Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Some more information-

Companies can borrow against the policies but interest is not tax free. According to at least one source (possibly dated), US Corporations invest around $8 Billion (all written off or subsidized) per year on Dead Peasants Insurance and then profit to the tune of $9 Billion annually. So that's $17 Billion in handouts from the American tax payers plus subsidies paid to the insurance companies, PLUS the US bailout of AIG which (being a monopoly) owns the majority of such companies means that this is one of the most heinous example of Plutocratic (some would say Kleptocratic) wealth redistribution since the Bush II and Reagan "tax cuts".

second correction, $10,000 in the first post should have said $10,000,000. Also, certain state laws force companies to disclose these policies but those are few and far between.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
sclosing the existence of the policies is voluntary) has a dead employee, the American tax payer gives them a gift of at least a million bucks.


I don't get how that is calculated.

Ah okay if it is 10 000 000 I guess you got a point. But it could be less, no?

Michael Moore is the liberal Rush Limbaugh.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I don't get how that is calculated.

Ah okay if it is 10 000 000 I guess you got a point. But it could be less, no?

It depends on age and gender. Basically young healthy women have the highest payout because they have the highest longevity. There's also been issues involving companies taking out multiple policies on a single person and abusing the system that way.

Typically payouts are in the high tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars on the low end and up to ten million on the high end.

And shaky, Jesus, go to the ****ing optometrist and then take some time at a dart board or a firing range because your talent at missing the point is astounding! Maybe after a months' practice, you can work your way down to being able to hit the side of a barn.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
...And shaky, Jesus, go to the ****ing optometrist and then take some time at a dart board or a firing range because your talent at missing the point is astounding! Maybe after a months' practice, you can work your way down to being able to hit the side of a barn.

I don't understand why you don't get my point.

Do you really take this seriously?

Dead Peasants insurance has been a contentious topic WAAAAYYYY before Michael Moore was making movies. It just took his movie to actually make the debate somewhat mainstream (sort of). You just enjoy having parallel arguments and conversations. I'm beginning to wonder how many people on this board choose to ignore your comments because I'm considering doing the same.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Dead Peasants insurance has been a contentious topic WAAAAYYYY before Michael Moore was making movies. It just took his movie to actually make the debate somewhat mainstream (sort of). You just enjoy having parallel arguments and conversations. I'm beginning to wonder how many people on this board choose to ignore your comments because I'm considering doing the same.

No, this is laughable. This is exactly how conspiracies are constructed. That is why I ask, do you really take this seriously? Wake up dude, this is nutty.

It's absolutely true. No nuttiness to this. Do a little bit of homework. Hell, I'm suprised ABC News "Just discovered" this. Next thing you know they'll be running a story that says "New discovery!! A new use has been discovered for the human ass other than sitting and sex and it's called pooping!!! details at 9!"

Originally posted by Darth Jello
It's absolutely true. No nuttiness to this. Do a little bit of homework. Hell, I'm suprised ABC News "Just discovered" this. Next thing you know they'll be running a story that says "New discovery!! A new use has been discovered for the human ass other than sitting and sex and it's called pooping!!! details at 9!"

Whatever dude.


Make sure your aluminum foil hat is well secured. jk

I'm sorry dude, but seeing that your posts have no basis in reality and are typically just argumentative crap, I'm ignoring you.

When you decide to get a clue, look up dead peasants insurance and if you don't think it could exist in this society, why don't you actually find out what a hedge fund is and what credit default swaps and short selling are. Then find an etymology book and look up cannibalism among insects.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
I'm sorry dude, but seeing that your posts have no basis in reality and are typically just argumentative crap, I'm ignoring you.

When you decide to get a clue, look up dead peasants insurance and if you don't think it could exist in this society, why don't you actually find out what a hedge fund is and what credit default swaps and short selling are. Then find an etymology book and look up cannibalism among insects.

Hey man, I always thought you were joking when you made these kind of threads. I didn't know you were a true believer. I'm sorry, it must be miserable living in your world.

I fail to see why a company wanting to pay less tax is somehow evil and corrupt. It's not evil and corrupt when a person does it on an individual level is it...Putting money into tax free savings accounts...Many "buy as you earn" share schemes take money off gross income and so is tax free if shares are kept for more than 5 years.

What's the big deal?...If you owned your own company then no doubt you'd look into paying less tax by hiring an accountant to manage your money.

Or is it only evil when a company gets to a certain size?

Dead "Peasants".

lol. the hell..?

They could've at leaset been meaner..

Originally posted by jaden101
I fail to see why a company wanting to pay less tax is somehow evil and corrupt. It's not evil and corrupt when a person does it on an individual level is it...Putting money into tax free savings accounts...Many "buy as you earn" share schemes take money off gross income and so is tax free if shares are kept for more than 5 years.

What's the big deal?...If you owned your own company then no doubt you'd look into paying less tax by hiring an accountant to manage your money.

Or is it only evil when a company gets to a certain size?


