Job creators? Tax cuts? Unions? Health care? Social Security? HA!

[Scat]

As for outsourcing, I think they should be banned from selling their products in this country. If you can't hire Americans, you shouldn't be selling to Americans either.

Are you willing to pay several times over for your cell phone? How about your TV? Your proposal would almost assuredly skyrocket the cost of many goods sold in the US. I understand your argument but don't think you understand the consequences of said proposals. It's much more complex.

 

[SaltyDawg]

Are you willing to pay several times over for your cell phone? How about your TV? Your proposal would almost assuredly skyrocket the cost of many goods sold in the US. I understand your argument but don't think you understand the consequences of said proposals. It's much more complex.

I think you'd see American companies emerge without higher prices.

Using your cell phone example... Motorola phones are made in Phoenix, iPhones are made in Asia. They are priced the same.

 

[The Thriller]

Are you willing to pay several times over for your cell phone? How about your TV? Your proposal would almost assuredly skyrocket the cost of many goods sold in the US. I understand your argument but don't think you understand the consequences of said proposals. It's much more complex.

More threats based on hot air. More scare tactics in order to keep the handouts a comin. Gotta love this anti-union, anti-public school, legalization of bribery (since corporations are now considered to have the same rights as citizens), pro-balanced budget amendment push that we've seen the past few years. Complete corporate takeover, is what they want. When they fail, even more of us lemmings will be told to help them out and bail them out... Bye bye middle class America. In the future, only two classes will survive. Those who own the businesses, and those who work their pathetic wages.

Kinda like how the world would end if we let the Bush tax cuts expire. Or how the world was going to end if we didn't invade Iraq. Or how the only way we're going to survive is if we pump a few more barrels of oil from ANWR. Or how our military was going to fall apart if we closed just a few military bases. Or how the world is going to end if we actually start investing in green technology. Or how health care is going into the crapper if we socialize it (even though it's become worse and worse with more and more "free market" principles being applied.

The list goes on and on...

My oh my, our economy must have really sucked under Clinton. Taxes were higher back then. And we all know that higher taxes automatically means bad while lower taxes automatically means good.

Lets just keep the status quo... Or better yet, give businesses who are making record profits more subsidies and tax breaks. Keep giving the rich more and more and I'm sure they'll all help us out because of their caring hearts.

I believe taxes should only be paid by those making 200k or less. Especially those in that 0-30k. They suck anyway. Taxing them more will prevent them from spending money on worthless things like food, shelter, and cell phones.

You're right, these issues are pretty damn complex. Which is weird that we only seem to be taking out our frustration on teachers, firemen, and unions. Yet ignore the billions squandered by banks too big to fail and wall street crooks. We are all of a sudden concerned over deficits when for 8 years they didn't matter. Wars are free? Ineffective tax cuts need to be extended? The free market has a funny thing to explode the cost of things too, see health care for example. We pay soooo much more than any other country on the face of the planet. Why? Because damn, health care is pretty important. Oil will eventually run out. But health care? Quite possibly the biggest gold mine in the history of the universe. Doctors, insurances, hospitals, and other investors want to provide as few services as possible and charge as much as possible.

Of course, to partisan hacks, free market=good anything else=socialism,hitler, osama, muslimism (damn them for considering that mosque in the same country as 9/11), satan, socialism, communism, stalin, satan, and socialism.

As Americans, we need to think outside the box. We aren't the best at everything ever.

We desperately need to turn this car around from the free market noose that is quickly wrapping around our very necks. Sometimes the free market is good. Other times, it's terrible. Right now, we need more government intervention, not less.

 

[SaltyDawg]

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to The Thriller again."

Great rant. I think that sums up how more and more people are starting to feel everyday.

 

[sirkickyass]

I am trying to determine if the CTJ fabricated the claim (you said it was fabricated in an earlier post), if the CTJ just did not understand what they were seeing and everyone else ran with it (like Sirkickyass said in an earlier post), or if the CTJ was technically correct that Verizon didn't pay any taxes, but Verizon deferred them to a future date like the Wall Street Journal said.

