laurenc319 Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 lots if interesting info in these charts, particularly the one entitled " Where's the Money " http://www.forbes.com/archive/forbes/2002/0513/090chart.html 58% of torts dollars go to someone other then the tort victim It seems to me the system is broke and needs fixing. Larry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 lots if interesting info in these charts, particularly the one entitled " Where's the Money " http://www.forbes.com/archive/forbes/2002/0513/090chart.html 58% of torts dollars go to someone other then the tort victim It seems to me the system is broke and needs fixing. Larry Maybe the tort-feasors could just go ahead and pay up, instead of forcing people to hire attorneys and file lawsuits. Edit: Another thought on that. Wait 'til someone blows a red light and plows into you, causing a neck or back injury. See how you feel when they tell you you're faking it. They'll also say the light was green. I see it ALL the time, bro' - ALL the time. Insurance companies and their attorneys are ruthless dogs - alot of the time. I've seen them bring some very decent people to tears. I've seen scumbug plaintiffs and plaintiff's attorneys, too. I think the players are balanced, but the rules are becoming more skewed in favor of defendants. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laurenc319 Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 "Golly! You mean 2.4% of our GDP is just sucked right out of the economy" The short answer to that is yes. Everyone pays the price. For the economy it's a negative feedback system. It doesn't matter if it's me or some who won a judgement against me who has and spends the money. The dollars are fed into the economy and the economy is paying a 2.4% premimum to run. The price paid is 1000 dollars a person. An average family of 4 with an average income of 68000 dollars with 75% (51000 dollars) of that as disposable after all taxes are paid pays $ 4000 more for the same good and services then if the tort system was nonexistant. That's 8% of their disposable income. That's too much, Larry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 "Golly! You mean 2.4% of our GDP is just sucked right out of the economy" The short answer to that is yes. Everyone pays the price. For the economy it's a negative feedback system. It doesn't matter if it's me or some who won a judgement against me who has and spends the money. The dollars are fed into the economy and the economy is paying a 2.4% premimum to run. The price paid is 1000 dollars a person. An average family of 4 with an average income of 68000 dollars with 75% (51000 dollars) of that as disposable after all taxes are paid pays $ 4000 more for the same good and services then if the tort system was nonexistant. That's 8% of their disposable income. That's too much, Larry Incorrect reasoning, but for your argument's sake, I suppose we should consider the tort victim should suck up his losses/injuries as sort of a personal "contribution" to our country. Maybe at least the IRS could give him a charitable contribution deduction for not suing the drunk 18-wheeler driver who crashed into him and severed his arm off. Drunk-a$$ driver escapes responsibility, and victim donates his arm for the good of the company. What about responsibility? I hear the Republicans preach "responsibility" - personal responsibility - when it comes to people taking care of themselves to get a job, save, etc. What about personal responsibility to compensate someone you injure? Why is that Republican-minded conservatives are so ready to escape responsibility on that end? OOh! Ooh! Field Goal! USC - 7; UT -3. Back to the tube! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laurenc319 Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 I don't think it's incorrect reasoning. For example. We all pay for liability insurance, auto, homeowners, and if we own a business or are a professional for corporate insurance or professional malpractice insurance. The higher premiums means less disposable income to spend on goods or services and less money to stimulate the economy. In the case of a small business less money to distribute to the employees as income or benefits or less employees. The rising insurance rates corporations are experiencing are passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices. Goods and services cost more, demand is decreased when prices are high and therefore less goods and services are produced. Corporations don't grow as fast and less jobs are produced. Corporations become less competitive compared to foreign corporations, which don't incur these nonproductive costs, and thus sell less on the world markets .... less growth & fewer jobs. Insurance does not cover all of corporate liability and reserves are set aside to cover the cost. Less money therefore for R&D and product innovation and less growth. Less money for dividend distributions to shareholders. Less money to stimulate the economy. A corporation which experiences a large class action settlement or threat of one ( take the drug company Merk as an example ) usually experiences a decline in stock values. 50% of Americans own stocks. Again a loss of income and less disposable income to stimulate the economy. Lower stock prices for a company means the company has a diminished ability to raise capital for growth or R&D. Less corporate growth and fewer jobs. BTW Texas is ahead 16 to 7. I'm with you on this one. Larry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 At last, we agree! Hook 'em, baby! Half-time. UT 16; USC 10. But that dough's going to insurance companies, who have employees, who earn pay-checks, who buy things from the companies who pay premiums - and they have shareholders, who receive didvidens, who buy things from comapnies who pay premiums. If the economy started out with $1MM, and you shuffled all the money around into premiums, attorneys - whatever example you want - in the end, the same $1MM is in the economy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laurenc319 Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 At last, we agree! Hook 'em, baby! Half-time. UT 16; USC 10. But that dough's going to insurance companies, who have employees, who earn pay-checks, who buy things from the companies who pay premiums - and they have shareholders, who receive, who buy things from companies who pay premiums. If the economy started out with $1MM, and you shuffled all the money around into premiums, attorneys - whatever example you want - in the end, the same $1MM is in the economy. Yes but 2.4 % is nonproductive, it's going around in circles supporting the tort system, not the economy. It's late here in PA. I'm going to watch the game and go to bed. You can have the last word. A good debate. Thanks for being civil. good listening Larry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 Last word: Enjoyed it! Good talking to you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.