Watching Mikey Moore's show again tonight (didnt finish yesterday) and I ran across that doozie...capitalism at its best.
Companies buying life insurance policies against the lives of its employees, of course they dont share the benefit of such policies with the "dead peasants"
Watching Mikey Moore's show again tonight (didnt finish yesterday) and I ran across that doozie...capitalism at its best.
Companies buying life insurance policies against the lives of its employees, of course they dont share the benefit of such policies with the "dead peasants"
anything billed as insurance is more or less a scam
i think my boss tried to buy this on my head. he gave me papers for some obscure life insurance, shortly after i heard about this. i never signed and returned and he never asked about it once. kinda wierd. the hell if anyone is going to own a note on my ass
Mike Moore should do a doc on politicians and corruptness, and shine some light on both sides. that would be interesting, to see the worst of the worst for two hours straight. might open a few eyes to the partisan bs once they realize that we are all on the same team and none of them would put the citizenry before themselves
anything billed as insurance is more or less a scam
i think my boss tried to buy this on my head. he gave me papers for some obscure life insurance, shortly after i heard about this. i never signed and returned and he never asked about it once. kinda wierd. the hell if anyone is going to own a note on my ass
Mike Moore should do a doc on politicians and corruptness, and shine some light on both sides. that would be interesting, to see the worst of the worst for two hours straight. might open a few eyes to the partisan bs once they realize that we are all on the same team and none of them would put the citizenry before themselves
He pointed out that Phil Graham was an ex-UBS head, that many of the heads of financial regulation worked for banks, that Regan ran Merrill before being with the old codger as his right hand man and he hit on the Countrywide political favors scam.
Mikey is all over the place and some connections he makes are a bit much, but if nothing else I learned about Dead Peasant insurance..despicable to say the least.
He pointed out that Phil Graham was an ex-UBS head, that many of the heads of financial regulation worked for banks, that Regan ran Merrill before being with the old codger as his right hand man and he hit on the Countrywide political favors scam.
Mikey is all over the place and some connections he makes are a bit much, but if nothing else I learned about Dead Peasant insurance..despicable to say the least.
I don't really see the problem. Doesn't cost the employee. The employer is paying for the insurance. Maybe it covers the costs of having to replace the employee should they suddenly die. This is extremely common for small business owners (key man insurance).
I don't really see the problem. Doesn't cost the employee. The employer is paying for the insurance. Maybe it covers the costs of having to replace the employee should they suddenly die. This is extremely common for small business owners (key man insurance).
If the company is paying for the policy, and the coverage is the replacement cost to the company of the loss of that employee, where is the harm?
Each employee has a value to the company, some more than others based on their skills and abilities. The loss of some of these employees has a direct impact on the companies profitability through loss of revenue, replacement costs for training another individual, etc. Having an insurance policy to help the company weather the storm is just good business.
If the company is paying for the policy, and the coverage is the replacement cost to the company of the loss of that employee, where is the harm?
Each employee has a value to the company, some more than others based on their skills and abilities. The loss of some of these employees has a direct impact on the companies profitability through loss of revenue, replacement costs for training another individual, etc. Having an insurance policy to help the company weather the storm is just good business.
It's not unusual for companies to insure themselves against loss of a very important executive. This has been known for many years as "key man" insurance.
It's not unusual for companies to insure themselves against loss of a very important executive. This has been known for many years as "key man" insurance.
wall - If you are watching Mikey Moore, then you really have NO basis for criticizing those that watch Glenn Beck or other Right wingers.
Its called a MOVIE, you know, people get cable to watch movies?
Back to to being on topic..the insurance is not to only cover key employees at the cost of finding another person for the position, it is meant as a form of investment for the company.
It makes me sick to be honest..the cost of rehiring is part of doing business, outside KEY top level executives I see no reason for a company to be allowed to buy an insurance policy against their employees.
wall - If you are watching Mikey Moore, then you really have NO basis for criticizing those that watch Glenn Beck or other Right wingers.
Its called a MOVIE, you know, people get cable to watch movies?
Back to to being on topic..the insurance is not to only cover key employees at the cost of finding another person for the position, it is meant as a form of investment for the company.