Ok let me explain again. A company takes out a life insurance policy on an employee naming ITSELF as the beneficiary. The life insurance premiums are payed by the taxpayers. When the employee dies, the company receives a hefty chunk of cash, tax free, from the insurance company which is itself very often heavily subsidized. In other words, it's like you taking out fire insurance on your neighbors house, using welfare checks to pay the premiums, and then getting 10 times more money than your neighbor when his house burns down.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Ok let me explain again. A company takes out a life insurance policy on an employee naming ITSELF as the beneficiary. The life insurance premiums are payed by the taxpayers. When the employee dies, the company receives a hefty chunk of cash, tax free, from the insurance company which is itself very often heavily subsidized. In other words, it's like you taking out fire insurance on your neighbors house, using welfare checks to pay the premiums, and then getting 10 times more money than your neighbor when his house burns down.

What if his house never burns down?

Are you saying that when their employees don't die, they kill them?

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Ok let me explain again. A company takes out a life insurance policy on an employee naming ITSELF as the beneficiary. The life insurance premiums are payed by the taxpayers. When the employee dies, the company receives a hefty chunk of cash, tax free, from the insurance company which is itself very often heavily subsidized. In other words, it's like you taking out fire insurance on your neighbors house, using welfare checks to pay the premiums, and then getting 10 times more money than your neighbor when his house burns down.

The problem still isn't with the company though is it? The problem is with the legislation. So long as a company's tax avoidance is legal then it's not doing anything bad. Blame the legislators.

If you found a loophole that allowed you to do the latter then you'd probably do it if it was legal. So would I.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Are you saying that when their employees don't die, they kill them?

If they're not, they should.

Originally posted by jaden101
So long as a company's tax avoidance is legal then it's not doing anything bad.

Just because someone isn't breaking the law doesn't mean that they're not doing something bad.

No, I'm saying that the company gets payed regardless as long as you are still an employee, even if you're killed off the job. The scheme has statistically very lucrative returns. Aside from one case, I can't think of a company murdering an employee to collect on a policy. The horrifying thing is the principle of the matter and the fact that it is robbery of the tax payers. Also, kind of puts a new perspective on the issues of consumer safety, health reform, labor safety considering that companies are directly profiting off of death to the tune of billions annually.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
No, I'm saying that the company gets payed regardless as long as you are still an employee, even if you're killed off the job. The scheme has statistically very lucrative returns. Aside from one case, I can't think of a company murdering an employee to collect on a policy. The horrifying thing is the principle of the matter and the fact that it is robbery of the tax payers. Also, kind of puts a new perspective on the issues of consumer safety, health reform, labor safety considering that companies are directly profiting off of death to the tune of billions annually.

You are only making it sound like it was evil. There is nothing wrong with it as long as they don't start killing their employees.

How is it right to insurance someone else or their property in secret, charge the American public the premiums, and then collect when something bad happens? Isn't this the extreme of what's wrong with America? That this along with every financial product I listed is based on creating false value from failure and misfortune, profiting off it, and in the process concentrating wealth in fewer and fewer hands?

Shaky, are you being deliberately dense? The allegation is that the companies are simply being paid large amounts of taxpayers' money for the death of people who might not even work for them any longer.

Now, if you want to point out that this doesn't happen at all, then fine. But if you are trying to say that if that does happen that it is not wrong... you're being an idiot. That is companies taking money from the people for no reason. Of COURSE that's wrong.

And in fact the IRS has been fighting this kind of thing for decades.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Shaky, are you being deliberately dense? The allegation is that the companies are simply being paid large amounts of taxpayers' money simply for the death of people who might not even work for them any longer.

Now, if you want to point out that this doesn't happen at all, then fine. But if you are trying to say that if that does happen that it is not wrong... you're being an idiot. Of COURSE that's wrong.

And in fact the IRS has been fighting this kind of thing for decades.

I work for an international company who does this. If I die, my wife gets some of the money. There is nothing wrong with that. If you don't like it, have the law changed. This is not an evil, or even wrong.

I, at first thought that Darth Jello was suggesting that companies kill their employees to get the money. That is the only why this could be evil or wrong.

Another in principle example (perhaps not as extreme). I'm going to go to an insurance broker and take out a diarrhea insurance policy naming myself as a beneficiary on every single KMC member who frequents Hooters, Wing Zone, or Del Taco, essentially hedging a bet. Now while your sitting there during half time bent into an L-shape and cursing God, I'm going to collect a couple thou for each of you.

Hell, why don't employers take divorce insurance, or cancer insurance, or heart disease insurance on their employees? Traffick accident insurance? It's all worthless hedge bets and profit off of misfortune that redistributes wealth at the expense of everyone for the reason of peoples' misfortune.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Another in principle example (perhaps not as extreme). I'm going to go to an insurance broker and take out a diarrhea insurance policy naming myself as a beneficiary on every single KMC member who frequents Hooters, Wing Zone, or Del Taco, essentially hedging a bet. Now while your sitting there during half time bent into an L-shape and cursing God, I'm going to collect a couple thou for each of you.

