[BlackOp]

	Originally Posted by Sulla To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I'm confused on who my master is supposed to be- could you remind me please?

I'm not going to make this personal....you had your dig and I got mine. I will say that corporate America has proven time and again they cant be trusted. They look for loopholes and exploit them...this is no exception. They have the resources that the common man doesnt...and the ability to legally deflect accountability. This is a dangerous combination....they are the last thing I would want having a secret policy on my life. I would trust the mob before them..

[Sulla]

Originally Posted by BlackOp To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I'm not going to make this personal....you had your dig and I got mine. I will say that corporate America has proven time and again they cant be trusted. They look for loopholes and exploit them...this is no exception. They have the resources that the common man doesnt...and the ability to legally deflect accountability. This is a dangerous combination....they are the last thing I would want having a secret policy on my life. I would trust the mob before them..

I'm just confused as to what dig that was?

Corporate America or specific corporations? Don't group up all corporations into one group. They also attract a lot more attention than the common man does and they are under the microscope far more than the common man. When's the last time you saw a movie about a common man doing something sketchy? The ones who I don't trust are the ones too close to the governement. But then it becomes a chicken or the egg- and I blame the government there.

[BlackOp]

	Originally Posted by Sulla To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	. When's the last time you saw a movie about a common man doing something sketchy? The ones who I don't trust are the ones too close to the governement.

As far as movies go...about every one I watch. Major corporations are riddled with people who are compelled to "climb the ladder" at all costs. It's a disconnected, psychopathic environment. They mirror what they see from above. The old question comes to mind "would you push a button, for a million dollars, if you knew it would kill someone (you would never meet) in China". That is how corporations run...it's a machine void of anything but maximizing profit. It has no emotion or social responsibility. Its core essence is to perpetuate itself...."just business".

[LionsPride]

	Originally Posted by BlackOp To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Thats the angle...Wal-Mart was insuring the lowest level employees. Do you really think they take a hard hit if they die. Do you think "Joe the greeter" is worth $100k to them alive?

I suspect that what is driving this is primarily the tax shelter it offers and the padding of the bottom line and doesn't require anything nefarious on the side of the company in terms of the employee end of things. By insuring something that is going to happen anyway, they are getting more bang for their buck, so to speak. I think that the abuse has already occurred more on the tax evasion side of things, as indicated in the article.

With that said, if left long enough I could see that tax shelter and pay out starting to shape hiring and human resources policies. It might be attractive enough to shift hiring policies to say, the elderly. It would also work against ideas of companies giving health benefits and probably against programs to retain workers. Basically, allowing anyone to take out a policy on someone else that vastly exceeds their worth is probably not going to lead somewhere good.

[Sulla]

	Originally Posted by BlackOp To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	As far as movies go...about every one I watch. Major corporations are riddled with people who are compelled to "climb the ladder" at all costs. It's a disconnected, psychopathic environment. They mirror what they see from above.

Fallacy of Composition or Hasty Generalization or Biased Sample or all of the above. I'd also go with Spotlight.

	The old question comes to mind "would you push a button, for a million dollars, if you knew it would kill someone (you would never meet) in China". That is how corporations run...

Strawman.

	it's a machine void of anything but maximizing profit. It has no emotion or social responsibility. Its core essence is to perpetuate itself...."just business".

It, it, it... It is made up of people- it frequently has emotion, it frequently has responsibility. The core essence is not to perpetuate itself. You have a very poor understanding of how corporations work and what they are.

[BlackOp]

	Originally Posted by Sulla To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Fallacy of Composition or Hasty Generalization or Biased Sample or all of the above. I'd also go with Spotlight. Strawman. It, it, it... It is made up of people- it frequently has emotion, it frequently has responsibility. The core essence is not to perpetuate itself. You have a very poor understanding of how corporations work and what they are.

And you have a very poor understanding of the nature of greed...

[IslandHead]

I agree with BlackOp. Greed would more likely effect the bigger corporations than respect to their employees, in regards to actions involving their employees.

Greed would override most kind actions for complete strangers.

[Sulla]

	Originally Posted by BlackOp To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	And you have a very poor understanding of the nature of greed...

Explain. I'm extremely familiar with it and its nature. Dealing and negotiating with greedy people is extremely simple. It's so much more wonderful than dealing with those without the motivation of greed.

You have a very poor understanding of corporations, corporate culture, corruption, the law, taxes and tax shelters, and an assortment of other related issues.

[BlackOp]

	Originally Posted by Sulla To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Explain. It's so much more wonderful than dealing with those without the motivation of greed. .

Well... given your stance on the wonderful nature of greed, I doubt we are going to agree on much.

You are right..I know nothing about corporate corruption. I would love to sit down, have some hot tea and let you expand my horizons.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I mean...I've sat in countless, intimate closed door meetings where I had to sign a confidentiality agreement. Being a professional video op...I get inside a lot of places I shouldnt be. DOHS, Abbott, Pepsico, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Merck, Phizer... Being a puddly little INTJ minion...I didnt pick up a thing. They care...they really do.

[Sulla]

	Originally Posted by BlackOp To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Well... given your stance on the wonderful nature of greed, I doubt we are going to agree on much.

Everything is so much easier and simpler when it can be discussed in purely financial terms.

You are right..I know nothing about corporate corruption. I would love to sit down, have some hot tea and let you expand my horizons. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. I mean...I've sat in countless, intimate closed door meetings where I had to sign a confidentiality agreement. Being a professional video op...I get inside a lot of places I shouldnt be. DOHS, Abbott, Pepsico, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Merck, Phizer... Being a puddly little INTJ minion...I didnt pick up a thing. They care...they really do.

lol sure. /eyeroll

[BobG]

	Originally Posted by Sulla To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	It, it, it... It is made up of people- it frequently has emotion, it frequently has responsibility. The core essence is not to perpetuate itself. You have a very poor understanding of how corporations work and what they are.

Don't those people have a moral obligation to the shareholders that invested in that corporation?

[HackerX]

This is news?

You can buy insurance for pretty much anything, if you can find somebody willing to insure it (and there exists companies naturally who will, for the right money). See, you can bet on anything (with odds), if you can find somebody willing to take it.

For the company, this is not all that different from an individual who takes out income insurance or similar (which are massive rorts).

If the person is more valuable dead than alive, then the people to complain about would be the insurance company, who would be overvaluing the benefits said employees provide.

The only issue would be those comments about it being a tax haven which, presumeably, it shouldn't. At least, I would expect that loophole to get closed if it got out of hand.

[Sulla]

	Originally Posted by BobG To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Don't those people have a moral obligation to the shareholders that invested in that corporation?

The directors of a company have a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders and this cannot be delegated. I believe company officers do also.

[Booko]

	Originally Posted by BlackOp To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Wow....can I take a policy out on your life? It would greatly benefit me if you somehow end up dead.

No, legally you cannot take out a life insurance policy on me, because we have no connection at all and thus you have no "insurable interest." (I guess those LOMA courses were worth something after all...)

Companies claim they have some "insurable interest" and in some ways they can justify that, but after you have left the company? This should be illegal and whatever loophole allows it needs to be plugged.

Frankly, there should be more limits on which employees a company can take out life insurance policies on. CEOs, CFOs, the head of R&D...maybe. Someone who is actually "key" to a company I can see -- as long as that connection is still intact and they're still working there. But worker bees? They are eminently replaceable and their death will not adversely affect a company's ability to function and that shouldn't be allowed by law.

I think in order for a company to take out insurance on an employee they should be required to get the employee's consent at the very least. At least then employees would know they're dealing with scuzzballs and adjust their "productivity" accordingly.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


---------- Post added 08-12-2010 at 12:35 AM ----------

Originally Posted by IslandHead To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

If I took out life insurance on my neighbor, it would be profitable for me if he died because like a minmum-wage, pencil pusher, low-skill or entry level employee I can always get another neighbor. It's a conflict of interest, unlike the death of a loved one, bread winner, or spouse . I wouldn't put it past a corporation to take out a few of their employees To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Especially if the the person being insured has knowledge or consent.