Well the number the CTJ is going with is that they received $705 million net in tax rebates to pay an effective tax rate of negative 5.9%. That 705 million number appears in one line of the financial statement in note 13 under the heading "The components of the provision (benefit) for income taxes are as follows:" which is broken out separately from before provision (benefit) taxes.

From what I can tell, there is no corresponding number in the finances that would move a stated $2.4 billion payment down to a net $705 million rebate. The deferred taxes explanation doesn't seem to be right because those taxes are broken out separately in note 13 from the "current taxes" number that the CTJ is citing.

The line-item that the CTJ seems to be citing as the bottom line federal tax burden also bears a weird relationship for corporate earnings in that the number is negative in 2010 and 2009 when Verizon made money and positive in 2008 when Verizon lost money. It's possible that these represent debits and credits on Verizon's carried losses but frankly we'd have to ask an accountant or someone in the finance staff of the company. Even CFO's can't always accurately tell what another company's financial statements mean (and yes, I know that sounds crazy but it's true).

All I'm saying is that the number appears to cherry picked from one line item and decontextualized from a lot of other numbers that indicate a positive tax burden. A little digging and you can see all the components of the approximately $2.4 billion tax figure, including what appears to be a very large charge related to Medicare Part D. The CTJ report isn't clear on what they did. Let's just say that the evidence of Verizon's tax flouting isn't immediately and obviously convincing when you examine the primary materials.

 

[babe]

OK, so I looked over the 10-K too. I even use "income averaging" sometimes in my taxes because I have to. When you have a huge loss one year and are allowed by law to average it all out over a certain number of years, and some yayhoo group can't understand that it's legal, and just, it is just a pain to live in the same country with those idiots. Well, maybe I should develop more patience, sometimes I need it from others, too.

The only way we can actually know exactly what they did is gain access to the bank records and tax filings/checks that changed hands between the IRS and Verizon. But just seeing those losses on the books from the third year back I know their entire accounting staff would be replaced if they did not file a tax return taking advantage of the laws in place as they are written.

kudos for kicky and pearl on this discussion.

 

[LogGrad98]

I believe taxes should only be paid by those making 200k or less. Especially those in that 0-30k. They suck anyway. Taxing them more will prevent them from spending money on worthless things like food, shelter, and cell phones.

You do realize that the way you laid this out is pretty much exactly opposite of reality, right? Those above 200k in income pay the vast lion’s share of all tax dollars collected, while those under 30k pay none at all, and more often than not get money back. The one group that does get nailed, on a percentage basis, is those in between.

You're right, these issues are pretty damn complex. Which is weird that we only seem to be taking out our frustration on teachers, firemen, and unions. Yet ignore the billions squandered by banks too big to fail and wall street crooks.

Agreed 100%. We should have let the banks and auto industry collapse. I do not say that tongue in cheek, I mean it. That is what happens in a free market. These moves were made by government, not the market. In the market these companies would have fallen apart and other companies would have risen to fill the gap.

We are all of a sudden concerned over deficits when for 8 years they didn't matter. Wars are free? Ineffective tax cuts need to be extended?

Oversimplification. The moves made to reduce taxes were to try to halt the oncoming recessions. We were not in recession until 2007. Also, the debt was not an issue when the economy was expanding, now that we have stalled out it is an issue. Kind of like personal debt. The fact that I had 3 car payments didn’t matter much, since I had budgeted for them, until I got laid off. Then it mattered. Should we have worried about the debt earlier? Of course, just like anyone should probably plan for the possibility of a layoff, I suppose. That is something the government, and the individual, typically do not do very well.

The free market has a funny thing to explode the cost of things too, see health care for example. We pay soooo much more than any other country on the face of the planet. Why? Because damn, health care is pretty important. Oil will eventually run out. But health care? Quite possibly the biggest gold mine in the history of the universe. Doctors, insurances, hospitals, and other investors want to provide as few services as possible and charge as much as possible.

