NationStates Jolt Archive

Dead Peasant Insurance is the practice of a corporation putting life insurance policies out on their employees, including mostly low level employees, which the corporation then gets paid the full amount for without any family involvement or employee permission. It is a legal practice, and corporations practice it on a massive scale.


So basically the corporation is going to make more from you in the long run if the employee stays than they may even pay you in 5 years.

As defined by the article:
"Broad-based or janitors policies that insure rank-and-file workers. Here the purpose is basically profit. The life insurance proceeds are tax-free. The policies have an investment component that allows companies to earn tax-deferred returns while the employee is still alive. And, of course, companies can take out tax-free loans on the policies. All these gains and income are used to fund operations, pay for executive compensation or boost other benefits."

Quote from Article:

"Sound outrageous? Such corporate-owned life insurance is also big business:

* Companies pay a whopping $8 billion in premiums each year for such coverage, according to the American Council of Life Insurers, a trade group.
* The policies make up more than 20% of the all the life insurance sold each year.
* Companies expect to reap more than $9 billion in tax breaks from these policies over the next five years. The policies are treated as whole life policies. So, companies can borrow against the policies (though the IRS won't let them write off the interest). And the death benefits are tax-free."


Does your boss want you dead?

http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/Insurance/P64954.asp

Any way my opinion is it is just terrible because they are taking out a life insurance policy on you without your direct knowledge, profiting from your death, and basically treating you like crap as a low level worker.

I want to see what all the "corporations would never do anything immoral or bad" libertarians have to say.

Any way my opinion is it is just terrible... basically treating you like crap as a low level worker.

But treating low workers like cattle is the hallmark of capitalism. Surely you don't want the ebil Islamofascist communist terrorist Mexicans to eat our babies and take urr jerbs instead?

[/SARCASM]

I want to see what all the "corporations would never do anything immoral or bad" libertarians have to say.

Not sure how that has to do with libertarian, corporations do a lot more bad than just this, this is a just a sample.

If it was being taken out by companies notorious for high employee turnovers and/or fatalities like DeWayne Industries, then it would be sick and outrageous. Might even be considered outright gambling.

This might actually be a good thing. If I were one of these insurers, I'd want to make sure that the company was treating their employees well so I could get rich off of the premiums. Just like, if I were insuring an individual, I'd want to make sure they were a safe driver or had healthy habits. So, by manipulation of rates, these policies could actually help extend the lives of employees.

I want to see what all the "corporations would never do anything immoral or bad" libertarians have to say.

What an ignorant strawman.

If it was being taken out by companies notorious for high employee turnovers and/or fatalities like DeWayne Industries, then it would be sick and outrageous. Might even be considered outright gambling.

Well Dow Chemicals is one of the companies, some of the examples given by the article:

"Hundreds of companies -- including Dow Chemical, Procter & Gamble, Wal-Mart, Walt Disney and Winn-Dixie -- have purchased this insurance on more than 6 million rank-and-file workers."

I want to see what all the "corporations would never do anything immoral or bad" libertarians have to say.

Cuz libertarians are the ones who like cozying up to corporations, especially with the adamant opposition to corporate welfare and whatnot.

This might actually be a good thing. If I were one of these insurers, I'd want to make sure that the company was treating their employees well so I could get rich off of the premiums. Just like, if I were insuring an individual, I'd want to make sure they were a safe driver or had healthy habits. So, by manipulation of rates, these policies could actually help extend the lives of employees.

My thoughts exactly. As an insurer I would demand routine inspections of facilities to guarantee safety, testing to ensure that negative effects on the local environment (and thereby the workers health) and if the facilities didn't measure up, I'd start reducing the benefits or jacking up the costs they must pay. It could also be used encourage employers to provide good health insurance to their employees, by acting through the same mechanisms.

Finally, it encourages long-term firm loyalty to the employee. It pays to keep them around, and provide them with the incentive to stick around. You're not going to drive someone away if they are a potential payoff.

Finally, firms typically take life insurance policies on high-level workers as well, because of the investment that your average high-skills employee (or administrator) requires.

