User Tag List

First 678910 Last

Results 71 to 80 of 93

  1. #71
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eagleseven View Post
    According to the article cited, businesses were receiving insurance payouts even long after the said employees had left the company. The fact that, in net, total payouts were less than the total cost of premiums, was overpowered by the fact that these policies are tax-exempt.

    In other words, the problem with this practice is not "OMG my employer wants me dead" but rather "Corporations are using life insurance companies to avoid taxes."

    ---

    Framing this issue as a moral dilemma, rather than as a tax loophole, is disingenuous by the authors (which does not surprise me, being MSNBC and SFGate)
    I didn't even read the article and this thread was not my first exposure to this issue. This is a moral dilemma despite the fact that you're trying your hardest to deny it.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  2. #72
    Senior Member eagleseven's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    331

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    I didn't even read the article and this thread was not my first exposure to this issue. This is a moral dilemma despite the fact that you're trying your hardest to deny it.
    As was stated in the first article, these "dead-peasant" plans would not be profitable were it not for their tax-exempt status. The company receives payout even if you die twenty years after you quit your job, and you will never know.

    What moral dilemma do you see, aside from the morality of using tax loopholes?

  3. #73
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    I don't agree with this at all. The purpose of insurance is to mitigate the effects of catastrophic events (death of a family member, house burns down, etc), not any event that could have a negative outcome. Your view of insurance is not practical.
    Yup - pooling risk that no one person can singularly afford is the whole point of insurance. That's why the model doesn't work if it isn't catastrophic.

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    I have insurance on my cell phone. As much as I love it, it would not be a catastrophe if I drop it in a toilet.
    That's not insurance per se, it's a warranty.

  4. #74
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eagleseven View Post
    As was stated in the first article, these "dead-peasant" plans would not be profitable were it not for their tax-exempt status. The company receives payout even if you die twenty years after you quit your job, and you will never know.

    What moral dilemma do you see, aside from the morality of using tax loopholes?
    You don't see the concept of profiting off the deaths of others as a moral issue? Are you being sarcastic or trolling here? Honestly, I'm confused as to why you don't see it (or at least claim you don't see it).

    The circumstances under which these policies are profitable are irrelevant when determining whether or not this is a moral dilemma.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  5. #75
    Senior Member eagleseven's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    331

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    You don't see the concept of profiting off the deaths of others as a moral issue? Are you being sarcastic or trolling here? Honestly, I'm confused as to why you don't see it (or at least claim you don't see it).

    The circumstances under which these policies are profitable are irrelevant when determining whether or not this is a moral dilemma.
    As long as the activities do not harm the employee, or the employee's family, I see no problem with it.

    As far as profiting off of death, we do it all the time, in a thousand different ways. Estate sales, inheritances, promotions, funerals, undertakers, organ harvesting, medical anatomy, and war profiteering, to name a few.

    Hell, the Government profits every time a person dies before he can collect his social security benefits.

  6. #76
    Senior Member millerm277's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    978

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    You don't see the concept of profiting off the deaths of others as a moral issue? Are you being sarcastic or trolling here? Honestly, I'm confused as to why you don't see it (or at least claim you don't see it).
    No. A skilled employee is a valuable asset, I fail to see how insuring against the loss of an asset is a major moral issue. I get the concept, "It's a person, how can you want them to die?!" I don't. If such policies are being taken out instead of say, safety improvements or the like, then I have a major issue with it and it should be dealt with severely. (I would also suspect insurance companies don't cover deaths caused by the company anyway with these sorts of policies.)

    Otherwise, how can't you see this as an issue? People carry a great deal of knowledge, and are often difficult to replace, that comes at a significant cost. If Bob Smith is the head of a major project and he dies suddenly, that could be a huge cost in time/money for the company. Why wouldn't you insure against that?

    To look at it from another way, this is already done in other forms of insurance your company carries as well. Your company carries liability insurance if you get hurt/killed on the premises, right? That insurance isn't for you, it's for the company. Regardless of that insurance, you're still going to have to sue to get money (or accept something that is mainly offered to reduce the chance of you doing so). So what is that insurance? It covers the company's ass against a monetary loss from you dying/getting hurt. The forms of insurance mentioned above, do the same thing, just on an individual level for those that will cause a major loss to the company if they die.
    I-95%, S-84%, T-89%, P-84%

  7. #77
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by millerm277 View Post
    No. A skilled employee is a valuable asset, I fail to see how insuring against the loss of an asset is a major moral issue. I get the concept, "It's a person, how can you want them to die?!" I don't. If such policies are being taken out instead of say, safety improvements or the like, then I have a major issue with it and it should be dealt with severely. (I would also suspect insurance companies don't cover deaths caused by the company anyway with these sorts of policies.)

    Otherwise, how can't you see this as an issue? People carry a great deal of knowledge, and are often difficult to replace, that comes at a significant cost. If Bob Smith is the head of a major project and he dies suddenly, that could be a huge cost in time/money for the company. Why wouldn't you insure against that?
    Based on this response, you obviously didn't read the thread. You just made up words in your head and assumed people typed them. I'm sure it made you feel good to write out this response, but it actually took the debate backwards. Good job.

    I'll quote a post you obviously didn't bother reading.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    I can understand taking out policies like these on high ranking employees (CEOs, VPs, etc). But that's not all that's happening. Companies are also taking out policies on low level employees that are easily replaceable, and these are the ones I was referring to.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  8. #78
    Oberon
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    My mindset is not "can we justify allowing an activity?" To me, it should be "is there a compelling reason why we must PREVENT this activity?" That is liberalism (in the classic sense) in a nutshell.
    This. QFT.

  9. #79
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eagleseven View Post
    As long as the activities do not harm the employee, or the employee's family, I see no problem with it.

    As far as profiting off of death, we do it all the time, in a thousand different ways. Estate sales, inheritances, promotions, funerals, undertakers, organ harvesting, medical anatomy, and war profiteering, to name a few.

    Hell, the Government profits every time a person dies before he can collect his social security benefits.
    Comparing this practice to organ donation, funerals, and others is absurd. Those are voluntary practices. Comparing it to war profiteering is more appropriate.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  10. #80
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oberon View Post
    This. QFT.
    Both premises can be used to justify just about anything. Cost/benefit analysis is superior to both.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

Similar Threads

  1. Monsanto doesn't want you to know you eat genetically engineered food.
    By Rail Tracer in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 55
    Last Post: 01-21-2016, 06:03 PM
  2. Ism, I want you to PIMP MY AVATAR.
    By Ism in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 127
    Last Post: 09-10-2012, 09:56 PM
  3. The TED talk TED doesn't want you to hear.
    By 011235813 in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 05-21-2012, 06:08 PM
  4. what the oil companies don't want you to know
    By INTJ123 in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 10-16-2009, 01:31 AM
  5. media coverage of the tea parties Part 2, (the video they don't want you to see)
    By cogdecree in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 04-24-2009, 06:36 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO