People who sue for more money than they need to cover their medical expenses are immense morons.
Medical lawsuits are complicated. Obviously there are expenses directly related to the medical bills. Additionally, there is a certain degree to which future care must be expected (you expect something but you don't know precisely what, and it will cost an estimated $X). Plus there's lost wages, travel expenses for spouses. All kinds of things that you wouldn't have spent money on had the medical need not arisen.
Then there's pain and suffering. Someone was responsible for causing you pain. That's a very real injury. Even emotional pain is something you most certainly feel. If someone's responsible for the pain, they should be expected to make up for it. Money obviously can't directly fix what was broken, so yes, it's a bit messy. But it's the best option there is.
More "pain and suffering" that results in society from frivolous lawsuits which center on those so-named p&s payouts. You can't always get what you want, but so many out there today try very hard to get what they want. My personal belief is that you shouldn't try to get what you want all the time. A humble spirit among the general population is what keeps pride and selfishness at bay and keeps society from anarchy. Present the chance of making a quick buck to the less fortunate (e.g., see my John Riley example above) and they will go after it will all vigor. Our legal system is therefore being used as a legal means to make otherwise illegitimate money.
Many years ago when I was a college student, a good friend of mine worked at a large grocery store in central California. Throughout all our college years, he never ceased to tell me of story after story about folks who would come in, spill some water on the floor (which they brought with them), fake an accident, scream bloody murder so all the shoppers around could be "witness to this event," and then later sue the store. In most cases, the store was forced to settle as the time and expense required to fight such things in court would be cost prohibitive for them. They had to raise prices as a result. This is just one example among tens of thousands concerning the problems with "suing" (not problems with our legal system per se).
So again, while there are all manner of "suing is our right -- it keeps America free and unbiased" folks out there (including within this thread), the fact is the way suing takes place in America today is riddled with serious problems. And those problems are more the flaws of human thinking rather than the system itself.
My posts in this thread have therefore been nothing more than call for people to change their way of thinking. Refuse to sue even when you know you were wronged. If your fellow man wants your shirt, offer him your jacket to go along with it. You just might be pleasantly surprised with a result coming your way which you never could have received by your own power.
And so, it's not about rights or what you are due. It's not about you being wronged and needing compensation for that wrong. It's about changing one's way of thinking by rolling with the punches of life, rather than blaming others (however much to blame they may be) for your situation. This may sound hard or even impossible to do, but it is the right thing to do. And it will bring benefits to both the individual who practices it and the society in which those same individuals reside.
folks who would come in, spill some water on the floor (which they brought with them), fake an accident, scream bloody murder so all the shoppers around could be "witness to this event," and then later sue the store. In most cases, the store was forced to settle as the time and expense required to fight such things in court would be cost prohibitive for them. They had to raise prices as a result.
I doubt that a significant percentage of lawsuits are like this. In any case, the lawsuit against Apple and the other companies seems like a pretty clear cut case of exectuives stealing from shareholders, and not "bringing your own water".
the lawsuit against Apple and the other companies seems like a pretty clear cut case of exectuives stealing from shareholders, and not "bringing your own water".
One could argue along the same lines over why Apple doesn't pay dividends. I personally think (as an AAPL shareholder) that my fellow shareholders should be pressuring Apple more (outside the courts) on this matter more than anything else.
Apple needs to return value to shareholders while compensating the very executives who keep the company alive. If we go off on tangents like "they stole such and such" we then get into the mess of executive pay and the like. And I dare say that many would likely agree that most executives aren't worth the millions of dollars they receive in legitimate compensation. So in my mind the same questionable ethics exist for executive pay as in the case of this so-called theft of money from investors.
Let us therefore call upon Apple to pay out dividends. If investors make enough noise about it, I think it will happen eventually. And yes, it can happen without going to court.
One could argue along the same lines over why Apple doesn't pay dividends. I personally think (as an AAPL shareholder) that my fellow shareholders should be pressuring Apple more (outside the courts) on this matter more than anything else.
Apple needs to return value to shareholders while compensating the very executives who keep the company alive. If we go off on tangents like "they stole such and such" we then get into the mess of executive pay and the like. And I dare say that many would likely agree that most executives aren't worth the millions of dollars they receive in legitimate compensation. So in my mind the same questionable ethics exist for executive pay as in the case of this so-called theft of money from investors.
Let us therefore call upon Apple to pay out dividends. If investors make enough noise about it, I think it will happen eventually. And yes, it can happen without going to court.
Shareholders are free to set executive pay as high as they like - that is a volentary transaction. Rigging stock options to get more pay behind the shareholders backs is stealing.
And dividends are for losers, as you pay 35% tax on it instead of 15% tax for the long term gains you can get instead with no dividends.
dividends are for losers, as you pay 35% tax on it instead of 15% tax for the long term gains you can get instead with no dividends.
Dividends are for "losers." Hmmm.
Quote:
Originally posted by e1618978
Rigging stock options to get more pay behind the shareholders backs is stealing.
Sounds as if you've judged Apple already and are prepared to read the verdict. I myself, as a substantial AAPL shareholder, wish to think differently on the matter. Specifically, I still don't see a reason to sue, especially not until the exectives being targetted have been given sufficient changes to comment on the matter.
35% tax? Where? In the US? Not all shareholders are in the US.
Taxes rates are beside the point in my mind. Dividends are to be paid out at some point because it is the right thing to do. If there are problems with the tax rate, just vote for a political party that stands on cutting taxes and empowering the citizen, rather than vote for tax-and-spend politicians.