I see nothing unethical, and, in fact I see many potential upsides to this matter.

Capitalism in practise.

This might actually be a good thing. If I were one of these insurers, I'd want to make sure that the company was treating their employees well so I could get rich off of the premiums. Just like, if I were insuring an individual, I'd want to make sure they were a safe driver or had healthy habits. So, by manipulation of rates, these policies could actually help extend the lives of employees.
Or it could shorten the working life of low-level employees. All other things being equal, whose premiums would be higher, the 25 year old janitor's, or the 55 year old's? Aside from immediate injury, most work place hazards minifest over time, so in fact so long as you grab a young'un and move them along before the work takes its long-term toll, the premiums will be very low. If companies took this approach janitors over a certain age would not only be subject to all the risk of their age, but also would have worked for years in conditions that are likely to manifest injury or illness over time (ie now or any time soon), so off to the scrap heap they go...

There's nothing to keep me from taking out a life insurance policy on my boss, either. :D

Ooo.. evil!

My thoughts exactly. As an insurer I would demand routine inspections of facilities to guarantee safety, testing to ensure that negative effects on the local environment (and thereby the workers health) and if the facilities didn't measure up, I'd start reducing the benefits or jacking up the costs they must pay. It could also be used encourage employers to provide good health insurance to their employees, by acting through the same mechanisms.

Finally, it encourages long-term firm loyalty to the employee. It pays to keep them around, and provide them with the incentive to stick around. You're not going to drive someone away if they are a potential payoff.

Finally, firms typically take life insurance policies on high-level workers as well, because of the investment that your average high-skills employee (or administrator) requires.

I see nothing unethical, and, in fact I see many potential upsides to this matter.


BUT THIS IS NOT THE CASE

Their taking it out on low workers obviously to exploit them, that is why it is called "Dead Peasant Insurance" often even in the industry as a nickname.

BUT THIS IS NOT THE CASE

Their taking it out on low workers obviously to exploit them, that is why it is called "Dead Peasant Insurance" often even in the industry as a nickname.

Why is it unethical?

Recruitment and processing of an employee is an expensive proposition. If the employee bites the dust, then why shouldn't the firm recoup it's losses?

You know, theres a way to deal with these kind of things, get in touch with a corporate trade union, organise or strike/picket and see how long the execs last with )% labor efficiency.

You know, theres a way to deal with these kind of things, get in touch with a corporate trade union, organise or strike/picket and see how long the execs last with )% labor efficiency.

That's when they turn to undocumented "Guest" workers.

Why is it unethical?

Recruitment and processing of an employee is an expensive proposition. If the employee bites the dust, then why shouldn't the firm recoup it's losses?

Because it's not as expensive as you think. Otherwise companies like DeWayne Industries wouldn't have an inhuman record of worker injuries and fatalities because it would be bad for their bottom line. So far the opposite of your statement seems to be the case.

hmmmm

my mother had an "aunt" who went to prison in the 30s for buying insurance policies on boarders and then killing them.

sounds like a movie plot but she swore it was true.

so its not NEW, just more profitable.

i feel that i would be outraged if i read about this properly but i have had too much too drink/am too tired/am in too much of a good humour to let corporate amorality get me down.

Because it's not as expensive as you think. Otherwise companies like DeWayne Industries wouldn't have an inhuman record of worker injuries and fatalities because it would be bad for their bottom line. So far the opposite of your statement seems to be the case.

Exactly...

Capitalism in practise.

You must have not read the article, as it points out that this practice is simply a tax shelter. If there did not exist a government granted tax break for the revenue on these claims, this would not be an issue.

This situation is created by government, not capitalism.

BUT THIS IS NOT THE CASE

Their taking it out on low workers obviously to exploit them, that is why it is called "Dead Peasant Insurance" often even in the industry as a nickname.

They are exploiting a tax loophole not the workers, if you are going to post an article, you ought to read it.

Why is it unethical?

Recruitment and processing of an employee is an expensive proposition. If the employee bites the dust, then why shouldn't the firm recoup it's losses?

Thank you, that would be my own words. It costs thousands to get a checkout operator to be fully efficient (I am thinking in terms of time lost, the training sessions and so on); and that is just that person.

