3 ms·

“Pretty easily” Sure, how hard can it be to police the payment terms on every one of the likely billions of invoices out there and drag non-payers to court. S

“Pretty easily” Sure, how hard can it be to police the payment terms on every one of the likely billions of invoices out there and drag non-payers to court. Such a system will totally not get abused with bogus invoices either.

petesergeant 2y ago
> Sure, how hard can it be to police the payment terms on every one of the likely billions of invoices out there and drag non-payers to court. Set a mandate for companies over a certain revenue size to maintain records, and self-report. Do spot-checks and fine a percentage of revenue. You understand the government already performs audits, right? > [bogus invoices will be a problem] A worse problem than they already are for large accounts receivable departments? Why?
- FredPret 2y ago
  Much better to work within the confines of the existing legal structure, which has been hammered out over millennia and takes into account myriad edge cases and overlapping rights and concerns. Word-of-mouth, the small claims court, and careful cashflow management is sufficient for a small company doing business with large ones. What you're describing is an EU-style behemoth of a government, which isn't even popular in Europe.
  - petesergeant 2y ago
    > within the confines of the existing legal structure, which has been hammered out over millennia This is weird. Any statute that passes in any legislature already amends the law. > Word-of-mouth, the small claims court, and careful cashflow management is sufficient for a small company doing business with large ones You are explicitly arguing that large businesses should be able to abuse cash-flow to the detriment of small businesses here, and we should regress to a situation where commerce is protected not by law but by reputation. > What you're describing is an EU-style behemoth of a government Did you know that in almost all rich countries except the US bank-transfers are essentially instant and free, explicitly due to government regulation?
    - FredPret 2y ago
      I've sold to quick payers and to slow payers. Once word gets out that a company is a slow payer, small providers will try to tighten up payment terms if they can, follow up aggressively where they can't, or stop doing business with them altogether. Big businesses have formal and informal credit scores. Some problems just don't have an elegant / worthwhile solution. These problems are best handled in a decentralized way by each actor mitigating as best they can, not by centralizing power even further with a massive bureaucratic overreach into private business dealings and creating a bigger problem. You can't just create a big bad Department To Solve Problem X every time something happens that offends your sensibilities. Of course there are some regulations that are cheap and obviously worth it; I don't see how that's relevant.

petesergeant 2y ago

> Sure, how hard can it be to police the payment terms on every one of the likely billions of invoices out there and drag non-payers to court. Set a mandate for companies over a certain revenue size to maintain records, and self-report. Do spot-checks and fine a percentage of revenue. You understand the government already performs audits, right? > [bogus invoices will be a problem] A worse problem than they already are for large accounts receivable departments? Why?

FredPret 2y ago
Much better to work within the confines of the existing legal structure, which has been hammered out over millennia and takes into account myriad edge cases and overlapping rights and concerns. Word-of-mouth, the small claims court, and careful cashflow management is sufficient for a small company doing business with large ones. What you're describing is an EU-style behemoth of a government, which isn't even popular in Europe.
- petesergeant 2y ago
  > within the confines of the existing legal structure, which has been hammered out over millennia This is weird. Any statute that passes in any legislature already amends the law. > Word-of-mouth, the small claims court, and careful cashflow management is sufficient for a small company doing business with large ones You are explicitly arguing that large businesses should be able to abuse cash-flow to the detriment of small businesses here, and we should regress to a situation where commerce is protected not by law but by reputation. > What you're describing is an EU-style behemoth of a government Did you know that in almost all rich countries except the US bank-transfers are essentially instant and free, explicitly due to government regulation?
  - FredPret 2y ago
    I've sold to quick payers and to slow payers. Once word gets out that a company is a slow payer, small providers will try to tighten up payment terms if they can, follow up aggressively where they can't, or stop doing business with them altogether. Big businesses have formal and informal credit scores. Some problems just don't have an elegant / worthwhile solution. These problems are best handled in a decentralized way by each actor mitigating as best they can, not by centralizing power even further with a massive bureaucratic overreach into private business dealings and creating a bigger problem. You can't just create a big bad Department To Solve Problem X every time something happens that offends your sensibilities. Of course there are some regulations that are cheap and obviously worth it; I don't see how that's relevant.