Good luck with that, but it will not work.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I work for an international company who does this. If I die, my wife gets some of the money. There is nothing wrong with that. If you don't like it, have the law changed. This is not an evil, or even wrong.

I, at first thought that Darth Jello was suggesting that companies kill their employees to get the money. That is the only why this could be evil or wrong.

You ARE being deliberately dense. Good Lord.

Sorry, but the average person is- very reasonably- going to think that the idea that companies MAKE MONEY just because their employees have died, and that money comes straight from the taxpayer, is wrong.

They have NO RIGHT to my money! Why the hell should they profit AT ALL from the death of an employee, let alone make the money FROM THR TAXPAYER, not even the insurer. And the allegation is that these policies are taken out with the deliberate intent of simply using them to fleece the taxpayers for cash.

Sorry, Shaky, but you are being a blatant idiot here. This is as plain as it could be.

If there was a law that said that a businessman could break into your house and steal whatever he likes, would the fact that it was the law stop that from being wrong? Geez, some people...

Well, it's not directly from tax payers, it circumstantially is. So gotta correct you slightly their Ushgarak. If there were no insurance subsidies and if AIG never got bailed out, then only the premiums would be taxpayer subsidized which is still too much. Also, the premiums are not taxpayer subsidized if the employer owns the insurance company providing the policies. Considering as stated in my first couple of posts that AIG has a virtual monopoly on smaller insurers and went bankrupt, and then recieved an $85 billion dollar bailout instead of being trust busted, then yeah, right now, it all is pretty much 95% taxpayer subsidized.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
You ARE being deliberately dense. Good Lord.

Sorry, but the average person is- very reasonably- going to think that the idea that cmpanieds MKAE MONEY| justy because their employees have died, and that many comes straight from the taxpayer, is wrong.

They have NO RIGHT to my money! Why the hell should they profit AT ALL from the death of an employee, let alone make the money FROM THR TAXPAYER, not even the insurer.

Sorry, Shaky, but you are being a blatant idiot here. This is as plain as it could be.

I don't agree at all. Companies get over taxed all the time. If it wasn't for this kind of "thing". We would not have any jobs, because no one could do business. Where do you think the money goes? I have a house and food on the table. That is where the money goes. If the rich man who I work for decided to close the doors because doing business was not cost effective, then I would not have a house or food on the table.

The profit margin involved comes from the taxpayer, else a. it wouldn't happen at all and b. the IRS wouldn't care. The whole scheme only breaks even, save for the fact that the tax rebate is taxpayer funded.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I don't agree at all. Companies get over taxed all the time. If it wasn't for this kind of "thing". We would not have any jobs, because no one could do business. Where do you think the money goes? I have a house and a food on the table. That is where the money goes. If the rich man who I work for decided to close the doors because doing business was not cost effective, then I would not have a house or food on the table.

Pretty much everything you posted- othern than being exceptionally disturbing "obey the rich or we all suffer" gibberish- is utterly irrelevant. That you don't agree about something so blatantly and straightforwardly wrong is not relevant either- it just makes a fool of you. Shutting down abusive practice does NOT impoverish the working man. On the contrary, it benefits him, as the money as the public's in the first place.

I do not believe I am having to explain this. Taxation money should go towards the public good, not inflating the profit margins of a company via an insurance workaround.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I don't agree at all. Companies get over taxed all the time. If it wasn't for this kind of "thing". We would not have any jobs, because no one could do business. Where do you think the money goes? I have a house and food on the table. That is where the money goes. If the rich man who I work for decided to close the doors because doing business was not cost effective, then I would not have a house or food on the table.

Many large companies don't pay any net tax at all. Goldman Sachs pays 1%.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Many large companies don't pay any net tax at all. Goldman Sachs pays 1%.

I know that the company I work for pays millions of $ in taxes every year, and that is just to the US. I am all for a flat tax. But just because a company takes advantage of the laws that were written so they could take advantage, does not mean they are evil. The law makes did this on purpose. The reason was to support the work place, were most people make the money that runs the economy.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Pretty much everything you posted- othern than being exceptionally disturbing "obey the rich or we all suffer" gibberish- is utterly irrelevant. That you don't agree about something so blatantly and straightforwardly wrong is not relevant either- it just makes a fool of you. Shutting down abusive practice does NOT impoverish the working man. On the contrary, it benefits him, as the money as the public's in the first place.

I do not believe I am having to explain this. Taxation money should go towards the public good, not inflating the profit margins of a company via an insurance workaround.

You have it 180 degrees out of wack.

These laws were not made for any reason of the kind- they are being abused, hence the decades long legal battle about the issue.

Luckily, shaky trying to argue this is spectacularly irrelevant. This has long been recognised as an abuse, which is why it is always trying to be closed down.

My reason for not beigng as alarmist as DJ is that I simply don't think it happens on a significant scale any more, and in any case you do at least now have to inform an employee if you are taking out insurance on him now, and he has to agree to it, which is an improvement. I also understand- though I have no knowledge of the details- that the abuse that Michael Moore pointed out had in fact already stopped by the time he made the film.

Still, I'd rather Moore's alarmism than shaky's ridiculous position of "companies can do whatever they like to take money out of our pockets because they deserve it and otherwise they might not pay us".

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You have it 180 degrees out of wack.

You saying that changes nothing. You are simply in the wrong here.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
You saying that changes nothing. You are simply in the wrong here.

That is your opinion. You have not changes my mind.

Most people don't push the point, like you are doing. All you are doing is just saying I am wrong. I have every right to voice my opinion, and you can think I'm wrong all you like. It makes no difference to me. Please, let us leave it there.

Lord no. As I say, your opinion is so completely out of alignment owith public opinion, legal opinion and common sense that it is deserving of as much mockey and attack as possilbe. It is an absurd, deeply flawed, socially irresponsible and, in the end, unintelligent opinion. And your justification for such activity is utterly ridiculous.

Say that what DJ says isn;t true, if you can find flaws in it. But trying to claim that it is entirely ok for companies to indulge in an insurance fiddle to simply steal money from the taxpayer? Trying to claim that it is ok for laws designed to allow companies to soften the blow of losing a skilled worker to INSTEAD be used simply as an additional profit source at the taxpayer's expense? These are positions that, when supported, deserve nothing but mockery.

Like I say, it is so self-evident that such activity is wrong that I cannot believe anyone would be weird enough to debate it. The wrongness of it is beyond reasonable question. The question is whether it actually goes on.

Actually, it hasn't stopped. Wal-Mart backed out and some states require notification to employees upon hire, not much help when signing an agreement is a condition of hiring. As I pointed out, the last statistics I've seen show that it's a $9 billion a year industry and it's nothing new, going back to the 50's and getting worse and more corrupt through the deregulation of the 80's.

Oh and Shakey, for the millions your company pays in taxes, by how much is that offset by subsidies and write-offs?

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Lord no. As I say, your opinion is so completely out of alignment owith public opinion, legal opinion and common sense that it is deserving of as much mockey and attack as possilbe. It is an absurd, deeply flawed, socially irresponsible and, in the end, unintelligent opinion. And your justification for such activity is utterly ridiculous.

Are you personally attacking me now?

I think your doing a reasonably good job of personally attacking yourself.

What I am doing is tearing your ridiculous opinion to shreds. If you are taking that personally, that's your issue. You shouldn't hold such an absurd view.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
What I am doing is tearing your ridiculous opinion to shreds. If you are taking that personally, that's your issue. You shouldn't hold such an absurd view.

As long as you are not personally attacking me, I'm ok.

So, popularity means a lot to you? A majority of people can be wrong, so, to demean my point because it is not popular, is empty.

So much irony. It's like liverwurst for the ears.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, popularity means a lot to you? A majority of people can be wrong, so, to demean my point because it is not popular, is empty.

Because that was clearly his only argument.

I just love it when someone has the balls to fault someone over something he himself seems to make a living off of doing. Balls of irony.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Because that was clearly his only argument.

The rest was just his disappointment in what I was saying, and something to do with being tasked with doing something. It really didn't make a lot of sense to me. I was only worried that my honest opinion had upset a mod to the point of anger.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
So anyone who's seen Capitalism: A Love Story....

I practically stop reading right there


It's getting exhausted of reading liberals picture Moore as a Christopher Columbus who discovers things that others knew long ago. This practically boils down to Business Ethics and can only be supported or denounce depending on who benefits or not benefit from it. Like my grand ole pappy used to say "don't sign anything without first reading the godamn contract"

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I don't agree at all. Companies get over taxed all the time. If it wasn't for this kind of "thing". We would not have any jobs, because no one could do business. Where do you think the money goes? I have a house and food on the table. That is where the money goes. If the rich man who I work for decided to close the doors because doing business was not cost effective, then I would not have a house or food on the table.
I did not realize that the economy is ruined when corporations are taxed. I guess that is why nobody in Sweden can put food on their table. We pay the lowest taxes in any western industrialized country and you think they are too high. Ridiculous.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I did not realize that the economy is ruined when corporations are taxed. I guess that is why nobody in Sweden can put food on their table. We pay the lowest taxes in any western industrialized country and you think they are too high. Ridiculous.

Out of context.

If we didn't have companies, then there would not be any jobs. Are there companies in Sweden.

My point was: "But just because a company takes advantage of the laws that were written so they could take advantage, does not mean they are evil. The law makers did this on purpose. The reason was to support the work place, were most people make the money that runs the economy."

I mean the practice of taking out life insurance seems perfectly acceptable. I can see Jello's point that it is hardly fair that they can a) write off the expenses for that insurance and b) not pay taxes for the payouts. That is stupid and should be legally changed.

Originally posted by WhoopeeDee
I practically stop reading right there


It's getting exhausted of reading liberals picture Moore as a Christopher Columbus who discovers things that others knew long ago. This practically boils down to Business Ethics and can only be supported or denounce depending on who benefits or not benefit from it. Like my grand ole pappy used to say "don't sign anything without first reading the godamn contract"

You should have kept reading. The next thing he said was "or (like me), knew about this before".

Originally posted by Bardock42
I mean the practice of taking out life insurance seems perfectly acceptable. I can see Jello's point that it is hardly fair that they can a) write off the expenses for that insurance and b) not pay taxes for the payouts. That is stupid and should be legally changed.

But it's legal and people do it in order to make money, that must mean it's a moral imperative that people do it.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
But it's legal and people do it in order to make money, that must mean it's a moral imperative that people do it.

What sort of moral extremism are you parodying now? I like it though.


Really though, as you said, it is legal, but I am saying, it should stop being legal. That's all, really.

Oh and apparently it's not only the tax issue, but that there is actively taxpayer money spent. You know I'm all against that

Originally posted by Bardock42
What sort of moral extremism are you parodying now? I like it though.

I don't know nuts But Shaky seemed to have been heading for that route by arguing that it's not wrong because it's not illegal.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Oh and apparently it's not only the tax issue, but that there is actively taxpayer money spent. You know I'm all against that

Indeed better oversight (or rather active control) of where tax money goes would be good for everyone.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Out of context.

If we didn't have companies, then there would not be any jobs. Are there companies in Sweden.

My point was: "But just because a company takes advantage of the laws that were written so they could take advantage, does not mean they are evil. The law makers did this on purpose. The reason was to support the work place, were most people make the money that runs the economy."
No, you said that taxes on businesses in the US were too high (when they are actually super low). I quoted you saying it. You said that if we did not have such massive loopholes to make money off of the deaths of employees, companies could not exist. This is also false.

guys, its a little thing called freedom

go look it up, Lenin

Originally posted by King Kandy
No, you said that taxes on businesses in the US were too high (when they are actually super low). I quoted you saying it. You said that if we did not have such massive loopholes to make money off of the deaths of employees, companies could not exist. This is also false.

Whatever, man. You want to take it out of context, go for it. It's not what I believe.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Companies get over taxed all the time.
THIS IS WHAT YOU SAID! How the **** am I taking it out of context?! What could this POSSIBLY mean other than "companies keep having too much taxes"?

Originally posted by King Kandy
THIS IS WHAT YOU SAID! How the **** am I taking it out of context?! What could this POSSIBLY mean other than "companies keep having too much taxes"?

It was a counter to the ideas that companies never pay taxes or get over taxed. It was like saying, what you are saying is silly. It was also while I was being attacked, so I don't give a shit.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It was a counter to the ideas that companies never pay taxes or get over taxed. It was like saying, what you are saying is silly. It was also while I was being attacked, so I don't give a shit.
But in this country, they really don't pay many taxes at all.

And you are not "being attacked", you came in here demeaning Jello and saying it was just a conspiracy theory. If anything you came in here on the attack.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Looking at the statistics it appears I was actually thinking of personal income tax, not corporate taxes.



Originally posted by King Kandy
I didn't hear the part of the first amendment that would prevent you from having your ideas criticized.

Again, I don't care if people criticize my ideas. Where did you get the idea that I care? Was it me saying I don't give a shit over and over again? Well, don't read anything into that. I've had a beer and was just feeling dramatic.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison

I have quoted so many statistics in this forum they are all getting muddled in my head.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I have quoted so many statistics in this forum they are all getting muddled in my head.

Don't worry about it. Also, never trust statistic. Statistic can be deceiving.

Thought the thread read...,dead presidents. I was wrong though.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Shaky, are you being deliberately dense? The allegation is that the companies are simply being paid large amounts of taxpayers' money for the death of people who might not even work for them any longer.

Now, if you want to point out that this doesn't happen at all, then fine. But if you are trying to say that if that does happen that it is not wrong... you're being an idiot. That is companies taking money from the people for no reason. Of COURSE that's wrong.

And in fact the IRS has been fighting this kind of thing for decades.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
You ARE being deliberately dense. Good Lord.

Sorry, but the average person is- very reasonably- going to think that the idea that companies MAKE MONEY just because their employees have died, and that money comes straight from the taxpayer, is wrong.

They have NO RIGHT to my money! Why the hell should they profit AT ALL from the death of an employee, let alone make the money FROM THR TAXPAYER, not even the insurer. And the allegation is that these policies are taken out with the deliberate intent of simply using them to fleece the taxpayers for cash.

Sorry, Shaky, but you are being a blatant idiot here. This is as plain as it could be.

If there was a law that said that a businessman could break into your house and steal whatever he likes, would the fact that it was the law stop that from being wrong? Geez, some people...

Reported.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Don't worry about it. Also, never trust statistic. Statistic can be deceiving.

