4 ms·
The company does have to use its assets to pay anything it's liable for, yes. It sounds like essentially arguing against the concept of limited liability for th
by didntcheck 2y ago
The company does have to use its assets to pay anything it's liable for, yes. It sounds like essentially arguing against the concept of limited liability for the owners and investors? I would regard LL as generally a good thing. Without it, it would be a much bigger ask for anyone to start up a business when they're putting their own house and everything at risk. And I expect it would lead to an even further skew of already-rich people dominating investment and company ownership
- bryanlarsen 2y ago> start up a business when they're putting their own house and everything at risk Every hardware startup founder I've been involved with has used their house and/or their retirement savings to back their operating loan. I think the advantages of incorporation have been well established by now, and believe that partly removing limited liability would not significantly effect incorporation rates.
- anticensor 2y agoCertain people advocate a compromise where a company may be allowed to be limitedly liable until a certain size then it has to transform to unlimited liability.