Well, you could just give them shitty healthcare benefits...or in the case of Wal-Mart, none at all unless you are a manager, and then who has to take an "active" role in peasant deaths?

	On a side note, I think you could make a decent thriller-movie about dead peasant assassinations.

Oh, that is a rather fun idea at that.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


---------- Post added 08-12-2010 at 12:36 AM ----------

	Originally Posted by Sulla To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Again, I'd say this is a clear cut example of a tax shelter more than anything.

Yes, pretty much. And an abuse of the idea of insurance as well.

But if corporations are dodging taxes, it means we're paying more. Why should they be getting this tax-dodging break?

---------- Post added 08-12-2010 at 12:43 AM ----------

	Originally Posted by BobG To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Don't those people have a moral obligation to the shareholders that invested in that corporation?

"Fiduciary" is the term you're looking for.

While fiduciary duty can be viewed in ethical terms, it makes more sense in this context to view it in a legal sense.

[BobG]

Originally Posted by BlackOp To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

It's a disconnected, psychopathic environment. They mirror what they see from above. The old question comes to mind "would you push a button, for a million dollars, if you knew it would kill someone (you would never meet) in China". That is how corporations run...it's a machine void of anything but maximizing profit. It has no emotion or social responsibility. Its core essence is to perpetuate itself...."just business".

	Originally Posted by Sulla To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	It, it, it... It is made up of people- it frequently has emotion, it frequently has responsibility. The core essence is not to perpetuate itself. You have a very poor understanding of how corporations work and what they are.

	Originally Posted by BobG To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Don't those people have a moral obligation to the shareholders that invested in that corporation?

	Originally Posted by Sulla To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The directors of a company have a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders and this cannot be delegated. I believe company officers do also.

The point is that, while Black Op may mischaracterize the corporation and the people that work there as disconnected and pyschopathic, it is the duty of the corporation's "people" to maximize profit for the shareholders. That's what they were hired to do.

You were a little unclear about what type of emotion the people in a corporation had. I hope their emotion was concern about the people that invested their hard earned money in that corporation expecting that, one day, that investor could retire and actually live on that money he invested.

Corporations are (and should be) amoral. Any 'morals' we expect corporations to adhere to should be put in the form of regulations that all of the corporations have to follow in order to ensure a level playing field. Otherwise an investor is put in a bad situation where they can choose to invest in a 'moral' corporation knowing that their investment might lose money and jeopardize their retirement or they can invest in the most profitable company, even if the most profitable company behaves 'immorally'.

Or, if the public despises a particular product (tobacco/alcohol), it should at least make sure the extra demands they lay on are public so investors know the profits from the corporation that makes those products is about to become a lot less profitable. The point is that corporations shouldn't have 'morals'. They should be focused on maximizing profits. Any 'morals' reflected by corporate behavior has to be reflected in regulation affecting those corporations or at least the threat of future regulation.

I'm not sure why it's suddenly become fashionable to treat corporations as humans, instilling them with inalienable rights and a corporate conscience that can distinguish 'moral' from 'immoral'.

[themuzicman]

	Originally Posted by Sulla To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	This isn't necessarily true because growth rates are awesome. Let's say for example, average life expectancy for a certain group is 20 year. You can charge $1000 a year on the premium. They payout is $40,000. Do you do it? Hell yes, you do if you can get 10% on your money. The total premium paid is $20,000, but at 10% on your money, you'll make $63,000 over the 20 year period.

And what insurance company would be stupid enough to do this? Again, you're ignoring the insurance side of this. They make money by taking premiums that total more than they pay out. Thus, if there was a $20000/year payout, the premium would be more than $20000. If not, the insurance company doesn't do the policy. Period.

[Sulla]

	Originally Posted by BobG To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The point is that, while Black Op may mischaracterize the corporation and the people that work there as disconnected and pyschopathic, it is the duty of the corporation's "people" to maximize profit for the shareholders. That's what they were hired to do.

Maximize long term profits.