Anyways, the insurance companies are idiotic for not taking more care with their own money. Like Andaluciae said, the logical insurance firm would make sure that firms like DeWayne Industries are more careful or they would charge higher premiums.

It makes you wonder why companies have money to recover so quickly when they lose a lot of employees in an industrial accident.

Anyways, the insurance companies are idiotic for not taking more care with their own money. Like Andaluciae said, the logical insurance firm would make sure that firms like DeWayne Industries are more careful or they would charge higher premiums.

Exactly, something wasn't adding up. Either the insurance company is losing out or the policy holders are losing out, monetarily that is, otherwise this would be true-blue arbitrage.

Then I saw the level of government complicity in this, and it made sense.

Thank you, that would be my own words. It costs thousands to get a checkout operator to be fully efficient (I am thinking in terms of time lost, the training sessions and so on); and that is just that person.

Anyways, the insurance companies are idiotic for not taking more care with their own money. Like Andaluciae said, the logical insurance firm would make sure that firms like DeWayne Industries are more careful or they would charge higher premiums.
You can only conclude this by ignoring the implications of the facts presented. This has been going for years. How stupid do you think these insurance companies are? They are losing money (to the employers) for years and still carry on offering this 'free money'? How are they even in business still to carry on this generous give-away?
If the scheme cost money to either the insurer or insured rather than being beneficial overall to both, why would that party be keen to be involved?
Consider this, loans can be taken out against the insurance. You appear to approach this as though the company must make the loss of investment in an employee to get a payout. Wouldnt be very good loan security if that were true. Even if the payout on employee loss was greater than the cost invested in them and of replacing them, that's a big gamble. Would a bank accept a lottery ticket as security on a loan? I dont think so.

Obviously the only conclusion consistent with the facts is that both the insurer and the insured are gaining a financial advantage that has nothing to do with protecting themselves against the loss of investment in acquiring/training a new employee.

They are exploiting a tax loophole not the workers, if you are going to post an article, you ought to read it.

I did read it, it basically exploits the workers, how is it a tax loophole, it is a lot more than that it is a tax "haven"? They get PAID for the life insurance they take out on the workers when the workers die without any going to the worker's family, did you read the article?

I did read it, it basically exploits the workers, how is it a tax loophole, it is a lot more than that it is a tax "haven"? They get PAID for the life insurance they take out on the workers when the workers die without any going to the worker's family, did you read the article?
I dont know how you think that works. Is it a gambling thing? Because if it is as you say one party (insurer or insured) must always lose money to provide the profit of the other. So you think this is just a tax free means for companies and insurers to gamble with each other?
Odd that those giving out large loans are happy to take a lottery ticket as security against the payment of the loan dont you think. Wow clearly running a mulit-billion dollar business is much more about luck than I had previously suspected.

I'd like to apologize. I thought the company in question was called DeWayne Industries, but it's actually McWane Incorporated. PBS Frontline did an article about them on an episode, and here's a webpage:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/workplace/mcwane/two.html

The ethical issue is that these life insurance policies are taken out on employees without the employees being aware of them or giving their consent, and when the employee dies the corporation clearly profits from the death of the employee.

Even if its profit, no profit, insurable, whatever the excuse the fact is these corporations are still taking out life insurance policies on employees without any benefit to them or their families. There is a reason it is nicknamed "Dead Peasants Insurance" after all...

It benefits both the insurance industry and the corporation, with the article stating 20% of all insurance business is of these types of life insurance policies taken out by corporations on low level employees.

Obviously their not going to get money all the time, but they do profit some of the time off their employees, who are not even aware of it. I'm not being so foolish as to say the corporations are trying to kill their workers off, I am saying though that it is unethical on the grounds that they do not know, and the company profits off them.

Unless the companies are killing workers off to get money, does it affect the workers in any way whatsoever?...

Unless the companies are killing workers off to get money, does it affect the workers in any way whatsoever?...

I should think not.

Also, I still like my idea of taking out life insurance on your boss if he does it to you. :D

I should think not.

