Look, at least one other person here has pointed out that your claims are incorrect, using pretty much the same argument that I have. Apparently you are one of those unfortunates who is incapable of admitting when you are wrong. Good luck to you, sir. You're going to need it.
They can be if they signed a personal guarantee which is not unusual in small companies in need of financing. But if there is no personal guarantee of company debt then you are completely correct.
The #1 reason businesses incorporate is to protect the owner(s) from the liabilities of the corporate entity - that's ALL liabilities, including unpaid wages.
If an owner personally guaranteed a corporate loan to finance the company's payroll, the lender could go after that owner's assets in case of default. But such a transaction takes place outside the corporate veil.
Let me remind you of your original claim:
So that's how employees are different than investors, the "corporate veil" does not protect the company owner from liability for their wages.
In no case (in the US) are owners personally liable for unpaid wages or any other unpaid creditor.
The article you link to is about FEDERAL bankruptcy law and the FEDERAL Department of Labor. It says absolutely nothing about state laws nor state departments of labor.
Wow. I guess you figured the hole you're in wasn't deep enough, so you decided to keep digging.
"While bankruptcy cases are filed in United States Bankruptcy Court (units[1] of the United States District Courts), and federal law governs procedure in bankruptcy cases, state laws are often applied when determining property rights."
But since you really know what you're talking about, you should easily be able to back up your claims with an authoritative source. Please, show us all one single case in the US where owners of a corporation were held personally liable for any debt - including unpaid wages.
How is it legal to not have enough to pay your employees?
Laws vary from state to state. But, in general, companies must pay their employees for time worked. If the company runs out, then principals can be held liable. Smaller company, wealthy principal, employees have a reasonable chance of getting paid, enforced by their state Department of Labor. But of course if what is owed is way more than the principals' assets, then there's not much to be done.
So that's how employees are different than investors, the "corporate veil" does not protect the company owner from liability for their wages.
You have no idea what you're talking about. Unpaid wages can only be recovered via civil suit if the employer is not in bankruptcy; if the employer has declared bankruptcy, workers simply become creditors in the legal proceeding. In some jurisdictions, workers may become preferential creditors, in others they get in line with everyone else who is owed money. In no case (in the US) are owners personally liable for unpaid wages or any other unpaid creditor.
I would suggest you read this article to begin to educate yourself on the topic. Check here for further information on the matter.
Sounds like this turtle has a better health plan than I do. If I could find out who his provider is, I would switch plans in a snap - but his insurer seems to be hidden behind a maze of shell companies.
Lovins is a hack that gets money to tell the less knowledgeable greenies exactly what they want to hear, and they certainly worship at his feet and send him their money. He's a slick operator.
I don't care if you think Lovins is a hack/slick operator. Your name calling aside, Lovins' IDEA of removing all energy subsidies seems to have merit...at least to me. What is your objection to removing subsidies? Or do you actually agree with Lovins on that point?
These cards are advertised and sold as having 4gb of DDR5, but actually only have 3.5gb and then 0.5gb of slower stuff.
I don't think so. The only difference between a 970 and a 980 is that nVidia gimps the 970's GPU by 2 SMMs, which is 1/8 less than a 980. Strangely, 3.5GB is also 1/8 less than 4GB.
Trouble is, RS buys the phones at retail cost and loses money on every unit.
That's simply not true. Mobile phones have accounted for half or more of Radio Shack revenues since they started selling them years ago, and are basically what's kept Radio Shack afloat for so long.
So, Bitcoin wil be subject to volatility, like every other currency and precious metal in history, and that will cause troubles for the people who actually extract the stuff. Who (aside from anyone in the mining business) knew?
The problem with bitcoin is its volatility relative to other currencies. Combine purely speculative/thinly traded exchanges with a lack of an underlying economy of any note, and that's what you get.
I don't see how a government takeover will enhance competition.
Can you point me to where in any of the linked articles this coalition is talking about takeovers? I've assumed that their goal was to offer a competing service to the telcos, not to takeover any existing telco service(s).
The sins of Obama's IRS? Meh. Obama himself had a direct hand in a bunch of shit far worse than any of the IRS crap he's pulled. I'll deal with the IRS thing if time allows.
Right. So the US didn't care enough to Assange to even watch him and inform the Swedes when he left the country, nor to inform the UK police (or simply stop him) when he jumped bail and fled to the Ecuadorian embassy... but despite not even taking the time to watch him... [snip].
LOL, nobody needed to watch or keep track of Assange - that media whore announced his friggn' location everywhere he went. Anyways, I was just responding to the assertion that charges even matter when it comes to this sort of thing. If the US wants a non US citizen residing almost anywhere - especially western Europe - the US will have them. If you believe otherwise, well...OK then.
Slashdot Mirror
Look, at least one other person here has pointed out that your claims are incorrect, using pretty much the same argument that I have. Apparently you are one of those unfortunates who is incapable of admitting when you are wrong. Good luck to you, sir. You're going to need it.
How much of that 10% is using the latest Mac Pro?
Virtually none of them? Did I get that right? ; )
Mac Pro specs say otherwise.
They can be if they signed a personal guarantee which is not unusual in small companies in need of financing. But if there is no personal guarantee of company debt then you are completely correct.
The #1 reason businesses incorporate is to protect the owner(s) from the liabilities of the corporate entity - that's ALL liabilities, including unpaid wages.
If an owner personally guaranteed a corporate loan to finance the company's payroll, the lender could go after that owner's assets in case of default. But such a transaction takes place outside the corporate veil.