	You were a little unclear about what type of emotion the people in a corporation had. I hope their emotion was concern about the people that invested their hard earned money in that corporation expecting that, one day, that investor could retire and actually live on that money he invested.

I believe it perfectly acceptable to show emotion and concern for stakeholders.

Corporations are (and should be) amoral. Any 'morals' we expect corporations to adhere to should be put in the form of regulations that all of the corporations have to follow in order to ensure a level playing field. Otherwise an investor is put in a bad situation where they can choose to invest in a 'moral' corporation knowing that their investment might lose money and jeopardize their retirement or they can invest in the most profitable company, even if the most profitable company behaves 'immorally'.

I disagree with this. Your idea here requires that morality not be linked to long term profitablity.

	The point is that corporations shouldn't have 'morals'. They should be focused on maximizing profits.

Again, many extremely effective CEOs would disagree with you. Many corrupt CEOs of corporations that failed would not.

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	And what insurance company would be stupid enough to do this? Again, you're ignoring the insurance side of this. They make money by taking premiums that total more than they pay out. Thus, if there was a $20000/year payout, the premium would be more than $20000. If not, the insurance company doesn't do the policy. Period.

I did not. You just do not understand how insurance companies work. They're very similar to banks in this respect. The insurance companies MAKES $23,000 in that example. Your assumption appears to be that insurance companies just take premium money and put it in a lock box or something. This isn't the case.

Again, if the insurance company collected $1000 a year for 20 years and earned 10% on their money, they make a substantial amount of money if that person dies and they have to pay $40,000. They make $23,000 on the deal.

[BobG]

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	And what insurance company would be stupid enough to do this? Again, you're ignoring the insurance side of this. They make money by taking premiums that total more than they pay out. Thus, if there was a $20000/year payout, the premium would be more than $20000. If not, the insurance company doesn't do the policy. Period.

An insurance company has two sources of income - premiums from customers plus profits from investing the premiums they collect from customers. It's very likely the premiums are very close to the benefits paid out or even slightly less than the benefits paid out. It depends on the economy. Insurance rates increase when the market is projected to do bad. Insurance rates decrease when the market is doing well.

The benefit to the corporation buying the policy is the tax savings outweighing any slight loss that might possibly be suffered by paying the premiums. And the corporation doesn't have to buy insurance policies all the time. They can adjust their strategy to only buy when insurance rates are low, giving them a better chance of realizing a slight profit on top of the tax savings.

[blueback]

"Congress recently tried to crack down on the practice, to the howls of the insurance industry -- which earlier this year managed to derail reforms...Strong insurance industry protests led the powerful committee to reconsider its action. Further work on the issue has been postponed until 2004, and indications are that the senators are softening on the idea of greatly restricting the policies, said Jack Dolan, ACLI spokesman."

1) The insurance industry finds a way to make a lot of (more) money.
2) Everyone else realizes that their new tactics are immoral and/or violate the spirit of the law.
3) Lawmakers in a position to close the loophole blackmail the industry with threats of lower profits.
4) Industry reps contribute more to certain campaign funds.
5) Potential loophole-closing regulations mysteriously disappear or are rewritten to be impossible to enforce.
*) Rinse and repeat.

This is exactly the sort of thing that needs to be more effectively checked. Corporations have access to tax shelters because they have the lobbying muscle to manipulate the process. That means people without that much muscle have to pay more taxes, or the government just doesn't get enough taxes period. It's a corrosive situation.

[IrishGuy]

	Originally Posted by Sulla To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The directors of a company have a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders and this cannot be delegated. I believe company officers do also.

Good luck enforcing that....Breach of fiduciary duty is difficult to prosecute unless it is a particularly egregious breach.

[Sulla]

	Originally Posted by IrishGuy To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Good luck enforcing that....Breach of fiduciary duty is difficult to prosecute unless it is a particularly egregious breach.

I'm hopeful that the lawsuits against Goldman Sachs will prevail. They should. The government cannot enforce them- only shareholders. It's not as difficult as you think it is. They happen. Frequently, they get settled- not always.