Also, I still like my idea of taking out life insurance on your boss if he does it to you. :D
Exactly. It's morbid, and it's worth a good laugh about the nature of companies, but really, if it doesn't affect the workers, it's not unethical.

I'd like to apologize. I thought the company in question was called DeWayne Industries, but it's actually McWane Incorporated. PBS Frontline did an article about them on an episode, and here's a webpage:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/workplace/mcwane/two.html

Damn. Wish you'd said something before I'd sold all my DeWayne Ind. stock for a loss out of principle. I'm ruined! Ruined, I tell you! :D

So can I take out life insurance on anyone I please, without their knowledge?

I'm off to collect some names from the Old Person's Home round the corner. This is a goldmine!

It sounds like it's some horrible practice designed to make the company profit from something like unsafe work environments, when in reality it's just another tax evasion scam.

It sounds like it's some horrible practice designed to make the company profit from something like unsafe work environments, when in reality it's just another tax evasion scam.

Depending on the workplace, it's like outright gambling.

Can you imagine Troubleshooter Insurance as an example?

:D

So can I take out life insurance on anyone I please, without their knowledge?

I'm off to collect some names from the Old Person's Home round the corner. This is a goldmine!

There may be some conditions, and those old folks might no qualify for insurance, but I think, in theory, you can do it. :p

There's nothing to keep me from taking out a life insurance policy on my boss, either. :D

Ooo.. evil!

You cannot buy a policy on your boss in most states. I would also say that companies cannot do the same in most states. It is most likely practiced in states that have lax insurance laws.

So can I take out life insurance on anyone I please, without their knowledge?

I'm off to collect some names from the Old Person's Home round the corner. This is a goldmine!

No you cannot. Simply call your insurance agent and ask them this question.

You cannot buy a policy on your boss in most states. I would also say that companies cannot do the same in most states. It is most likely practiced in states that have lax insurance laws.

Aw, shucks. I guess my dreams of convenient banana peel placement will have to wait. :(

Aw, shucks. I guess my dreams of convenient banana peel placement will have to wait. :(

For this reason alone is why you cannot. But I believe the states had something more in mind then death by banana peal. :D

I should think not.

Also, I still like my idea of taking out life insurance on your boss if he does it to you. :D

A more precise corollary would be taking out insurance against the company going out of business, or sacking you in some way unfairly.

In the case of a very small business, the death of the boss might in fact lose you the job (eg you are contracted to provide a personal service to them.) Sure, you could insure against that without the bosses permission or knowledge.

But you wouldn't get the tax break I'm guessing. That's the real issue.

Depending on the workplace, it's like outright gambling.

Can you imagine Troubleshooter Insurance as an example?

:D

In Glorious Alpha Complex, they openly bet on the fate of troubleshooters, and sometimes go out to "uneven the odds" so to speak.

Not sure how that has to do with libertarian, corporations do a lot more bad than just this, this is a just a sample.
Because they seem to think that putting everything in the private sector will solve everyone's problems, because for some reason they think that the Free market cares about something other than money.

Exactly. It's morbid, and it's worth a good laugh about the nature of companies, but really, if it doesn't affect the workers, it's not unethical. Except by the company hoping that you die before you retire.

But treating low workers like cattle is the hallmark of capitalism. Surely you don't want the ebil Islamofascist communist terrorist Mexicans to eat our babies and take urr jerbs instead?

[/SARCASM]

Communists...what did they ever do for the world?

Dead Peasant Insurance is the practice of a corporation putting life insurance policies out on their employees, including mostly low level employees, which the corporation then gets paid the full amount for without any family involvement or employee permission. It is a legal practice, and corporations practice it on a massive scale.


So basically the corporation is going to make more from you in the long run if the employee stays than they may even pay you in 5 years.

As defined by the article:
"Broad-based or janitors policies that insure rank-and-file workers. Here the purpose is basically profit. The life insurance proceeds are tax-free. The policies have an investment component that allows companies to earn tax-deferred returns while the employee is still alive. And, of course, companies can take out tax-free loans on the policies. All these gains and income are used to fund operations, pay for executive compensation or boost other benefits."