This just shows you do not understand the situation around medical care very well. As with many other problems, this is driven by both government and outside factors more than the market itself.

Do you know what the average doctor pays in malpractice insurance? While they vary by state, they kind of follow the political leanings in those states. In states where frivolous lawsuits are more likely to result in a payout, the cost can be substantially higher. Low cost states run anywhere from $5k per year to well over $50k per year depending on the specialty. High cost states can see common specialties, such as OB/GYN, paying upwards of $130k PER YEAR in malpractice insurance alone.

Where should that money come from?

A doctor will spend far more on education than most other career paths. We typically agree that higher education deserves higher pay. So with the amount of education a doctor receives, should he or she not benefit from it in some way?

I am curious where you think those windfall profits are in the medical industry? Doctors make a high wage, but not obscenely so, and not out of line with the education and responsibility required. General practitioners make $100-$150k per year, give or take. Specialties, which increases the cost of education as well as the personal liability, make more. Oncologists typically make close to the top, with earnings in the $300k per year range. Neurosurgeons and heart surgeons are similar, and can go up from there.

Hospitals are not cash cows. Most hospitals are owned by either non-profit concerns (e.g. churches), or by the insurance companies themselves. The non-profit centers take advantage of the tax status to make sure bottom-lines stay in the black. Insurance companies own hospitals so they can have tighter control over the money they have to pay out, minimizing losses. There are some hospitals that have very high margins, but they are a small percentage of all hospitals in the country.

Speaking of insurance companies and health plans, you do realize that as an industry they have very tight margins, often in the 2-7% range.

In the medical world, pharmaceuticals make the highest margins. I think something needs to be done there above all.

Lastly, I am not sure how much we really want to cut into this industry. The reason we have some of the best care in the world is it pays to enter the medical field. Take that away and medicine goes the same route as public education, and you see where that has gotten us.

Yes, the medical field needs reform. Of course they are not saints, and I am sure there are groups out there taking advantage of monopolistic situations, but there are many more forces at work than simply free market forces, not the least of which is government.

As Americans, we need to think outside the box. We aren't the best at everything ever.
We desperately need to turn this car around from the free market noose that is quickly wrapping around our very necks. Sometimes the free market is good. Other times, it's terrible. Right now, we need more government intervention, not less.

So, it is government intervention that started this mess (deregulation and subsidies in the late 90’s of mortgage companies which set up the housing bubble, etc.). Government intervention bailing out the banks made it worse. And your solution is…more government intervention?

I agree something needs to be done, but what the government does is far more important than how much they do. If all we are going to get is what they have been doing for the past 12-14 years then I want none of it.

 

[One Brow]

I agree with much of the last post. I only have a couple of small diagreements.

Agreed 100%. We should have let the banks and auto industry collapse. I do not say that tongue in cheek, I mean it. That is what happens in a free market. These moves were made by government, not the market. In the market these companies would have fallen apart and other companies would have risen to fill the gap.

When that happens, you get depressions, far worse than what you see today. Would that really have been a better outcome?

The moves made to reduce taxes were to try to halt the oncoming recessions.

Once halted, the reductions should have been dropped. You save when the money is coming in strongly, not weakly.

In states where frivolous lawsuits are more likely to result in a payout, the cost can be substantially higher.

Truly frivolous lawsuits get rejected by judges. Juries are made mostly of people who hate frivolous lawsuits. The lawsuits that get big awards are not frivolous.

So, it is government intervention that started this mess (deregulation and subsidies ...

Subsidies are government intervention, but deregulation is the the opposite of that.

 

[Gyp Rosetti]

Your the trophy husband... arencha serp?

Hardly. She's just smart as **** and even smarter at her job. If I ever get the sac to propose, I'll definitely be the one marrying up.

 

[moevillini]

Hardly. She's just smart as **** and even smarter at her job. If I ever get the sac to propose, I'll definitely be the one marrying up.

I don't think you understand the concept of the "trophy" spouse - - they're generally thought of as dumb, but good looking - and marry for money, status and prestige.

 

[Scat]

Truly frivolous lawsuits get rejected by judges. Juries are made mostly of people who hate frivolous lawsuits. The lawsuits that get big awards are not frivolous.

Yet the Dr. being sued still has to kick in a non-refundable deductible every time he is sued and activates his malpractice insurance. This alone drives up costs. Every time a frivolous lawsuit is filed it doesn't matter if it is simply dismissed by the judge or if it goes to trial and the jury does not award the plaintiff, it drives up the cost and takes money out of everyone's pocket except for the clown filing the suit.

The party filing the frivolous lawsuit should have to pay the defendant's fees including the deductible and any lost time at work.

 

[The Thriller]

Um, tort reform accounts for less than 5 percent of the total of health care. It would save hardly anything.

Here's a book written by people that actually know what they're talking about. If you folks want to be informed on our health care situation, you might want to give it a read. Just remember, just because the reality of the situation is opposed to your political views, please don't throw out the facts.

https://www.amazon.com/Critical-Condition-America-Business-Medicine/dp/0385504543

Health care executives pulling in millions in bonuses for denying treatment to the sick. Doctors tell of being second-guessed and undermined by health care insurers; nurses recount chilling tales of hospital meltdowns; patients explain how they’ve been victimized by a system that is meant to care for them. Drug companies profit by selling pills in the same manner that Madison Avenue sells soap, while Wall Street rakes in billions by building up and then tearing down health care businesses. And politicians pass legislation perpetuating the injustices and out-right fraud the system encourages.

Just because the free market is great for people selling cars, doesn't mean it's great for something so necessary, like health care. The whole point of free market capitalism is to provide as few services as possible as expensive as possible. Make profit. But making profit in health care is like one joining the navy because of their fear of water.

Those who need health care the most, aren't good investments. Skyrocketing prices while excluding those who most need health care, isn't the answer.

Health care isn't and should never be treated like a commodity. Oil or slurpees? Sure, whatever. Health care? Hell no.

 

[moevillini]

How long do we let ourselves be held hostage under some false promise that "job creators" have to be paid off in order to bless us with their good graces? These "job creators" are not creating any jobs right now, while they have been enjoying low tax rates for some time...

Government redistributing money in favor of the rich/big corporations is good business. In fact, it's being called as necessary to our economy. AS if the economy sucked when taxes were higher under Clinton. If lower taxes always meant better economy, why not just rid ourselves of taxes anyway?

Government redistributing money in favor of everyone else, is called Socialism.

My question is, and I would love for someone on the right to respond, but what's the point in giving more money out to big businesses when everyone else doesn't have any money to buy their products?

In other words, why would a business invest money in new workers to create jobs, when there isn't a necessary demand for that increase?

You actually hit on something here. It is a bit of a circular logic in terms of the current corporate tax debate. Tax breaks, bringing money back from offshore, or whatever your particular tax angst to grind is the fact remains that this is largely a consumer balance sheet problem, not our garden variety recession, hence the failure or lack of response to many of the actions taken by the govt. and the fed.

there's no jobs because there's no demand, there's no demand because folks have no wealth...

even in the best of circumstances, jobs don't create wealth - for most of us, they only create income which is spent for the most part covering the necessities

where's the wealth going to come from, now that folks can't draw it out of their houses and they're not going into debt the way they were?


anyhow, relative to some of the other comments in this thread, I heard something yesterday in a discussion about the European situation, more specifically the situations with the riots in Britain - - it was that in Britain, the lower classes look with suspicion on the upper classes while the upper class has pretty much ignored the lower class, whereas in the US, the upper class looks with suspicion on the lower class. In the framework of the entire discussion, it made a lot of sense.

 

[The Thriller]

You do realize that the way you laid this out is pretty much exactly opposite of reality, right?

Yes, I understand. Cuz I was being sarcastic. Why should Warren Buffet's secretary pay more in taxes than he? I feel like taxes need to be increased all around. Just let the bush tax cuts expire. Done and done.

Agreed 100%. We should have let the banks and auto industry collapse.

