I've been subscribing to the Journal for years and this is exactly the kind of story they like to run. There is something grotesque about private companies exploiting an insurable interest in employees' lives for financial gain. The Journal isn't trying to blame corporations for being motivated by a financial incentive provided by the tax code. They are merely pointing out a bizzare consequence of tax policy that would surprise and disgust most people.
Fascinating analysis, Romulus. I think SBprone has a point: it shows how big government creates upsetting and seductive incentives for otherwise decent people.
The potential litgation from this could be massive - what happens if there is a plant explosion and it can arguably be ascribed to negligent maintenance? Or if the insurance death benefit continually exceeds the benefits that company health and pension funds pay out?
They are playing with legal fire.
They are merely pointing out a bizzare consequence of tax policy that would surprise and disgust most people. That is how I read it as well. I sensed, in addition, a touch of "those d-mned greedy b-----ds" in the article, so appealing to the current sentiment. Such as when they describe a banker VP that was "appalled" by the described. The writer says in the next sentence that that person has left shortly thereafter,
as if in response to that insurance practice. The statement is strong and calls for a balancing opinion but none provided; instead, the reader is left with a feeling "this is so appalling that even those involved are disgusted."
Nevertheless, it well may be that I was overly sensitive here. I am only glad if that is the case: I would prefer having been wrong myself rather than seeing the deterioration of The Journal.
Thanks for your note.