and I would pay twice as much to do the structure correct then there value if you wish to keep them
as we move to the brave new world on this ship of life
asset protection
and for that matter structures to allow that asset don't get attacked by governments (and thats going to be a big issue within 25 years I think)
for me need to be in place
or carry your stuff as you like.
but I do not see the two items as you have posted being linked
just my view
good question but the two are not the same nor should they be in the same basket
one is ethics and the other is protection
first ethics depend on an individuals choice and they have to decide if some thing is ethical as per others posts
a car a boat a plane a house a screwdriver in its self can't be unethical these are tools is there use thats unethical if used thatway
2 asset protection
again its usually a structure and that structure is design to protect from the damage to the structure just the same as a house is designed to protect from rain
again both are no unethical
you are asking should you design the structure to allow some assets to be protected and some possibly not
well do you build a house to let some rain thru and some not
no
a structure is designed to protect all assets in that structure is should not be designed to protect against litigants but the reality is that the design does protect if designed correctly
its a feature of the design.
yes you can design as you can with a house to have a few tiles missing to allow some avenue for some thing to come thru
but it would not make sense to do so
the same with any structure
the structure are not designed to stop claiments they are designed to protect assets and because in that protection they stop receivers, liquidators litigants or even courts to break thru those walls of defence for me this is not ethical or unethical this is just good design.
because something works does not mean that because it works on some thing that in itself its ethical or unethical
no where the ethical part does come in is from the attacker or the attackee
not the structure
any one that does not assett protect for me is some one stood under a tree asking why that person live in that house
yes the tree doesgive some form of protection but the house is alot more proetection
and you need to decide if what is in your bag while under the tree is better there or in the house
for me its in the house some say I am happy to walk around with my assets in the bag over my shoulder and anyone can attack me any time I don't care
thats fine
but I would have thenm in the house, vault, corporate vault what ever
and I would pay twice as much to do the structure correct then there value if you wish to keep them
as we move to the brave new world on this ship of life
asset protection
and for that matter structures to allow that asset don't get attacked by governments (and thats going to be a big issue within 25 years I think)
for me need to be in place
or carry your stuff as you like.
but I do not see the two items as you have posted being linked
just my view
Great post GR!
I totally agree. A structure is what it is - it can't be ethical or unethical - it's just a structure.
One person's justified grievance is another person's vexatious litigant. Placing your assets in structures that have more protection, in and of itself, is not unethical.
Defrauding someone and then relying on your structure to prevent redress is unethical. But in this case it's not the structure that's unethical - it's the fraud!
I totally agree. A structure is what it is - it can't be ethical or unethical - it's just a structure.
One person's justified grievance is another person's vexatious litigant. Placing your assets in structures that have more protection, in and of itself, is not unethical.
Defrauding someone and then relying on your structure to prevent redress is unethical. But in this case it's not the structure that's unethical - it's the fraud!
Happens all the time in Law. I do "no win no fee" cases where there is a deserving client so I won't get paid if it loses. But sometimes they lie to me (
) and I only find out at the end. Wouldn't have taken the case if I knew the truth. If I am a wage slave I deserve a degree of protection but if I am in business for myself and I let myself get exposed for $100k when there are usually warning signs well it is tough titties for me.I like you analogy of the topless calender because that was exactly the sort of example of a creditior who doesn't deserve to be paid that I had in mind.
Similar threads
