This is George Monbiot on limited liability in the Guardian today:
To allow the owners of a limited company to risk nothing but the money they have spent on shares is to grant them free, uncapped indemnity against the risks they impose on others. It's the equivalent of permitting drivers to take to the roads without buying insurance, knowing that if they cause a crash they will carry no more than the cost of replacing their own car, regardless of the expense, injury and death they might impose on others.
I can only agree, although I do not wholly agree with his prescriptions.
The answer is full accounts on public record.
And accountability to stakeholders.
And higher tax as the risk charge.
Plus removal of limited liability if obligations are not met.
But they need more time than I have to discuss.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Assume the same analysis goes for llp’s as well
I would agree it should
Absolutely this.
Do you think LLPs should face a higher tax charge for limited liability?
I have made it absolutely clear that LLPs should pay more
Why ask about what I have already said unless you are a timewaster, as seems likely
How does that work? LLPs are tax transparent. Who pays more tax? How much?
The registration fee could be increased
It should be
On the whole, an LLP doesn’t pay tax on its income and gains: the members of the LLP do instead. And on the whole, the income tax or capital gains tax payable by the members is more than the corporation tax that would have been due if the income and gains had arisen to a limited company instead. And there is national insurance on the members’ trading income too.
(The total amount of tax is a bit more even if the post-tax cash is taken out of the company as a dividend.)
Why should the tax position change radically depending on whether a small business is set up as a sole trader, partnership, LLP, or company, and why should it matter if the company rewards its directors/shareholders in the form of dividends or salary? It is nonsensical.
Agreed
I would not use a company to ensure I was not avoiding tax by doing so