Podcasts about ruckriegel

Wie erreicht man Glück? Was ist Glück überhaupt? Professor Karlheinz Ruckriegel ist Glücksforscher an der TH Nürnberg. Im Ratsch mit Bettina Ahne geht er dem Glück auf den Grund und zeigt, wie wir glücklicher leben können.

Glück und Zufriedenheit sind Dinge, nach denen nahezu jede:r strebt. Für viele hängt beides mit Geld zusammen. Aber was ist Glück eigentlich und warum sind manche Menschen glücklicher als andere? Darüber sprechen wir in dieser Folge des Utopia-Podcasts mit dem Glücksforscher Prof. Dr. Karlheinz Ruckriegel.

Eine gute Arbeitsatmosphäre ist wichtig für Unternehmen. Es lohnt sich für sie die Ergebnisse aus der Glücksforschung für das Wohlbefinden ihrer Mitarbeiterinnen und Mitarbeiter zu nutzen.

Glückliche Menschen leben bis zu zehn Jahre länger. Wie kann es uns auch in schweren Zeiten gelingen, glücklich und zufrieden zu sein? Der Glücksforscher Prof. Karlheinz Ruckriegel der TH Nürnberg gibt Tipps und erklärt, worauf wir persönlich achten sollten, aber auch, was die Politik verändern muss.

Join Chris Kaergard of the Journal Star and Marc Supreme of 90.7 FM as they talk to Rita Ali and Sid Ruckriegel, candidates for Peoria mayor. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Join Chris Kaergard of the Journal Star and Marc Supreme of 90.7 FM as they talk to Rita Ali and Sid Ruckriegel, candidates for Peoria mayor. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

„Wir MÜSSEN glücklich sein!“ betont Prof. Dr. Ruckriegel. Ein Gespräch über das scheinbar veraltete limbische System und warum ein Tagebuch hilft.

Sid Ruckriegel joins Journal Star executive editor Dennis Anderson and associate editor Chris Kaergard to talk about his candidacy for an At Large seat on the Peoria City Council.

Das kleine Glück #30 Geschichtsstunde in Sachen Glück: Interview mit Prof. Dr. Karlheinz Ruckriegel Zeit ist unsere wertvollste Ressource. Wenn wir unsere Lebensjahre mal auf einem Zeitstrahl abbilden und überlegen, wie viele Jahre wir davon mit Arbeit verbringen, dann wird schnell klar: Arbeitszeit ist Lebenszeit. Also wie können wir unsere Zeit, privat und beruflich, so effizient nutzen, dass wir ein glückliches Leben führen? Über diese urökonomische Grundfrage diskutiert Gina im Interview mit dem Experten Prof. Dr. Karlheinz Ruckriegel, Professor für Volkswirtschaftslehre und interdisziplinäre Glücksforschung an der Technischen Hochschule in Nürnberg. Als Karlheinz Ruckriegel vor 13 Jahren zufällig das erste Buch über Glück in die Hände fiel, befand sich die Glücksforschung noch in den Kinderschuhen und wurde belächelt. Heute ist Glück in aller Munde, wir feiern den Weltglückstag und sprechen vom Bruttonationalglück. Was ist in der Zwischenzeit passiert? Im Interview gibt der Volkswirt einen historischen Abriss über die Glücksforschung und räumt mit den Vorurteilen über die Leistungsorientierung in der Wirtschaft auf. Er erklärt, was es mit dem Easterlin-Paradox auf sich hat und warum Glück in Unternehmen eine Win-Win-Situation für alle ist. Die Podcastfolge regt dazu an, nicht darauf zu warten bis die Idee des Bruttonationalglücks in der Politik ankommt, sondern selbst dahingehend aktiv zu werden. Mehr zu Prof. Dr. Karlheinz Ruckriegel: www.ruckriegel.org

Was zählt eigentlich im Leben wirklich? Der Ökonom und Glücksforscher Prof. Dr. Karlheinz Ruckriegel zeigt im Interview mit Petru, wie wir Menschen wirklich ticken, ob Geld allein zu einem erfülltem Leben ausreicht und welche Ziele zum persönlichen Glück führen. Daneben erfährst Du wie man Mitarbeiter motiviert und eine gute Arbeitsumgebung schafft. Folge Prof. Dr. Ruckriegel für viele weitere  Erkenntnisse aus der Glücksforschung unter: http://www.ruckriegel.org Vielen Dank dass Du Dir diese Folge angehört hast. Wenn sie Dir gefallen hat und Du einen nützlichen Tipp mitgenommen hast, würde ich mich sehr darüber freuen, Dich als Abonnent begrüßen zu dürfen. Ebenso auch über eine positive Bewertung von Dir. Wo Du das BRAINBEAST noch findest: Facebook: http://bit.ly/brainbeast-facebook Instagram: http://bit.ly/petru_instagram Twitter: http://bit.ly/brainbeast-twitter-p Xing: http://bit.ly/brainbeast-xing LinkedIn: http://bit.ly/brainbeast-linkedin