We would all be screwed right now. How long do you think it would have taken for the market to "correct itself" and for us to have near full employment once again? How much more or less in debt wwould our government be?

The moves made to reduce taxes were to try to halt the oncoming recessions. We were not in recession until 2007.

False. I don't believe this is true.

the moves to reduce taxes were to:

A. Give handouts to Bush's base, the have mores, remember?
B. Starve the beast. Bush's far right cronies felt like the "only way" to stop government from expanding was to eliminate surpluses. Something that even one of Reagan's advisers disputes:

https://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2010/11/26/Bartlett-Starve-The-Beast.aspx#page1

prime reason why we have a budget deficit problem in this country is because Republicans almost universally believe in a nonsensical idea called starve the beast (STB). By this theory, the one and only thing they need to do to be fiscally responsible is to cut taxes. They need not lift a finger to cut spending because it will magically come down, just as a child will reduce her spending if her allowance is cut — the precise analogy used by Ronald Reagan to defend this doctrine in a Feb. 5, 1981, address to the nation.

It ought to be obvious from the experience of the George W. Bush administration that cutting taxes has no effect whatsoever even on restraining spending, let alone actually bringing it down. Just to remind people, Bush inherited a budget surplus of 1.3 percent of the gross domestic product from Bill Clinton in fiscal year 2001. The previous year, revenues had been 20.6 percent of GDP, spending had been 18.2 percent, and there had been a budget surplus of 2.4 percent.

When Bush took office in January 2001, we were already well into fiscal year 2001, which began on Oct. 1, 2000. He immediately pushed for a huge tax cut, which Congress enacted. In 2002 and 2003, Bush demanded still more tax cuts, even as the economy showed no signs of having been stimulated by his previous tax cuts. The tax cuts and the slow economy caused revenues to evaporate. By 2004, they were down to 16.1 percent of GDP. The postwar average is about 18.5 percent of GDP.

This just shows you do not understand the situation around medical care very well. As with many other problems, this is driven by both government and outside factors more than the market itself.

Ok.... But it's mostly driven by the market itself. As we've pushed for a more free market approach to health care, our system has worsened. Those in charge make more money, increase profits by excluding those who are their least profitable investments, and use their new profits for more assets and lobbying. The lobbying helps get rid of more regulation and favorable conditions. They use these in turn, to screw over more people and increase the costs once again.

Health insurances? They love this, they want money.
Doctors? They love this, they want money.
Pharmaceuticals? They love this, they want money.
Wall Street investors? Love this, they want money.
Even Medical Schools Love this, they want money. Keep the number of schools down, enrollment squeezed, and you can increase the price of school exponentially. Thus, increasing your own revenues whose debt will be passed onto doctors who then pass their costs onto everyone else....

As you can see, a free market system is quite honestly, the worst system for health care possible. Everyone trying to make profit at everyone else's expense.

So, it is government intervention that started this mess

The government bought off by big corporations had its hand in this mess. But lets not forget the big corporations, banks, wall street crooks, big oil, etc that had more influence. And they still do!!! What the hell has changed since our near market collapse?

Class warfare is still alive and well. The rich are kicking everyone's ***! Look at the media today! Teachers, unions, firemen, police officers, joe sixpack, people on food stamps, etc are being blamed for our financial situation. We are being taught to be angry at teachers making 30k per year and wanting a decent pension while ignore the billions being ripped off by the rich in subsidies, tax cuts, favorable legislation, and war profiteering.

The solution that we're being told??? Give the rich more power and money, that's the only way out of this mess....

How and why?

Again, job creators aren't those who own the corporations. Job creators are those who buy their crap. Give bill gates 10 dollars and if no one buys his stuff, he has no corporation and cannot create jobs. For 10 1/2 year now, we've been giving out handouts to those rich job creators to create jobs. They either haven't or have moved overseas. Why? Because the rest of us either don't have jobs, are underpaid, or are barely making ends meet. Jobs cannot be created when there isn't a demand for them to hire and increase production enough to justify the new hire.

