Comment: A trust is different than a corporation

(See in situ)


A trust is different than a corporation

Trusts are a very borderline case. I would say for a trust to be valid there must be a real surrender of ownership of the money to the trust. If the trust involves no surrender of control than it is difficult to see how a person gains a moral release of liability by registering a trust with the government. Control would consist of the right to liquify the asset--if it looks and acts like a bank account then it is a bank account. For instance if the person does not have the right to liquify the asset, then transferring its ownership to the damaged party has no value. To see this simply ask if a person who puts his money in a trust to pay for his child's education has any superior moral standing to a person who puts his money for his child's education into a separate savings account. You cannot legislate away risk to third parties with whom you have no contract. That creates two classes of people. One class acquiring more rights by paying extra fees to the government and lawyers.