Shareholder debt to S corporations has proven to be a minefield for shareholders and their advisers, and the taxpayer and their adviser in the case of Ruckriegel v. Commissioner managed to step on a shareholder debt/basis mine twice in two consecutive IRS exams.  In this case, the shareholders attempted to argue that loans from a partnership they controlled were actually loans to them from the partnership, followed by loans to the corporation.Or, to put it more correctly, their CPA attempted to argue that.  One of the problems in this case, beyond the simple fact that the form of the transaction (which the taxpayers had control over) did not agree with what they were arguing was the true substance, was the fact that neither the taxpayers nor their inside accountant were treating these loans as if they had traveled that indirect route.  The case points up the dangers of attempting to "after the fact" correct client missteps--and especially continuing to do it for multiple years.The materials for this podcast are found at http://edzollars.com/2006-04-29_Debt.pdf.This podcast is sponsored by Leimberg Information Services, on the web at http://www.leimbergservices.com.Please feel free to comment on this podcast via the podcast website's "comment" button.

This Podcast is about loans, S Corporations, and reality engineering. Shareholder debt to S corporations has proven to be a minefield for shareholders and their advisers, and the taxpayer and their adviser in the case of Ruckriegel v. Commissioner managed to step on a shareholder debt/basis mine twice in two consecutive IRS exams. In this case, the shareholders attempted to argue that loans from a partnership they controlled were actually loans to them from the partnership, followed by loans to the corporation.Or, to put it more correctly, their CPA attempted to argue that. One of the problems in this case, beyond the simple fact that the form of the transaction (which the taxpayers had control over) did not agree with what they were arguing was the true substance, was the fact that neither the taxpayers nor their inside accountant were treating these loans as if they had traveled that indirect route. The case points up the dangers of attempting to "after the fact" correct client missteps--and especially continuing to do it for multiple years.The materials for this podcast are found at http://edzollars.com/2006-04-29_Debt.pdf. This Podcast is sponsored by Leimberg Information Services, Inc. at http://www.leimbergservices.com Please visit our software, books, and PowerPoint Presentations site at http://www.leimberg.com

This Podcast is about loans, S Corporations, and reality engineering. Shareholder debt to S corporations has proven to be a minefield for shareholders and their advisers, and the taxpayer and their adviser in the case of Ruckriegel v. Commissioner managed to step on a shareholder debt/basis mine twice in two consecutive IRS exams. In this case, the shareholders attempted to argue that loans from a partnership they controlled were actually loans to them from the partnership, followed by loans to the corporation.Or, to put it more correctly, their CPA attempted to argue that. One of the problems in this case, beyond the simple fact that the form of the transaction (which the taxpayers had control over) did not agree with what they were arguing was the true substance, was the fact that neither the taxpayers nor their inside accountant were treating these loans as if they had traveled that indirect route. The case points up the dangers of attempting to "after the fact" correct client missteps--and especially continuing to do it for multiple years.The materials for this podcast are found at http://edzollars.com/2006-04-29_Debt.pdf. This Podcast is sponsored by Leimberg Information Services, Inc. at http://www.leimbergservices.com Please visit our software, books, and PowerPoint Presentations site at http://www.leimberg.com

This Podcast is about loans, S Corporations, and reality engineering. Shareholder debt to S corporations has proven to be a minefield for shareholders and their advisers, and the taxpayer and their adviser in the case of Ruckriegel v. Commissioner managed to step on a shareholder debt/basis mine twice in two consecutive IRS exams. In this case, the shareholders attempted to argue that loans from a partnership they controlled were actually loans to them from the partnership, followed by loans to the corporation.Or, to put it more correctly, their CPA attempted to argue that. One of the problems in this case, beyond the simple fact that the form of the transaction (which the taxpayers had control over) did not agree with what they were arguing was the true substance, was the fact that neither the taxpayers nor their inside accountant were treating these loans as if they had traveled that indirect route. The case points up the dangers of attempting to "after the fact" correct client missteps--and especially continuing to do it for multiple years.The materials for this podcast are found at http://edzollars.com/2006-04-29_Debt.pdf. This Podcast is sponsored by Leimberg Information Services, Inc. at http://www.leimbergservices.com Please visit our software, books, and PowerPoint Presentations site at http://www.leimberg.com

This Podcast is about loans, S Corporations, and reality engineering. Shareholder debt to S corporations has proven to be a minefield for shareholders and their advisers, and the taxpayer and their adviser in the case of Ruckriegel v. Commissioner managed to step on a shareholder debt/basis mine twice in two consecutive IRS exams. In this case, the shareholders attempted to argue that loans from a partnership they controlled were actually loans to them from the partnership, followed by loans to the corporation.Or, to put it more correctly, their CPA attempted to argue that. One of the problems in this case, beyond the simple fact that the form of the transaction (which the taxpayers had control over) did not agree with what they were arguing was the true substance, was the fact that neither the taxpayers nor their inside accountant were treating these loans as if they had traveled that indirect route. The case points up the dangers of attempting to "after the fact" correct client missteps--and especially continuing to do it for multiple years.The materials for this podcast are found at http://edzollars.com/2006-04-29_Debt.pdf. This Podcast is sponsored by Leimberg Information Services, Inc. at http://www.leimbergservices.com Please visit our software, books, and PowerPoint Presentations site at http://www.leimberg.com