I believe this, to a certain extent.

I like to run my own numbers, sometimes. Statistics don't always have to have a standard deviation and/or correlations coefficients. Sometimes, it can be some basic math run on some numbers scientifically collected.

However, Darth Jello admitted earlier in this thread that some of his numbers might be old. I would assume that this practice of basically, defrauding the taxpayer, has increased with inflation and possibly with practice. The former has to be true while the latter is a baseless assumption on my part. It is also possible that organization are shying away from this type of activity, as evidenced by Darth Jello's mention of Wal-Mart. (If I'm not mistaken...you may have been making another point. I read it rather fast.)

As far as your point, I agree that it is not legal and is allowed, and, therefore, the companies cannot and should not be faulted for trying to maximize their profits or positive cash flow. It makes no sense why a company shouldn't do it other than business ethics and the appearance to the public/share holder.

Indeed, I also believe that it is not an ethical business practice. I'm with Bardock most of the time when it comes to taxes. I really don't like it when anyone or any organization uses taxes. However, I do see the benefits so I'm not completely blind about the use of taxpayer dollars.




Another much more relevant point: $17 billion dollars? That's it? That's almost chump change compared to the cash flow of even the fortune 100! That's NOTHING. This is like senatorial and presidential candidates making a big deal about earmarks to make themselves appear more ethical. If they REALLY wanted to make a difference on the budget they eliminate dead weight programs, cut back spending, heavily employ project management, etc. But NOOOO, they make a big deal about very very small budget items that just look good to ignorant constituents (Which is like, 99% of all voters, to some degree.) More to the point, this thread seems like capitalist hate than actually being legit. I don't mean to demean your actual purpose, Darth Jello, as it is legit and should be stopped. However, this is easily remedied with some regulatory legislation. You know, one of the few things this voter will sometimes agree with. I'm all for capitalism and it's benefits. It just needs to come with a small dose of federal regulations. I believe the political phrase is no-nonsense legislation.


To sum up: it isn't illegal. They should exploit it if it won't harm them more than it benefits them. (Them being the organizations.)

This is really a non-issue because of how little comes from the taxpayer, in the end.

I consider it against business ethics and against my personal preferences on how tax dollars should be used.




On another note, who the hell are we kidding when we say "tax dollars?" That's almost a joke. What we REALLY should be saying is "Chinese borrowed dollars that may eventually be paid back with tax dollars."

I just looked at my "reported" post again and I realize that it could be misinterpreted. Let me make this clear: It was meant as a joke for Ushgarak to get a chuckle out of. I wasn't serious, ergo the laughing smilie.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I believe this, to a certain extent.

I like to run my own numbers, sometimes. Statistics don't always have to have a standard deviation and/or correlations coefficients. Sometimes, it can be some basic math run on some numbers scientifically collected.

However, Darth Jello admitted earlier in this thread that some of his numbers might be old. I would assume that this practice of basically, defrauding the taxpayer, has increased with inflation and possibly with practice. The former has to be true while the latter is a baseless assumption on my part. It is also possible that organization are shying away from this type of activity, as evidenced by Darth Jello's mention of Wal-Mart. (If I'm not mistaken...you may have been making another point. I read it rather fast.)

As far as your point, I agree that it is not legal and is allowed, and, therefore, the companies cannot and should not be faulted for trying to maximize their profits or positive cash flow. It makes no sense why a company shouldn't do it other than business ethics and the appearance to the public/share holder.

Indeed, I also believe that it is not an ethical business practice. I'm with Bardock most of the time when it comes to taxes. I really don't like it when anyone or any organization uses taxes. However, I do see the benefits so I'm not completely blind about the use of taxpayer dollars.




Another much more relevant point: $17 billion dollars? That's it? That's almost chump change compared to the cash flow of even the fortune 100! That's NOTHING. This is like senatorial and presidential candidates making a big deal about earmarks to make themselves appear more ethical. If they REALLY wanted to make a difference on the budget they eliminate dead weight programs, cut back spending, heavily employ project management, etc. But NOOOO, they make a big deal about very very small budget items that just look good to ignorant constituents (Which is like, 99% of all voters, to some degree.) More to the point, this thread seems like capitalist hate than actually being legit. I don't mean to demean your actual purpose, Darth Jello, as it is legit and should be stopped. However, this is easily remedied with some regulatory legislation. You know, one of the few things this voter will sometimes agree with. I'm all for capitalism and it's benefits. It just needs to come with a small dose of federal regulations. I believe the political phrase is no-nonsense legislation.


To sum up: it isn't illegal. They should exploit it if it won't harm them more than it benefits them. (Them being the organizations.)

This is really a non-issue because of how little comes from the taxpayer, in the end.

I consider it against business ethics and against my personal preferences on how tax dollars should be used.




On another note, who the hell are we kidding when we say "tax dollars?" That's almost a joke. What we REALLY should be saying is "Chinese borrowed dollars that may eventually be paid back with tax dollars."

