Dead Peasant Policies

[goofyfish]

The Houston Chronicle reports that Walmart and other companies are buying so-called "Dead Peasant" insurance policies for their Texas employees, in violation of state law. They don't tell the employees they are doing this, and silently collect the benefits should anyone kick the bucket.

Very thoughtful. And just one more reason
I refuse to buy anything from these bastards.

Peace.

 

[Adam]

Walmart huh? I'll have to remeber not to shop there next time I head over to the USA. Do you know if they own any Australian chains?

 

[goofyfish]

With the exception of a few locations in Guam, the Virgin Islands and a couple other remote areas, I am pretty sure they are located in the U.S. only.

Peace.

 

[Chagur]

Thanks, goofy ..

For yet another example of the beneficence of American Capitalism
at its finest ... Fewer taxes, less regulation! And all will benefit!

Take care

 

[Bob39]

Dead Peasant Insurance Policies

It isn't just Wal Mart that is doing that. It is a rather common practice in many states by many corporations. It is an extension of the "key man" insurance concept.

What gets left out in these kinds of news reports is that it is the result of excessive taxation. The life policies are exempted from the tax man, so it is a prudent move to reduce the amount of taxes the corporation has to pay. The less taxes it pays, the more competitive it can be. The more competitive, the more jobs it will produce and the lower will be the cost of the products we all buy.

We would all be better off if there were no corporate income taxes. No corporation actually pays them in the long run; we customers pay those taxes in the form of higher prices for the goods we buy. But, the Democrats in America love that kind of taxation because they can hide from the consumer what is really going on.

 

[Asguard]

So far i've seen people bag income tax and now company taxes. Where is the goverment surpose to get its money?

I mean i know your system is different to ours but the local goverments have to pay for:

Local roads
garbage
sports facilitys
parks
libarys
ect

States pays for:
state courts
chip in for some local projects
police
roads
schools
ect

Ferdal goverment pays for:
Defence
fedral justice system
universitys
health
socal securitys (thats the dole, aged pentions, war service and war widows pentions, disablilty pentions)
ect

This all costs money and it has to come from somewhere

 

[Bob39]

In the U.S., we have way too much taxation. A large portion of those taxes go to pay for totally worthless govt. programs that make things worse, not better. The Democrats love that though, because they are really buying the loyalty of govt. employees who will vote for them in the next election.

Walter Williams has estimated that 2/3 of what the Federal govt. does is illegal by the limits that the Constitution places on the powers of the Federal Govt. Eliminate the waste and illegal spending and we would have to pay far less taxes than we do now.

 

[Bob39]

The U.S. Federal Income tax system is one of the worst monstrosities ever devised by politicians, almost 80 thousand pages long. Even the IRS does not understand it and gives wrong answers over 50% of the time.

Either a flat tax (like the new 13% one in Russia that already has that economy booming for the first time since the fall of the Soviet Union), or a national sales tax should totally replace all income taxes. That would go a long way towards getting rid of all the worthless govt. programs for special interest groups.

 

[wet1]

Not to mention if you eliminated all the special interests and corporation loop holes and lot of the corporations that now pay zero taxes or the next thing to it, would bear their share. This would go a long way towards reducing how much Joe Blow pays for his property taxes, personal income, and state taxes. Joe Blow will still pay for the corporation's taxes through product markup but it will be harder to justify that mystery price increase.

 

[asc_11]

Getting back to the original topic, I work for Wal-Mart. I hate them just as much as anyone else, but right now I'm just using them to pay the bills. I don't know what was said in the Houston Chronical article, but if you do your homework, you will find that Wal-Mart hasn't used "dead peasant" policies in almost seven years.

They started using them in the early 90s when they were most popular as a means of sheltering income from taxes, turning liabilities into assets, and funding costly executive benifits. In 1995 Wal-Mart decided they weren't making any money from these policies and dropped the program. They haven't used it since then.

Although I do not agree with a lot of Wal-Mart's business practices, they are generally "ethical" in their policies. I find it hard to believe that they would out right break the law in Texas by using "dead peasant" policies again. I don't know exactly what the Houston Chrinical reported, but I believe they were either listening to rumors or were misinformed. It wouldn't be the first time the media reported something untrue.

 

[goofyfish]

Welcome to SciForums, asc!

I don't know what was said in the Houston Chronical article, but if you do your homework, you will find that Wal-Mart hasn't used "dead peasant" policies in almost seven years.

Perhaps you mean no new policies?

Wal-Mart launched a program in 1994 promising its employees a $5,000 death benefit. The company was so determined its workers should take advantage of the program that it threatened any who turned it down with the forfeiture of their health insurance. What the company did not tell employees was that it had taken out life insurance policies on them, with Wal-Mart as the beneficiary.

Lawyers in Texas are mounting a class-action suit against Wal-Mart to reclaim the benefits—as much as $64,000 apiece—for the estates of dead employees. According to the Houston Chronicle, 5 to 6 million corporate serfs have life insurance policies held on them by Fortune 500 magnates, and Wal-Mart holds some 350,000.

I find it hard to believe that they would out right break the law...

Surely you jest.

It wouldn't be the first time the media reported something untrue.

Nor would it be the first time a large corporation broke the law.


Peace.