Quote from Article:

"Sound outrageous? Such corporate-owned life insurance is also big business:

* Companies pay a whopping $8 billion in premiums each year for such coverage, according to the American Council of Life Insurers, a trade group.
* The policies make up more than 20% of the all the life insurance sold each year.
* Companies expect to reap more than $9 billion in tax breaks from these policies over the next five years. The policies are treated as whole life policies. So, companies can borrow against the policies (though the IRS won't let them write off the interest). And the death benefits are tax-free."


Does your boss want you dead?

http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/Insurance/P64954.asp

*Mentally pukes*

Morals were never good for business I guess....

Because they seem to think that putting everything in the private sector will solve everyone's problems, because for some reason they think that the Free market cares about something other than money.

Except by the company hoping that you die before you retire.

Like I said, unless the company actively works to hasten your demise... they can send their vibes of mental hate and death as much as they like. It still doesn't make any actual difference.

That said, it is a bit dubious, because I'm cynical enough to think that the company might whack you to get the money.

Like I said, unless the company actively works to hasten your demise... they can send their vibes of mental hate and death as much as they like. It still doesn't make any actual difference.

That said, it is a bit dubious, because I'm cynical enough to think that the company might whack you to get the money.

Or if you work for a company like McWane Inc. where the job is likely to whack you.

Communists...what did they ever do for the world?

Hm. Besides causing misery and death for tens of millions?

Oh, right! They gave us those hilariously small East German cars! :p

This might actually be a good thing. If I were one of these insurers, I'd want to make sure that the company was treating their employees well so I could get rich off of the premiums. Just like, if I were insuring an individual, I'd want to make sure they were a safe driver or had healthy habits. So, by manipulation of rates, these policies could actually help extend the lives of employees.

Oh god, god, not the common sense! It burns!

Hm. Besides causing misery and death for tens of millions?

Oh, right! They gave us those hilariously small East German cars! :p

Paranoia wouldn't be as great a game without Commies.

Paranoia wouldn't be as great a game without Commies.

I know communism isn't that bad... if you escape violent death, there's always the crushing poverty to enjoy! :D

Communists...what did they ever do for the world?

Well ...

*gazes into red dawn*
*double-takes*
*extinguishes keyboard / ashtray*

They made a sadly under-prepared sally at translating community to government ...

*extinguishes keyboard, which is doing that annoying plasticy re-ignition thing*

... which will one day be as the Greek republics to our real community ... damn ...

*takes to streets, brandishing burning keyboard*

Arise, workers! It is monday night! You have nothing to lose but your jobs!

Communists...what did they ever do for the world?
Command and Conquer Red Alert, patriotic slogans, planes, guns and tanks, Tom Clancy books, many amusing jokes... the list goes on...

I don't see any problem with this.

If a company is willing to pay the premiums on an insurance of this kind, and they are not actively trying to whack you, who cares?

It's their money, they can do with it, what they want. The trouble with this kind of insurance isn't that companies can take these out on the heads of their employees, but that employees can't take them out on each other, or even on just other citizens.

If you are willing to pay the premium for an insurance on the head of your neighbour, and you find an insurance company that's stupid enough to accept such a risk, well, why shouldn't you get the money, if your neighbour dies? Just make sure his death has nothing to do with you.

Hermes, Ruler of the Holy Empire of Cromlach

The ethical issue is that these life insurance policies are taken out on employees without the employees being aware of them or giving their consent, and when the employee dies the corporation clearly profits from the death of the employee.

Even if its profit, no profit, insurable, whatever the excuse the fact is these corporations are still taking out life insurance policies on employees without any benefit to them or their families. There is a reason it is nicknamed "Dead Peasants Insurance" after all...

It benefits both the insurance industry and the corporation, with the article stating 20% of all insurance business is of these types of life insurance policies taken out by corporations on low level employees.

Obviously their not going to get money all the time, but they do profit some of the time off their employees, who are not even aware of it. I'm not being so foolish as to say the corporations are trying to kill their workers off, I am saying though that it is unethical on the grounds that they do not know, and the company profits off them.

