Meaning that if they lose their court case, they can still continue to behave badly, and not face any additional fines once they hit that measly total.
Oh, and just in case that $500,000 might hit some small "mom-and-pop" credit reporting agency, the total damage that can be awarded (again IN TOTAL TO THE ENTIRE CLASS), is the lesser of $500,000 or 1% of the net worth of the person/corporation the suit is being brought against.
Meaning we are basically saying "you can't actually bring a suit against them that could cause them enough damage to actually change their shitty behavior"
Yes, but I would guess, more frivolous lawsuits are filed by corporations looking to silence critics or competition more so than ambulance chasers. They certainly have deeper pockets.
Hah. I'm not sure I would go that far.
I mean I hear you - corporations are important, as they're a great way for a group of people to accomplish something together - but if the most important thing you do for society is employment, you sound like a pretty shit corporation.
On the other hand, The New Deal did a lot of that. Hmmm.
The New Deal(s) did not really do the above. Although it really provided value in the form of infrastructure as well as employment to citizens it had to take money from people as well as borrow large amounts to do it.
Hating on corporations and trading them for the government as a pseudo-corporation is just as bad. Sounds like a comment dripping with naivety from a college history class as if it's a final 'gotchya' against someone who is looking at the situation from all avenues.
There are definitely corporations that provide employment, tax money, and/or charity work without generating monetary value (how long until Facebook actually sold anything?). But you're larger point is correct; those companies either don't last, or don't stay in that state.
The entire point of the New Deal was to provide employment first and foremost (then, why not do something possibly useful with those employees? Hence the infrastructure.)
> take money from people as well as borrow large amounts to do it.
How is this different from any other corporation? Every company I interact with - including the ones I don't pay - takes value from me; and most (if not all) have taken loans and/or investment. Usually it is money, and I get back something; but it's not like I gave Equifax my personal info [from which the took monetary value].
While yes, taxes ARE categorically different than prices (and bonds are different than stocks), you can still definitely adopt the perspective that they're how you pay for all the civilization supplied by the society you're a part of. And if you don't want to pay for those things, there's still ways to stop; and you don't even have to give up all the things you're getting for the price you're no longer paying.
I'm not hating on corporations. I'm saying that I would expect a corporation whose primary purpose is employment of people to do a poor overall job of adding value to society; at least compared to corporations with goals of delivering products or services.
It's not a question of "does this not produce value", it's a question of which kind of value is most produced.
...And I'm probably wrong anyway, because that's basically what temp agencies do.
Overall, your reply sounds like a comment arguing with an imaginary person you disagree with as if your imagined reality resembles the real thing. Try starting with a question next time, it'll help you figure out if what you think is going is actually what's going on.
And why exactly is it that the size of the lawsuit is a strong indicator of frivolity? I would expect the oppsosite, as a frivolous lawsuit business I believe my interests would lie in doing 100 lawsuits at 10,000 a year rather than one at a 1,000,000.
That's not a net positive to society in my eyes.
Why should someone whom is asking for money with no way to pay it back get the same preference as someone asking to borrow money who has a history of solid payments and has enough capital they could liquify to pay off at least 50% of the amount tomorrow?
I don't think that utility companies or landlords under report although I understand that it would be nice if they reported more for beginning creditors. The distinction for why they aren't included is that they aren't lending you money. You are only paying for their services as you use them. Once in default, they are effectively loaning to you at that point though with a balance to be paid. Do you think the IT technician whom invoiced you for $2500 in work should also report as well? [shrugs] Guess I don't want all balanced from whom provided me a service to be in a credit report for 7 years but I understand that is just me.
And not to defend Equifax, because how can you, but a lot of people make their living there and in general corporations deserve reasonable protection under the law just like individuals do. After all most of them are net positives for society: they provide employment, benefits, and many support their local communities in a variety of other ways.