How Life Insurance Morphed Into a Corporate Finance Tool [Janitors Insurance and Sept. 11]

The Wall Street Journal ^ | Monday, December 30, 2002 | ELLEN E. SCHULTZ and THEO FRANCIS

[TroutStalker]

After the Sept. 11 terror attacks, some of the first life-insurance payouts went not to the victims' families, but to their employers.

Unknown to most people outside the insurance world, corporations now are among the largest beneficiaries of life insurance, collecting on policies they purchased on the lives of employees.

[groanup]

"I wonder how Congressmen would feel if the Executive Branch took out $10 million dollar life insurance policy on everyone in Congress, to help the American People recover from any tragic loss. You'd see a law passed against this practice in 10 minutes"

Why?

[Reeses]

The only time someone gets murdered is when a murderer decides the murderee is worth more to them dead than alive. To prevent getting murdered, avoid such a situation.

[groanup]

"The only time someone gets murdered is when a murderer decides the murderee is worth more to them dead than alive. To prevent getting murdered, avoid such a situation."

People also avoid getting murdered because it is against moral and legal law.

[CurlyDave]

It really depends on what the status of ex-employees are - if you are required to pay their family pension benefits, health benefits, etc. if they die, then continuing to insure them might make sense.

One of the most easily envisioned abuses of this type of insurance is that it increases the incentive to cut back on health benefits for retired employees. Save two ways--less cost now, plus income when they die earlier.

[Reeses]

Clinton rose to the highest most powerful office in the world, the very top. I wouldn't trust his morals or adherence to printed law farther than I could throw his lard ass. I would not want him, or someone like him, to have a life insurance payoff upon my death, nor a motive to make it sooner.

[groanup]

His motives were power and sex.

[Reeses]

Arkancide? Ordering cruise missles into Al Quida's tents to get Monica off the front page? Smooth move, that one.

[bvw]

Mixing real apples and wax apples in the same bowl of a paragraph. (I remember one day biting into someone's fake-apple out of a beautiful bowl on a nice table in a very nice sunroom a nice home of a woman my dad was visiting. Yikes! She shreiked as loud as my teeth grated on that bastard thing.)

THE WHOLE SCHEME IS A WAY TO MAKE MONEY AND AVOID CONFISCATORY TAXES.

Okay, that's a statement of fact, or close enough in all purposes to be accepted as one.

IT HURTS NO ONE.

This is opinion passed as fact. Not even opinion, really -- just a fancy, a wished for belief. Opinions have stronger roots.

More likely -- and the article suggests so -- that harm is being done. You just are chosing to be ignorant -- why don't you go and look into it, being as you may be invloved in the business close enough to assay the situtation under a diligent reckoning. Don't allow the prejudice of current status quo and business ways to guide you completely though -- be open to the counter argument. Be thorough.

[groanup]

"You just are chosing to be ignorant..."

Thank-you for recognizing that I have that choice. Too bad you don't.

[bvw]

You just picked the one slight in the whole reply to rest your reply on. Your choice.

[groanup]

"Your choice."

I also have another choice. End of discussion. Now go polish your debate team trophy.