 

[SaltyDawg]

Well the number the CTJ is going with is that they received $705 million net in tax rebates to pay an effective tax rate of negative 5.9%. That 705 million number appears in one line of the financial statement in note 13 under the heading "The components of the provision (benefit) for income taxes are as follows:" which is broken out separately from before provision (benefit) taxes.

From what I can tell, there is no corresponding number in the finances that would move a stated $2.4 billion payment down to a net $705 million rebate. The deferred taxes explanation doesn't seem to be right because those taxes are broken out separately in note 13 from the "current taxes" number that the CTJ is citing.

The line-item that the CTJ seems to be citing as the bottom line federal tax burden also bears a weird relationship for corporate earnings in that the number is negative in 2010 and 2009 when Verizon made money and positive in 2008 when Verizon lost money. It's possible that these represent debits and credits on Verizon's carried losses but frankly we'd have to ask an accountant or someone in the finance staff of the company. Even CFO's can't always accurately tell what another company's financial statements mean (and yes, I know that sounds crazy but it's true).

All I'm saying is that the number appears to cherry picked from one line item and decontextualized from a lot of other numbers that indicate a positive tax burden. A little digging and you can see all the components of the approximately $2.4 billion tax figure, including what appears to be a very large charge related to Medicare Part D. The CTJ report isn't clear on what they did. Let's just say that the evidence of Verizon's tax flouting isn't immediately and obviously convincing when you examine the primary materials.

So I contacted the CTJ and asked them about this. They are sticking to their guns. They said the discrepancy on the Verizon financials with their report is a combination of deferred taxes and accounting clutter. They explained it all, but most of it was way over my head. Anyway, the bottom line is they say they're correct, and Verizon never actually denied it- Verizon only reiterated that they follow all tax laws, never actually said they paid a dime.

If any of you want to contact them to have it explained to you, their contact info is:
https://www.ctj.org/about/contact_us.php

Citizens for Tax Justice
1616 P Street NW
Suite 200
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202)299-1066
Fax: (202) 299-1065
ctj@ctj.org

 

[SaltyDawg]

OK, so I looked over the 10-K too. I even use "income averaging" sometimes in my taxes because I have to. When you have a huge loss one year and are allowed by law to average it all out over a certain number of years, and some yayhoo group can't understand that it's legal, and just, it is just a pain to live in the same country with those idiots. Well, maybe I should develop more patience, sometimes I need it from others, too.

The only way we can actually know exactly what they did is gain access to the bank records and tax filings/checks that changed hands between the IRS and Verizon. But just seeing those losses on the books from the third year back I know their entire accounting staff would be replaced if they did not file a tax return taking advantage of the laws in place as they are written.

kudos for kicky and pearl on this discussion.

I don't think anyone ever claimed what Verizon was doing is illegal. Just saying it's pretty sleazy for them make 12 billion in profits, pay their top execs hundreds of millions of dollars, pay out billions in dividends to a foreign company, outsource thousands of jobs, all while not paying a dime in taxes and actually getting a billion in federal subsidies. And then have the nerve to ask their current employees to take a 20k per year reduction each, and give them the green light to outsource even more.

It's not illegal. It's just an example that our current system is broken, and giving the "job creators" a lower tax rate won't automatically lead to more or better jobs. You can't get any lower than 0, which is what Verizon paid the last 2 years. yet while the top execs got huge bonuses, the middle class, or "regular" jobs, are being outsourced and huge compensation reductions.Actually, I guess you can get a lower rate than 0- you can have 0 taxes paid and actually receive a billion in federal subsidies. Not illegal, and I understand the argument for it and all that. But it still isn't this guarantee to create jobs that the far right keeps claiming it to be.

 

[One Brow]

The party filing the frivolous lawsuit should have to pay the defendant's fees including the deductible and any lost time at work.

Judges have the authority to rule that, from what I understand (deferring to the actual lawyers, of course).

 

[sirkickyass]

Judges have the authority to rule that, from what I understand (deferring to the actual lawyers, of course).

In most states this is true.