Let me remind you of your original claim:
So that's how employees are different than investors, the "corporate veil" does not protect the company owner from liability for their wages.
Sorry, your statement above is patently false.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
Uhm, yes, actually I do.
In no case (in the US) are owners personally liable for unpaid wages or any other unpaid creditor.
The article you link to is about FEDERAL bankruptcy law and the FEDERAL Department of Labor. It says absolutely nothing about state laws nor state departments of labor.
Wow. I guess you figured the hole you're in wasn't deep enough, so you decided to keep digging.
FYI, there is no such thing as a state bankruptcy court, and state labor laws play no part in a bankruptcy proceeding. ALL bankruptcies in the US take place in a federal court, and are governed by federal law:
"While bankruptcy cases are filed in United States Bankruptcy Court (units[1] of the United States District Courts), and federal law governs procedure in bankruptcy cases, state laws are often applied when determining property rights."
But since you really know what you're talking about, you should easily be able to back up your claims with an authoritative source. Please, show us all one single case in the US where owners of a corporation were held personally liable for any debt - including unpaid wages.
How is it legal to not have enough to pay your employees?
Laws vary from state to state. But, in general, companies must pay their employees for time worked. If the company runs out, then principals can be held liable. Smaller company, wealthy principal, employees have a reasonable chance of getting paid, enforced by their state Department of Labor. But of course if what is owed is way more than the principals' assets, then there's not much to be done.
So that's how employees are different than investors, the "corporate veil" does not protect the company owner from liability for their wages.
You have no idea what you're talking about. Unpaid wages can only be recovered via civil suit if the employer is not in bankruptcy; if the employer has declared bankruptcy, workers simply become creditors in the legal proceeding. In some jurisdictions, workers may become preferential creditors, in others they get in line with everyone else who is owed money. In no case (in the US) are owners personally liable for unpaid wages or any other unpaid creditor.
I would suggest you read this article to begin to educate yourself on the topic. Check here for further information on the matter.
Sounds like this turtle has a better health plan than I do. If I could find out who his provider is, I would switch plans in a snap - but his insurer seems to be hidden behind a maze of shell companies.
Lovins is a hack that gets money to tell the less knowledgeable greenies exactly what they want to hear, and they certainly worship at his feet and send him their money. He's a slick operator.
I don't care if you think Lovins is a hack/slick operator. Your name calling aside, Lovins' IDEA of removing all energy subsidies seems to have merit...at least to me. What is your objection to removing subsidies? Or do you actually agree with Lovins on that point?
Won't these Christian machines have to be baptised? Holy smoke!
These cards are advertised and sold as having 4gb of DDR5, but actually only have 3.5gb and then 0.5gb of slower stuff.
I don't think so. The only difference between a 970 and a 980 is that nVidia gimps the 970's GPU by 2 SMMs, which is 1/8 less than a 980. Strangely, 3.5GB is also 1/8 less than 4GB.
Trouble is, RS buys the phones at retail cost and loses money on every unit.
That's simply not true. Mobile phones have accounted for half or more of Radio Shack revenues since they started selling them years ago, and are basically what's kept Radio Shack afloat for so long.
So, Bitcoin wil be subject to volatility, like every other currency and precious metal in history, and that will cause troubles for the people who actually extract the stuff. Who (aside from anyone in the mining business) knew?
The problem with bitcoin is its volatility relative to other currencies. Combine purely speculative/thinly traded exchanges with a lack of an underlying economy of any note, and that's what you get.
for the Plutoidite remake of "The Gods Must be Crazy".
The US sees only a small fraction of this issue (see also the town of Dearborn, MI) by comparison.
The US sees quite a bit of this issue, just not with Muslims.
$34M is puny even by Texas standards. Here in N.Y. that can't even buy an election.
I've got news for you, sonny...*New York* is puny by our standards. Yee Haw!!! [gunshots]
I think I just discovered dark spelling. Nobel Prize here I come! ;-)
I beg to disagree. Those monkeys have been getting a little too cheeky lately..
So if the dark matter would just get out of the way, we could see this new particle ALOT better, right?
(the above question pretty much sums up my knowledge on this subject)
I'm glad we didn't enter into a maunder minimum like folks were nervous about.
I, for one, was hoping for a *extended* Maunder Minimum. Because global warming and stuff.
Give us the real details that matter, like Terms of Service.
Sorry, downloading a document that size will put you over your data cap.
I don't see how a government takeover will enhance competition.
Can you point me to where in any of the linked articles this coalition is talking about takeovers? I've assumed that their goal was to offer a competing service to the telcos, not to takeover any existing telco service(s).
I could access it this morning, but now it appears to be blocked. Weird. Here's another one on the story (actually a BETTER one)
The sins of Obama's IRS? Meh. Obama himself had a direct hand in a bunch of shit far worse than any of the IRS crap he's pulled. I'll deal with the IRS thing if time allows.
Right. So the US didn't care enough to Assange to even watch him and inform the Swedes when he left the country, nor to inform the UK police (or simply stop him) when he jumped bail and fled to the Ecuadorian embassy... but despite not even taking the time to watch him... [snip].
LOL, nobody needed to watch or keep track of Assange - that media whore announced his friggn' location everywhere he went. Anyways, I was just responding to the assertion that charges even matter when it comes to this sort of thing. If the US wants a non US citizen residing almost anywhere - especially western Europe - the US will have them. If you believe otherwise, well...OK then.
The surveillance programs were backed by Congress, the President, and some were even subject to the courts.
What courts have ruled on the legality of any NSA surveillance program? I wasn't aware that there have been any such rulings, at least pre-Snowden.