It makes me sick to be honest..the cost of rehiring is part of doing business, outside KEY top level executives I see no reason for a company to be allowed to buy an insurance policy against their employees.
Completely legal (at least, in CA). I know I was surprised to realize that you could take out a life insurance policy on any person in the world, didn't have to be related or friends or anything.
Completely legal (at least, in CA). I know I was surprised to realize that you could take out a life insurance policy on any person in the world, didn't have to be related or friends or anything.
Completely legal (at least, in CA). I know I was surprised to realize that you could take out a life insurance policy on any person in the world, didn't have to be related or friends or anything.
Don't i remember some cases where people would take out life insurance policies on drug addicts, essentially murder them, and then collect?? Don't remember the state, but it makes me wonder if that might have changed some state laws in regards to this...
Completely legal (at least, in CA). I know I was surprised to realize that you could take out a life insurance policy on any person in the world, didn't have to be related or friends or anything.
Don't i remember some cases where people would take out life insurance policies on drug addicts, essentially murder them, and then collect?? Don't remember the state, but it makes me wonder if that might have changed some state laws in regards to this...
Completely legal (at least, in CA). I know I was surprised to realize that you could take out a life insurance policy on any person in the world, didn't have to be related or friends or anything.
Of course it is legal, businesses can make money off the tactic so of course it has to be legal.
Should it be allowed as a business practice? I dont think so.
Completely legal (at least, in CA). I know I was surprised to realize that you could take out a life insurance policy on any person in the world, didn't have to be related or friends or anything.
Of course it is legal, businesses can make money off the tactic so of course it has to be legal.
Should it be allowed as a business practice? I dont think so.
Its called a MOVIE, you know, people get cable to watch movies?
Back to to being on topic..the insurance is not to only cover key employees at the cost of finding another person for the position, it is meant as a form of investment for the company.
It makes me sick to be honest..the cost of rehiring is part of doing business, outside KEY top level executives I see no reason for a company to be allowed to buy an insurance policy against their employees.
Why would a company do it as a form of investment? It's hard to imagine how it could possibly be a good "investment" in that way, unless they had some inside knowledge on a particular employee. Or does the company get sweetheart rates because they do business with the insurance company? Just not sure this arrangement is necessarily nefarious.
Its called a MOVIE, you know, people get cable to watch movies?
Back to to being on topic..the insurance is not to only cover key employees at the cost of finding another person for the position, it is meant as a form of investment for the company.
It makes me sick to be honest..the cost of rehiring is part of doing business, outside KEY top level executives I see no reason for a company to be allowed to buy an insurance policy against their employees.
Why would a company do it as a form of investment? It's hard to imagine how it could possibly be a good "investment" in that way, unless they had some inside knowledge on a particular employee. Or does the company get sweetheart rates because they do business with the insurance company? Just not sure this arrangement is necessarily nefarious.
Completely legal (at least, in CA). I know I was surprised to realize that you could take out a life insurance policy on any person in the world, didn't have to be related or friends or anything.
I think Stranger Owned Life Insurance (STOLI) a little more complicated than that. You have to assign it over in order to create an insurable interest. But the whole thing is pretty sleazy and a serious moral hazard.
Completely legal (at least, in CA). I know I was surprised to realize that you could take out a life insurance policy on any person in the world, didn't have to be related or friends or anything.
I think Stranger Owned Life Insurance (STOLI) a little more complicated than that. You have to assign it over in order to create an insurable interest. But the whole thing is pretty sleazy and a serious moral hazard.
Its called a MOVIE, you know, people get cable to watch movies?
Back to to being on topic..the insurance is not to only cover key employees at the cost of finding another person for the position, it is meant as a form of investment for the company.
It makes me sick to be honest..the cost of rehiring is part of doing business, outside KEY top level executives I see no reason for a company to be allowed to buy an insurance policy against their employees.
If it is ok for the top guy why wouldn't it be ok for the bottom guy?
Its called a MOVIE, you know, people get cable to watch movies?
Back to to being on topic..the insurance is not to only cover key employees at the cost of finding another person for the position, it is meant as a form of investment for the company.