Don't you generally have to rely on some data though to "run your own numbers"? I mean they could be flawed just as well.

The real issue I have with statistics is when it goes from onjective facts (i.e. numbers, which admittedly may be wrong, but at least are based on something evident) to something subjective. i.e. the statistic on health care King Kandy posted a while ago where one of the foundations was the "fairness" of the system, which is, imo, is subjective and might change the outcome drastically if redefined.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Don't you generally have to rely on some data though to "run your own numbers"? I mean they could be flawed just as well.

The real issue I have with statistics is when it goes from onjective facts (i.e. numbers, which admittedly may be wrong, but at least are based on something evident) to something subjective. i.e. the statistic on health care King Kandy posted a while ago where one of the foundations was the "fairness" of the system, which is, imo, is subjective and might change the outcome drastically if redefined.

K. And, yes, sometimes the numbers you "use" in calculations can be wrong, themselves. That's why you throw the standard deviation out there and the correlation coefficient. lol (It's a fancy way of saying...we could have effed up by this margin.)

There are standards that have to be adhered to for scientific sampling/polls/measurements that can eliminate a lot of that "bias" you're talking about.

Originally posted by dadudemon
K. And, yes, sometimes the numbers you "use" in calculations can be wrong, themselves. That's why you throw the standard deviation out there and the correlation coefficient. lol (It's a fancy way of saying...we could have effed up by this margin.)

There are standards that have to be adhered to for scientific sampling/polls/measurements that can eliminate a lot of that "bias" you're talking about.

Yeah, I am not saying that it can't be very useful and accurate. I am more saying that, at times, for whatever reasons, it is not.

I would like to make my point again that wouldn't you say that this could be interpreted as a reason for not supporting things like universal healthcare, better food and product inspection and safety standards. I mean, there are actually statements from company accountants complaining that they received less than expected quarterly returns on this insurance and trying to find a way to fix the problem. Meaning they have a devised formula to predict how many employees should die every quarter and get upset when it doesn't happen.
Then of course there's the murder motive. As far as I know there haven't been any proven cases. But say you have a company whistleblower who is murdered. Say the CEO is not responsible, it's just some guy in middle management that's crazy and overzealous. The company regardless gets slapped with a huge fine for violation of civil rights. Should the company be able to cash in the guy's life insurance and shrug it off? Say that a power plant has a radiation leak and half the employees either die or develop terminal cancers. Should the company be able to offset fines from OSHA and the IAEA or perhaps even profit from the deaths of those employees? Let's say I own a chain of Super Markets that due to cheap prices and the products available are mainly located in bad neighborhoods. Why should I spend money on security guards when I'm following the minimum OSHA safety standards and every stock boy shot dead by a Crip is a happy trip to the bank for me?

In other words, should we negate the punishment for, if not incentivize workplace negligence and murder?

Originally posted by Darth Jello
I would like to make my point again that wouldn't you say that this could be interpreted as a reason for not supporting things like universal healthcare, better food and product inspection and safety standards.

I don't think companies should be required to like those things.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
I mean, there are actually statements from company accountants complaining that they received less than expected quarterly returns on this insurance and trying to find a way to fix the problem. Meaning they have a devised formula to predict how many employees should die every quarter and get upset when it doesn't happen.

The issue seems to be that they can make that much money, not that they like making money.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Then of course there's the murder motive. As far as I know there haven't been any proven cases. But say you have a company whistleblower who is murdered. Say the CEO is not responsible, it's just some guy in middle management that's crazy and overzealous. The company regardless gets slapped with a huge fine for violation of civil rights. Should the company be able to cash in the guy's life insurance and shrug it off?

Yes.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Say that a power plant has a radiation leak and half the employees either die or develop terminal cancers. Should the company be able to offset fines from OSHA and the IAEA or perhaps even profit from the deaths of those employees? Let's say I own a chain of Super Markets that due to cheap prices and the products available are mainly located in bad neighborhoods. Why should I spend money on security guards when I'm following the minimum OSHA safety standards and every stock boy shot dead by a Crip is a happy trip to the bank for me?

Yes, though if I was an insurance company I'd add a clause that doesn't make me pay money when the death is the companies fault.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
In other words, should we negate the punishment for, if not incentivize workplace negligence and murder?

No, "we" shouldn't do anything. The way I understand it, as so often, the problem is really that the government is messing where it shouldn't be messing.

For some reason this insurance has changed into a bonus financed by tax dollars. That's just not how insurances work though. Insurances do not create money for people out of nothing, they actually do the opposite, they make them lose money for the security not to lose more money. That's how this should be, too. Say you take out an insurance on your CEO cause he's a very qualified man or woman (yeah, right) and if he dies, your company will take a severe hit. So you pay money and if he dies you are somewhat protected, and if he doesn't your money has been used for some other who might have died.

The point is you share the risk with others, and that's what should happen, but for whatever reason, the government getting involved perverts that into an insurance being a free handout courtesy of the taxpayer. And I'm with you, that ****ing sucks. And should not be done.