Let me ask you a question - does the employee pay for any of this policy?

Let me ask you a question - does the employee pay for any of this policy?

According to the article they don't, but I mean just like citizens can't take out life insurance policies on just anybody at all, corporations do not have the right to take out life insurance policies on employees without their knowledge, especially to such an amount the industry nickname has become "Dead peasant insurance"

According to the article they don't, but I mean just like citizens can't take out life insurance policies on just anybody at all, corporations do not have the right to take out life insurance policies on employees without their knowledge, especially to such an amount the industry nickname has become "Dead peasant insurance"

All the firm is doing is covering themselves. The death of an employee costs an absolute fortune, and not just retraining the new person either. The firm would have to spend money on councillors, leave and efficiency losses. I would personally not care less if a firm took out a life insurance policy on my name, because I am not paying a single cent - they are paying the money and they deserve the "benefit"

I did read it, it basically exploits the workers, how is it a tax loophole, it is a lot more than that it is a tax "haven"? They get PAID for the life insurance they take out on the workers when the workers die without any going to the worker's family, did you read the article?

"Here the purpose is basically profit. The life insurance proceeds are tax-free. The policies have an investment component that allows companies to earn tax-deferred returns while the employee is still alive. And, of course, companies can take out tax-free loans on the policies. All these gains and income are used to fund operations, pay for executive compensation or boost other benefits."

The life insurance policies are profitable whether the employee dies or not, and since the life insurance company has direct interest in the well-being of the employee, it will serve as a regulator on maltreatment through the premiums they charge.

The ethical issue is that these life insurance policies are taken out on employees without the employees being aware of them or giving their consent, and when the employee dies the corporation clearly profits from the death of the employee.

I am not sure why this is an ethical problem.

Even if its profit, no profit, insurable, whatever the excuse the fact is these corporations are still taking out life insurance policies on employees without any benefit to them or their families. There is a reason it is nicknamed "Dead Peasants Insurance" after all...

Nicknamed that by its critics, of course.

Obviously their not going to get money all the time, but they do profit some of the time off their employees, who are not even aware of it. I'm not being so foolish as to say the corporations are trying to kill their workers off, I am saying though that it is unethical on the grounds that they do not know, and the company profits off them.

So if they told the worker it would be ethical? Why?


Also, it is profitable all of the time because of the tax free revenue and lending they get from its investment nature.

Exactly. It's morbid, and it's worth a good laugh about the nature of companies, but really, if it doesn't affect the workers, it's not unethical.

Doesn't it affect the economy of the state? Doesn't that make it not ethical to the population of that state?

Communists...what did they ever do for the world?

Well the stalinist soviet lot made a really good camera that my father still has. Bit heavy (almost made completely out of metal) but it is fully functional.

Doesn't it affect the economy of the state? Doesn't that make it not ethical to the population of that state?

That culpability lies with the state for its unfair tax code.

That culpability lies with the state for its unfair tax code.

Does that make the act any more ethical?

Anyway it is more of a matter of a single element of the state (government) selling out the greater whole/community (state) for their own gain.

The ethical issue is that these life insurance policies are taken out on employees without the employees being aware of them or giving their consent, and when the employee dies the corporation clearly profits from the death of the employee.

Even if its profit, no profit, insurable, whatever the excuse the fact is these corporations are still taking out life insurance policies on employees without any benefit to them or their families. There is a reason it is nicknamed "Dead Peasants Insurance" after all...

It benefits both the insurance industry and the corporation, with the article stating 20% of all insurance business is of these types of life insurance policies taken out by corporations on low level employees.

Obviously their not going to get money all the time, but they do profit some of the time off their employees, who are not even aware of it. I'm not being so foolish as to say the corporations are trying to kill their workers off, I am saying though that it is unethical on the grounds that they do not know, and the company profits off them.
how exactly is it exploiting the workers?

it's a tax scheme, I promise, it's not some evil plot.

the companies pay the premiums, not the employees, therefore the company is spending money on something they get value from.

does it exploit my employee if I buy myself a soda?

Does that make the act any more ethical?