It makes me sick to be honest..the cost of rehiring is part of doing business, outside KEY top level executives I see no reason for a company to be allowed to buy an insurance policy against their employees.
If it is ok for the top guy why wouldn't it be ok for the bottom guy?
Its called a MOVIE, you know, people get cable to watch movies?
Back to to being on topic..the insurance is not to only cover key employees at the cost of finding another person for the position, it is meant as a form of investment for the company.
It makes me sick to be honest..the cost of rehiring is part of doing business, outside KEY top level executives I see no reason for a company to be allowed to buy an insurance policy against their employees.
i guess its a good thing we dont have ppl like you sticking their noses into business affaris. oh wait, theres chuck schumer, remind me again why its any of his business if spirit airlines chooses to lower its prices but charge for certain things that not all ppl use?
Its called a MOVIE, you know, people get cable to watch movies?
Back to to being on topic..the insurance is not to only cover key employees at the cost of finding another person for the position, it is meant as a form of investment for the company.
It makes me sick to be honest..the cost of rehiring is part of doing business, outside KEY top level executives I see no reason for a company to be allowed to buy an insurance policy against their employees.
i guess its a good thing we dont have ppl like you sticking their noses into business affaris. oh wait, theres chuck schumer, remind me again why its any of his business if spirit airlines chooses to lower its prices but charge for certain things that not all ppl use?
Completely legal (at least, in CA). I know I was surprised to realize that you could take out a life insurance policy on any person in the world, didn't have to be related or friends or anything.
take this concept and then follow it with 'if you are legally allowed to kill the person you have taken insurance against'...you have in effect created a Credit Default Swap (CDS)
Completely legal (at least, in CA). I know I was surprised to realize that you could take out a life insurance policy on any person in the world, didn't have to be related or friends or anything.
take this concept and then follow it with 'if you are legally allowed to kill the person you have taken insurance against'...you have in effect created a Credit Default Swap (CDS)
take this concept and then follow it with 'if you are legally allowed to kill the person you have taken insurance against'...you have in effect created a Credit Default Swap (CDS)
take this concept and then follow it with 'if you are legally allowed to kill the person you have taken insurance against'...you have in effect created a Credit Default Swap (CDS)
if business can make money off it, why in the world would insurance companies do it?????
and if you really want to complain about something, complain about insurance companies, they are the biggest scam going.
Of course the insurance companies do it because they can both leverage and mitigate risk, which has nothing to do with the topic but of course insurance companies conduct the transaction because they feel there is an opportunity to provide a service and make a profit.
I feel it is slimy for a business to purchase an insurance product against the life of a general employee. Now a high level, high salary, crucial management member, that I can understand.
if business can make money off it, why in the world would insurance companies do it?????
and if you really want to complain about something, complain about insurance companies, they are the biggest scam going.
Of course the insurance companies do it because they can both leverage and mitigate risk, which has nothing to do with the topic but of course insurance companies conduct the transaction because they feel there is an opportunity to provide a service and make a profit.
I feel it is slimy for a business to purchase an insurance product against the life of a general employee. Now a high level, high salary, crucial management member, that I can understand.
Of course the insurance companies do it because they can both leverage and mitigate risk, which has nothing to do with the topic but of course insurance companies conduct the transaction because they feel there is an opportunity to provide a service and make a profit.
I feel it is slimy for a business to purchase an insurance product against the life of a general employee. Now a high level, high salary, crucial management member, that I can understand.
now you are talking in circles, you say the businesses do it bc they make money off it, but the insurance companies do it to make a profit?
if i pay $X for $Y return, how can X>Y and Y>X? i must have been out of school when they taught that lesson
Of course the insurance companies do it because they can both leverage and mitigate risk, which has nothing to do with the topic but of course insurance companies conduct the transaction because they feel there is an opportunity to provide a service and make a profit.
I feel it is slimy for a business to purchase an insurance product against the life of a general employee. Now a high level, high salary, crucial management member, that I can understand.
now you are talking in circles, you say the businesses do it bc they make money off it, but the insurance companies do it to make a profit?
if i pay $X for $Y return, how can X>Y and Y>X? i must have been out of school when they taught that lesson
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so. It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly. Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality. Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it. As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.