I wouldn't demonize the corporations taking advantage of such a gift though. I'd too.

I see this whole thing as one again going back to that FDR speech at Madison Square Garden (which at this time, every network should re-air, even if it is audio only, during prime time) where he likened organized money to organized mob (because that's exactly what it is). It think abuses like this should be legislated away but I also think that we do need trust busting instead of bailouts and a temporary law enforcement agency with extraordinary rights, a new Elliot Ness, to deal with this and other issues.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I like to run my own numbers, sometimes. Statistics don't always have to have a standard deviation and/or correlations coefficients. Sometimes, it can be some basic math run on some numbers scientifically collected.

you run your own calculations, which you trust more than std deviations?

Originally posted by Darth Jello
a temporary law enforcement agency with extraordinary rights, a new Elliot Ness, to deal with this and other issues.

I see a couple of issues with this. Power, once given to agencies like this, rarely is taken back. I get temporary, but how tempting is it to give those with power a mechanism for even more?

The other issue is that such extraordinary powers are rarely used only for the reasons they were mandated. Best example off the top of my head is that a mayor in Vancouver used the War Measures declared by Trudeau to lock up a bunch of hippies. Similar things have happened with the anti-terror legislation.

What powers does the government need in order to break this type of thing?

My main thinking here was that the FBI should be doing this kind of stuff but the problem is lawlessness. Not just deregulation but that existing laws are not enforced. The FBI would rather infiltrate Earth First! and spend millions investigating dubious terrorist leads than do their job of investigating corporate crime. But this is getting off topic. Just wanted to explain my thinking.

the FBI is hardly to blame though. Agents who want to go after real problems are given crap. The top brass are basically the same people who run the government who are basically the same people who run the corporations, maybe like 4-5 degrees of separation at most.

EDIT: I agree though, getting rid of the lawlessness would be a good start.

The other issue for extraordinary powers would be the fact that many people are pretty much above the law. A more accurate title for Henry Paulson, Tim Geithner, and Ben Bernanke wouldn't be chairman or secretary or czar, it would be kingpin.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
I see this whole thing as one again going back to that FDR speech at Madison Square Garden (which at this time, every network should re-air, even if it is audio only, during prime time) where he likened organized money to organized mob (because that's exactly what it is). It think abuses like this should be legislated away but I also think that we do need trust busting instead of bailouts and a temporary law enforcement agency with extraordinary rights, a new Elliot Ness, to deal with this and other issues.

That seems to be unrelated.

We could discuss the merits of that though, but what does that have to do with the topic at hand?

Originally posted by inimalist
you run your own calculations, which you trust more than std deviations?

No, that's not what I said at all.

Originally posted by dadudemon
No, that's not what I said at all.

it better not be...

It did go a bit off topic but what I was saying was that the entire concept was a symptom of the rule by organized money Roosevelt both observed and warned us about. It was the same speech wherein he rightfully equated what we today use the code word "small government" with lazy, careless "do nothing" government. Basically what we have right now.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
It did go a bit off topic but what I was saying was that the entire concept was a symptom of the rule by organized money Roosevelt both observed and warned us about. It was the same speech wherein he rightfully equated what we today use the code word "small government" with lazy, careless "do nothing" government. Basically what we have right now.

That's a misinterpretation of the term small government though. The government you have in the US, is, in fact, huge. And with that hugeness it is somewhat corrupt and corporate friendly.

Small as in not having a social safety net and not doing shit for a majority of its constituents. Btw, are you aware that in Russian, the word "Bahrrdahk" means disorganized mess?

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Small as in not having a social safety net and not doing shit for a majority of its constituents. Btw, are you aware that in Russian, the word "Bahrrdahk" means disorganized mess?

I wasn't aware of that, that's pretty funny though. And I find out after only using this username for like 6 years.


On topic though, I agree that the money that is spent (and that's a rather huge amount) is mostly going to the wrong channels.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Don't you generally have to rely on some data though to "run your own numbers"? I mean they could be flawed just as well.

The real issue I have with statistics is when it goes from onjective facts (i.e. numbers, which admittedly may be wrong, but at least are based on something evident) to something subjective. i.e. the statistic on health care King Kandy posted a while ago where one of the foundations was the "fairness" of the system, which is, imo, is subjective and might change the outcome drastically if redefined.
You definition may not agree with theirs, but the WHO actually used a quantifiable definition of fairness that could be statistically calculated.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
It did go a bit off topic but what I was saying was that the entire concept was a symptom of the rule by organized money Roosevelt both observed and warned us about. It was the same speech wherein he rightfully equated what we today use the code word "small government" with lazy, careless "do nothing" government. Basically what we have right now.
Ya, no. Government is lazy now, but it does a lot.

Originally posted by King Kandy
You definition may not agree with theirs, but the WHO actually used a quantifiable definition of fairness that could be statistically calculated.

That's not contrary to what I was saying though.