"Tort reform" is code for "restrict access to the courts." What companies say is a frivolous lawsuit is often very different from what you and I might consider frivolous. There is virtually no way to prevent filing without, in some fundamental way, cutting people off from one of the key branches of government.

The Madame and I are both defense attorneys (except for this one time.... but that's a different story). Her firm represents Wal-Mart, which as you might expect is the big daddy of having dumb lawsuits filed against it by its dumb customers. The reality, however, is that most of the time these things go away at a pretty low cost in part because there are full court clerks in many court systems whose only job is to identify complaints with a high frivolity factor. I used to eat lunch with the guy who recommended insta-dismissal for prisoner filings in Tennessee pretty regularly. A lot of this stuff doesn't really see the light of day.

Here's the truth: The court system has a fair number of silly cases and that get paid off for low dollar amounts. On the whole, and especially for higher-dollar cases or in places where a plaintiff is alleging that they have been defrauded in some way, the odds are outrageously tipped in the defense's favor. There's a reason that most sane people try to avoid the court system altogether rather than press their claims.

 

[Mission Accomplished]

In most states this is true.

"Tort reform" is code for "restrict access to the courts." What companies say is a frivolous lawsuit is often very different from what you and I might consider frivolous. There is virtually no way to prevent filing without, in some fundamental way, cutting people off from one of the key branches of government.

The Madame and I are both defense attorneys (except for this one time.... but that's a different story). Her firm represents Wal-Mart, which as you might expect is the big daddy of having dumb lawsuits filed against it by its dumb customers. The reality, however, is that most of the time these things go away at a pretty low cost in part because there are full court clerks in many court systems whose only job is to identify complaints with a high frivolity factor. I used to eat lunch with the guy who recommended insta-dismissal for prisoner filings in Tennessee pretty regularly. A lot of this stuff doesn't really see the light of day.

Here's the truth: The court system has a fair number of silly cases and that get paid off for low dollar amounts. On the whole, and especially for higher-dollar cases or in places where a plaintiff is alleging that they have been defrauded in some way, the odds are outrageously tipped in the defense's favor. There's a reason that most sane people try to avoid the court system altogether rather than press their claims.

Here is a question that I have for you. HOw much is the GOP wasting in tax dollar money sending lawsuit against Obama care to the court system? I'm just wondering because it seems like they are anti-spending until something they want or want to get rid of comes to the table.

I would almost love to see if I could get a class action lawsuit filed against my state for trying to get rid of Obama care. Since it is acting in the interest of only a portion of it's population.

 

[LogGrad98]

In most states this is true.

"Tort reform" is code for "restrict access to the courts." What companies say is a frivolous lawsuit is often very different from what you and I might consider frivolous. There is virtually no way to prevent filing without, in some fundamental way, cutting people off from one of the key branches of government.

The Madame and I are both defense attorneys (except for this one time.... but that's a different story). Her firm represents Wal-Mart, which as you might expect is the big daddy of having dumb lawsuits filed against it by its dumb customers. The reality, however, is that most of the time these things go away at a pretty low cost in part because there are full court clerks in many court systems whose only job is to identify complaints with a high frivolity factor. I used to eat lunch with the guy who recommended insta-dismissal for prisoner filings in Tennessee pretty regularly. A lot of this stuff doesn't really see the light of day.

Here's the truth: The court system has a fair number of silly cases and that get paid off for low dollar amounts. On the whole, and especially for higher-dollar cases or in places where a plaintiff is alleging that they have been defrauded in some way, the odds are outrageously tipped in the defense's favor. There's a reason that most sane people try to avoid the court system altogether rather than press their claims.

Can't forget the cost that seems to be hidden or ignored: the fact that you and your wife have to be employed by the company at all. This is a cost we all share in higher prices, the cost of the law power to defend against all of these cases. Whether the case pays out or not, there is still a not insubstantial cost to defending it. Doctors pay malpractice insurance to help offset these costs, whether the other side wins the malpractice case or not, they still have to spend to defend. And in the end that costs all of us.