71–80 of 303 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
if only this were limited to ethics and compliance. expertise is a virtue in modern society. signaling it well is often easier and more successful than developing and maintaining it. damn lucrative, too. this is why we can’t have nice things.
It starts with interviews which select you based on how well you speak instead of what you speak.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Really? 5 years? That seems really harsh. Is it all business failures or does it have to be due to mismanagement? I've heard the climate is very hostile to businesses in Germany; my sister in law was trying to sell art on etsy and apparently she had to get a business license to do so in Germany. She's now back in the USA where she can just sell stuff online and the only thing she needs to do is file her taxes correct…
>she had to get a business license to do so in Germany. She's now back in the USA where she can just sell stuff online If you want to sell in the Germany, get a business license from Estonia or Romania or some other low-cost low-bureocracy EU country, and pay your taxes there. Germany is still living in the business climate of the '60s.
In Germany income is taxed where it is generated, which includes the head of the person running the business. So if you run your foreign company from Germany - which is expect to be the case if you have no physical permanent office in Estonia, where you also have to be regularly present - you home is considered to be an business location and thus you are taxed accordingly.
Note that this only applies to limited liability companies.
If you are a single person with no need for limited liability, just register an individual business (Einzelunternehmen) with your local authority (Gewerbeamt). It’s really easy, cheap and if you need support, tax consulting for individual business is rather cheap as well and worth it if your business generates regular income. Otherwise you can just talk to the authorities, because income from passion projects (i.e. non-regular, without the goal of generating a substantial income amount) is not taxed at all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just because you have access to the entire source code of Linux kernel, doesn't mean you'll be able to find all the bugs in it. Sometimes the numbers may add-up but it is the patterns which may be suspicious. Automation like sanity checks/pattern matching etc (+ ML now a days) would help a great deal but even then it is not a guarantee.
Bad analogy. Auditors have conflict of interests and risk losing clients if they keep asking too many 'wrong' questions. Reputable ones will refuse to sign the final audit. Less reputable ones will even help clients cook the book. It's more akin to you being denied Linux maintainer privilege if you keep finding bugs and annoy Linus in the forum. Which is hardly the case (heh).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Really? 5 years? That seems really harsh. Is it all business failures or does it have to be due to mismanagement? There’s a big difference between bankruptcy and business failure. Plenty of businesses fail without entering bankruptcy, they’re wound down responsibly and their creditors are repaid in full. If a company fails due to bankruptcy, then it means that people who lent money to that business are out of pocke…
The counterpoint is what's the point of reducing losses on bankruptcy if it makes the entire business climate worse? By trying to protect creditors you just make everyone poorer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The counterpoint is what's the point of reducing losses on bankruptcy if it makes the entire business climate worse? By trying to protect creditors you just make everyone poorer.
Who says it makes it worse? Limited liability is a privilege not a right, as such it can be taken away from you if you can't act responsibly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The counterpoint is what's the point of reducing losses on bankruptcy if it makes the entire business climate worse? By trying to protect creditors you just make everyone poorer.
This is an ideological take, and an American one at that. Not necessarily a fact.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The counterpoint is what's the point of reducing losses on bankruptcy if it makes the entire business climate worse? By trying to protect creditors you just make everyone poorer.
This is an ideological take, and an American one at that. Not necessarily a fact.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Really? 5 years? That seems really harsh. Is it all business failures or does it have to be due to mismanagement? There’s a big difference between bankruptcy and business failure. Plenty of businesses fail without entering bankruptcy, they’re wound down responsibly and their creditors are repaid in full. If a company fails due to bankruptcy, then it means that people who lent money to that business are out of pocke…
Is it possible to have declared bankruptcy with no creditors? Can you just spend all of your own money down to zero? Would you still be banned due to losing only your own money?
If you have no debts, and thus, no creditors, you can't go bankrupt by definition. Of course, if there are government fees or taxes to pay, the collector of those becomes a creditor. You would want to formally close the business so that it doesn't accrue annual fees and force you to do more paperwork.
If a CEO mismanages and goes bankrupt, they cannot start another company for 5 years; a two-year ban seems mild, but better than nothing, as the reputational damage is substantial (why would any non-criminal pick EY afterwards in good faith if there are others?).
It would be an interesting idea to make auditors fully accountable like bankruptcy advisors. I know, this is never going to happen.