I don't know why it is unethical in the first place, but if you are worried about the aggregate state of the economy, point your finger at the governent for shifting the costs of investing.

Anyway it is more of a matter of a single element of the state (government) selling out the greater whole/community (state) for their own gain.

Of course, one can buy a lot of votes with the money insurance lobbyists are willing to donate to one's campaign.

Command and Conquer Red Alert, patriotic slogans, planes, guns and tanks, Tom Clancy books, many amusing jokes... the list goes on...
A severe paranoia and hatred of anything even remotely socialist in the US... we are allowed to list bad things right?

Or it could shorten the working life of low-level employees. All other things being equal, whose premiums would be higher, the 25 year old janitor's, or the 55 year old's? Aside from immediate injury, most work place hazards minifest over time, so in fact so long as you grab a young'un and move them along before the work takes its long-term toll, the premiums will be very low. If companies took this approach janitors over a certain age would not only be subject to all the risk of their age, but also would have worked for years in conditions that are likely to manifest injury or illness over time (ie now or any time soon), so off to the scrap heap they go...

If I was an insurance company, I'd still want to deal with these work hazards so I wouldn't have to pay out nearly as often. Yes, I can understand that the premiums, ceteris paribus, would be higher on a 55 year-old than a 25 year-old (unless there were some extraordinary circumstances.) But it should be fairly obvious that the insurance company would want to get 60 years worth of premiums over 25 years, and is interested in extending the life of any employee, whether they are 25 years old or 55 years old. So, I would also inspect these facilities for these time hazards so that I could increase my bottom line. That way, the 25 year old kid lives longer, I get more premiums, and I get more profit.

Also, I really wouldn't care if my company took out a policy on me; it's their money, not mine.

I want to see what all the "corporations would never do anything immoral or bad" libertarians have to say.

Libertarians don't think that.

Libertarians don't think that.

He means rightist libertarians, the ones who believe that all will work out if we only use the free market.

He means rightist libertarians, the ones who believe that all will work out if we only use the free market.

They don't think that corporations are perfect either. Technically, right libertarians are more realist then left libertarians, they both realise that most corporations will see people as means rather then ends. However, they view this as irrellavent and not a danger as long as there is competition etc...

SNIP

Some people do... Delusional? Possibly. Incorrect? Definitely.

This might actually be a good thing. If I were one of these insurers, I'd want to make sure that the company was treating their employees well so I could get rich off of the premiums. Just like, if I were insuring an individual, I'd want to make sure they were a safe driver or had healthy habits. So, by manipulation of rates, these policies could actually help extend the lives of employees.

If the insurance companies have that much influence. On the other hand it encourages the companies not to invest in health and safety protocols because your injury or death doesn't cost them anything.

Besides which, what's the basis for this policy? You can't just take insurance policies out on random people. Could I take a health insurance policy out on my neighbor if I know that he's a skydiver, but didn't tell his own health insurance company?

Could I take a health insurance policy out on a school and then just hide the speed limit signs?

Funny how all the "family values" people never seem to pipe up when this bullshit happens. Only when gay couples want to be the beneficiaries of each others life insurance policies.

Exactly. It's morbid, and it's worth a good laugh about the nature of companies, but really, if it doesn't affect the workers, it's not unethical.

It removes the only motive that corporations have to protect the health and safety of their workers.

A corporation's stockholders can, and have, sued the corporation for failing to make money based decisions when they can not prove that the PR cost more than the philanthropy.

If corporations have no financial incentive to put their workers lived in danger because, even if they want to, they will have to justify the cost of safety measures to their stockholders lawyers, who are just looking for an excuse to sue and earn their paycheck.

Capitalism in practise.

OK. I want to take a liability insurance policy out on Walmart. I figure they'll get sued again pretty soon and I'll make a mint since I'll get the money, but won't have to pay for a lawyer. How does that sound?

Wait wait wait, how exactly does this hurt the employee?

Oh, that's what I thought.
I didn't read anything besides the first page, sorry guys. Point still stands.

I'd respond by trying to convince every employee to take out a life insurance policy on the CEO.

I'd respond by trying to convince every employee to take out a life insurance policy on the CEO.

