Posted on 07/03/2007 8:28:15 AM PDT by Excuse_My_Bellicosity
You mean my Kelloggs Frosted Flakes are from China and not BC, MI?
The vitamins sprayed on the flakes ARE from China.
“...the Internal Revenue Service has labeled the practice a sham and has successfully litigated the issue against several corporations.”
***************************
discostu:I’m not saying they weren’t shunting income to non-taxable streams, I’m saying that’s not illegal. Tax avoidance is not illegal, you are allowed to use every loophole in the code, that’s why they’re there.
***************************
the IRS says otherwise... insurance must have a legitimate purpose.
“tax exempt nature of of insurance benefits”.
I’m just sayin’. If it was your business you were running, with thousands of employees or whatever, I’d bet you would think it’s a great idea. Corporations do all kinds of things you and I can’t really do, I’ll give you that. Depreciation is actually income, etc.
Then let them go after WM. At that point WM will pay, either way I don’t really give a crap. It is everyone’s duty to pay as little in taxes as they can legally get away with, I don’t have a problem with anyone that does that, if they crossed the line into illegality then the IRS can go bust them.
Funny, I had no idea that this sort of thing was standard practice for businesses. And if there’s nothing wrong with it, then what’s the current lawsuit about? And why would Wal-Mart be settling $5-$10 million lawsuits instead of fighting it?
Lots of unanswered questions here and a guy sure can’t trust the media to present it without bias.
“Despite protestations from the community and workforce, the historic hometown plant in Battle Creek was closed and 550 jobs were eliminated.” http://www.answers.com/topic/kellogg-company?cat=biz-fin .
They had recently closed part of the plant, firing about half of the employees. The 550 were what was left after that.
“...Kellogg took the extra step of scrutinizing the ingredients it does import from China, such as vitamins, honey, cinnamon, water chestnuts and freeze-dried strawberries.” http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003769764_chinaprod01.html .
Enjoy!
If it’s ethical to take out life insurance policies on employees without their knowledge or consent, is it also ethical to take out life insurance policies on customers without their knowledge or consent? Walmart has a bigger financial interest in any given customer than they do in an employee. How much revenue do they lose when a customer dies?
Notice I’m not asking what the law allows. The debate all along has been the ethical implications. Let’s stick to that.
I have worked for wal mart for the last 4 years.
The info has its own paragraph and is quite clear on my hire packet. And yes! There is a little box next to it.
How many people wouldn’t be bothered by somebody taking out life insurance policies on their kids? No big deal, right? (Until it starts hitting close to home.)
The Privacy Act of 1974 says that I have to be notified in writing of the use of my social security number. Wal-Mart had better have letters via registered mail on file. They already settled one lawsuit for $5 million and another for $10 million, so I’m finding it hard to believe that nothing wrong is being done here.
I think you’ve got a point there. Hm.
Like someone else mentioned too, I don’t trust a news organization to soundbyte this even remotely correctly, either.
Not according to Myers:
He said the company stopped taking out the policies in 1995 but continued to receive payouts on employees who died, even those who had left Wal-Mart.If Walmart is still doing this, why would Myers (who is suing them) claim they've stopped?
Per Myers client: “The Armatrout lawsuit says the policies were all written in Georgia, where the laws allowed such policies to be obtained. “
Different state laws plus a decade of new laws on or off the books. That they insure me doesn't bother me a bit.
I smell attorneys wanting money for nothing.
You work for them so of course you will defend them, your paycheck depends on it. (/WM basher logic)
Then the ethical thing is to question any and all companies that participate in this practice and not just single out WalMart. Of course doing that would take some ethics on the part of the writer and the lawyer and would take all the fun out of WalMart bashing..........
Yes, they should have named the other companies that conceal this practice from their employees. The author’s failure to name them doesn’t make it ethical to take out insurance policies on people without their knowledge or consent.
Most people would probably consent to the insurance policy. But it is still unethical to take out a policy on someone’s life without their consent. It is even more unethical to conceal the policy from them.
Interesting non-response. Does Walmart still take out policies on their employees, or not? According to the lawyer suing them, they don’t. I doubt he would lie to cover for them.
I agree it would be unethical to do it without consent, but according to the article and at least one WM employee on this thread the employees are/were told and did have to consent to it.
What bothers me here is that although the article states that at least 25% of Fortune 500 companies engage in this practice, the article and many people on this thread just automatically pile on WalMart.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.