Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Clearys

Options
13»

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    And if a person holds 100% of the shares of a company, do we make him/her liable for its debts too? Let's go back to how commerce was done 400 years ago when anyone who went into business or invested in one was risking every asset their family owned. Eh, no.

    If the concept of limited liability applies to companies owned by people it also applies to companies owned by other companies.

    Statutory redundancy which a liquidated company can't cover is paid for out of the social insurance fund, which employees contribute to via PRSI, but all employers contribute towards it too.

    No, that is not is what is being suggested. What has been suggested on this thread is a reasonable rebalancing between capital and labour to ensure that workers get their entitlement when a subsidiary closed. It would not apply to any other aspect of the business.


  • Options
    #63
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 33,920 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    They are getting their entitlement.

    Life ain't always empty.



  • Options
    #64
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    They are getting their entitlement.


    At the expense of the taxpayer rather than the expense of the company.


  • Options
    #65
    markpb
    Registered Users Posts: 9,250 ✭✭✭markpb


    Godge wrote: »
    At the expense of the taxpayer rather than the expense of the company.

    Did the employees not contribute to the PRSI fund when they were working?


  • Options
    #66
    andrew
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 3,368 Mod ✭✭✭✭andrew


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    And if a person holds 100% of the shares of a company, do we make him/her liable for its debts too? Let's go back to how commerce was done 400 years ago when anyone who went into business or invested in one was risking every asset their family owned. Eh, no.

    If the concept of limited liability applies to companies owned by people it also applies to companies owned by other companies.

    Statutory redundancy which a liquidated company can't cover is paid for out of the social insurance fund, which employees contribute to via PRSI, but all employers contribute towards it too.

    No, that's not what I'm suggesting. I'm suggesting that holding companies become liable for the debts of their subsidiaries when those debts relate to redundancy payments.

    Perhaps forcing companies to hold a 'redundancy reserve' would be better.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    markpb wrote: »
    Did the employees not contribute to the PRSI fund when they were working?


    We already have one of the lowest Employers Insurance rates in Europe as well as very attractive CT rules.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Options
    #68
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 33,920 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    andrew wrote: »
    I'm suggesting that holding companies become liable for the debts of their subsidiaries when those debts relate to redundancy payments.

    But why should a holding company be treated any differently from a company owned by individual(s)? We accept that individuals who own companies should be protected by limited liability. The company's debts are not their debts.

    Life ain't always empty.



  • Options
    #69
    mariaalice
    Registered Users Posts: 12,365 ✭✭✭✭mariaalice


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    Its nothing to do with morals ( although it has a lot to do with ethics ) nor has it anything to do with keeping it open clearly it was not a viable business. It was engineered to have the liabilities picked up by the government/state and by extension the taxes we pay its interesting to me that some people will shrill loudly that their tax's are being used to pay welfare but somehow it all right that their tax's are use to pay the liabilities of a company that has the money to pay them.


  • Options
    #70
    mariaalice
    Registered Users Posts: 12,365 ✭✭✭✭mariaalice


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    It's not as simple as that - you're not talking about your local firm on the corner doing wills and probate. Hundreds of lawyers working in a firm where people barely know everyone on their floor, let alone everyone working in a commercial department.

    Law firms have very good Chinese walls for the most part, and internal breach of same is gross misconduct which would effectively end your career.

    My point about this is one about ethics, A large legal firm cant hide behind the fact that they are large nor can they say each director is in charge of different sections etc. The company exists as an entity i.e. all the income coming form every source whether it contract drafting for a government department or putting together a report setting out how to avoided your liabilities and split you assets off for some deal maker all the income goes to the same entity so yes the ethics are important ( not the morality ).


  • Options
    #71
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    glacial_pace71
    Registered Users Posts: 301 ✭✭glacial_pace71


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    The new Companies Act 2014 has put in place a number of detailed arrangements in respect of examinership, receivership and liquidation, replacing the 1963-3013 statutory scheme.

    In the case of liquidation the Revenue, other public authorities (e.g. rate-levying local authorities etc) all rank with employees when it comes to a winding up:
    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2014/en/act/pub/0038/sec0621.html#sec621 and http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2014/en/act/pub/0038/sec0622.html#sec622

    Ultimately if a company decides to abuse a statutory scheme to strip assets and land the taxpayer with the bill then there shouldn't be too much bed-wetting if the statutory scheme is revised: look at the noises coming from Ged Nash and other Govt Ministers. Gordon Bros and Natrium have probably affected the outcome of future cases of this nature but I suppose we'll just have to wait until the civil litigation dust has settled before we see what happens next.


  • Options
    #73
    Icepick
    Registered Users Posts: 2,454 ✭✭✭Icepick


    K-9 wrote: »
    We already have one of the lowest Employers Insurance rates in Europe as well as very attractive CT rules.
    PRSI is mostly insurance in name only as it has little to do with eligibility for social welfare.
    The whole system needs to reformed so that how much you pay in will actually matter.
    This will of course mean less money for spongers.


  • Options
    #74
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 28,984 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.
    because its not the tax payers job. the company who was paying them their wages, or whichever company/receiver who took over should be paying

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #75
    Cool Mo D
    Registered Users Posts: 1,419 ✭✭✭Cool Mo D


    Icepick wrote: »
    PRSI is mostly insurance in name only as it has little to do with eligibility for social welfare.
    The whole system needs to reformed so that how much you pay in will actually matter.
    This will of course mean less money for spongers.

    PRSI absolutely had to with eligibility for social welfare. For example, if you haven't paid enough PRSI and you lose your job, you will not be eligible for Jobseeker's Benefit.


Advertisement