...You just blew my mind...with laughter :)

...You just blew my mind...with laughter :)

Good. Now I can collect life insurance on you.

I want to see what all the "corporations would never do anything immoral or bad" libertarians have to say.

I think you just said it.

These corporations are essentially paid by the state to get insurance money when the worker dies.

The problem is that private people are not paid by the state to get insurance.

Hence unfair, hence remove the law and the companies buying the insurance should do so with more thought than just "It'll cost us nothing, it might give us returns" and then they would actually care about the price of the premiums.

As is, they're not paying any money away that they wouldn't 'lose' somehow anyway.

If the insurance companies have that much influence. On the other hand it encourages the companies not to invest in health and safety protocols because your injury or death doesn't cost them anything.

Why wouldn't the insurance companies have that much influence? They are absolutely HUGE (check out their assets)*, and it probably wouldn't be that much of a burden to make sure that the companies aren't trying to screw them over, just like they make sure that individuals don't smoke or drive dangerously.

Besides which, what's the basis for this policy? You can't just take insurance policies out on random people.

Why the Hell not? (I know why not legally, but I don't see how it can be wrong morally. It's your money.)

Could I take a health insurance policy out on my neighbor if I know that he's a skydiver, but didn't tell his own health insurance company?

You may sure try. I doubt they'd be stupid enough to give you nice, low premiums without checking him out first, though.

Could I take a health insurance policy out on a school and then just hide the speed limit signs?

No, because you're trespassing against the owner of the speed limit signs. If you're actively trying to harm people to get the insurance money, then you're guilty of fraud and they don't have to pay you. Insurance is for events that are outside or partially outside your control, not under it. That's why no one in their right mind would offer you suicide insurance.

Funny how all the "family values" people never seem to pipe up when this bullshit happens. Only when gay couples want to be the beneficiaries of each others life insurance policies.

Dude, what are you on about? I'm not a conservative, and I have no problem with homosexuals being beneficiaries of each others' life insurance policies. It's their money, and they can make whatever contracts they want.

Edit:
* ING Group: 1,615 Billion in assets
Allianz: 1,380 billion in assets
Axa Group: 666.47 billion in assets
Aviva: 555.18 billion in assets
Metlife: 527.72 in assets
The global insurance sector made 1.923 trillion in sales in 2006.

Any way my opinion is it is just terrible because they are taking out a life insurance policy on you without your direct knowledge, profiting from your death, and basically treating you like crap as a low level worker.

It sounds like you are one of those corporationphobes. Anybody can take out a life insurance policy on anyone. There is nothing sinister about it. You people make me chuckle and a little grouchy even though I do not know why it makes me grouchy.

Wait wait wait, how exactly does this hurt the employee?

Oh, that's what I thought.
I didn't read anything besides the first page, sorry guys. Point still stands.

The real issue here isn't the life insurance, it's a tax dodging scheme. Corporations are using this to get out of paying taxes, and it's just another reason the rich keep getting richer while the poor keep dying to make that possible.

It sounds like you are one of those corporationphobes. Anybody can take out a life insurance policy on anyone. There is nothing sinister about it. You people make me chuckle and a little grouchy even though I do not know why it makes me grouchy.

No, as it was said earlier by several in this thread, you can't take out a life insurance policy on anyone legally without their knowledge from what i understand.

Corporationphobes? That has to be a new word. I do not like all the conglomerates for everything from fashion luxury goods to food and dry goods.

This practice is wrong because if I worked for one of these corporations, I would not want the corporation taking out a life insurance policy on me without my knowledge then profiting when I die, especially crappy corporations that do not pay good wages or have good benefits. Especially since this is widely done to low level workers as well. I mean the insurance is nicknamed "Dead Peasant Insurance" and various other bad terms. Then they turn around and use those same funds to fund executive compensation and benefits..

Any way my opinion is it is just terrible because they are taking out a life insurance policy on you without your direct knowledge, profiting from your death, and basically treating you like crap as a low level worker.

Vote Republican! Booyah!

Vote Republican! Booyah!


I vote whomever seems best