Comments
Originally posted by Placebo
People who sue for more money than they need to cover their medical expenses are immense morons.
Medical lawsuits are complicated. Obviously there are expenses directly related to the medical bills. Additionally, there is a certain degree to which future care must be expected (you expect something but you don't know precisely what, and it will cost an estimated $X). Plus there's lost wages, travel expenses for spouses. All kinds of things that you wouldn't have spent money on had the medical need not arisen.
Then there's pain and suffering. Someone was responsible for causing you pain. That's a very real injury. Even emotional pain is something you most certainly feel. If someone's responsible for the pain, they should be expected to make up for it. Money obviously can't directly fix what was broken, so yes, it's a bit messy. But it's the best option there is.
Many years ago when I was a college student, a good friend of mine worked at a large grocery store in central California. Throughout all our college years, he never ceased to tell me of story after story about folks who would come in, spill some water on the floor (which they brought with them), fake an accident, scream bloody murder so all the shoppers around could be "witness to this event," and then later sue the store. In most cases, the store was forced to settle as the time and expense required to fight such things in court would be cost prohibitive for them. They had to raise prices as a result. This is just one example among tens of thousands concerning the problems with "suing" (not problems with our legal system per se).
So again, while there are all manner of "suing is our right -- it keeps America free and unbiased" folks out there (including within this thread), the fact is the way suing takes place in America today is riddled with serious problems. And those problems are more the flaws of human thinking rather than the system itself.
My posts in this thread have therefore been nothing more than call for people to change their way of thinking. Refuse to sue even when you know you were wronged. If your fellow man wants your shirt, offer him your jacket to go along with it. You just might be pleasantly surprised with a result coming your way which you never could have received by your own power.
And so, it's not about rights or what you are due. It's not about you being wronged and needing compensation for that wrong. It's about changing one's way of thinking by rolling with the punches of life, rather than blaming others (however much to blame they may be) for your situation. This may sound hard or even impossible to do, but it is the right thing to do. And it will bring benefits to both the individual who practices it and the society in which those same individuals reside.
Originally posted by JDW
folks who would come in, spill some water on the floor (which they brought with them), fake an accident, scream bloody murder so all the shoppers around could be "witness to this event," and then later sue the store. In most cases, the store was forced to settle as the time and expense required to fight such things in court would be cost prohibitive for them. They had to raise prices as a result.
I doubt that a significant percentage of lawsuits are like this. In any case, the lawsuit against Apple and the other companies seems like a pretty clear cut case of exectuives stealing from shareholders, and not "bringing your own water".
Originally posted by e1618978
the lawsuit against Apple and the other companies seems like a pretty clear cut case of exectuives stealing from shareholders, and not "bringing your own water".
One could argue along the same lines over why Apple doesn't pay dividends. I personally think (as an AAPL shareholder) that my fellow shareholders should be pressuring Apple more (outside the courts) on this matter more than anything else.
Apple needs to return value to shareholders while compensating the very executives who keep the company alive. If we go off on tangents like "they stole such and such" we then get into the mess of executive pay and the like. And I dare say that many would likely agree that most executives aren't worth the millions of dollars they receive in legitimate compensation. So in my mind the same questionable ethics exist for executive pay as in the case of this so-called theft of money from investors.
Let us therefore call upon Apple to pay out dividends. If investors make enough noise about it, I think it will happen eventually. And yes, it can happen without going to court.
Originally posted by JDW
One could argue along the same lines over why Apple doesn't pay dividends. I personally think (as an AAPL shareholder) that my fellow shareholders should be pressuring Apple more (outside the courts) on this matter more than anything else.
Apple needs to return value to shareholders while compensating the very executives who keep the company alive. If we go off on tangents like "they stole such and such" we then get into the mess of executive pay and the like. And I dare say that many would likely agree that most executives aren't worth the millions of dollars they receive in legitimate compensation. So in my mind the same questionable ethics exist for executive pay as in the case of this so-called theft of money from investors.
Let us therefore call upon Apple to pay out dividends. If investors make enough noise about it, I think it will happen eventually. And yes, it can happen without going to court.
Shareholders are free to set executive pay as high as they like - that is a volentary transaction. Rigging stock options to get more pay behind the shareholders backs is stealing.
And dividends are for losers, as you pay 35% tax on it instead of 15% tax for the long term gains you can get instead with no dividends.
Originally posted by e1618978
dividends are for losers, as you pay 35% tax on it instead of 15% tax for the long term gains you can get instead with no dividends.
Dividends are for "losers." Hmmm.
Originally posted by e1618978
Rigging stock options to get more pay behind the shareholders backs is stealing.
Sounds as if you've judged Apple already and are prepared to read the verdict. I myself, as a substantial AAPL shareholder, wish to think differently on the matter. Specifically, I still don't see a reason to sue, especially not until the exectives being targetted have been given sufficient changes to comment on the matter.
Originally posted by e1618978
And dividends are for losers, as you pay 35% tax on it instead of 15% tax for the long term gains you can get instead with no dividends.
35% tax? Where? In the US? Not all shareholders are in the US.
Originally posted by Chucker
35% tax? Where? In the US? Not all shareholders are in the US.
Taxes rates are beside the point in my mind. Dividends are to be paid out at some point because it is the right thing to do. If there are problems with the tax rate, just vote for a political party that stands on cutting taxes and empowering the citizen, rather than vote for tax-and-spend politicians.
what is the worst case here?
if the dates are reset (to 10 days later) to unwind any fraud,
that would be a dozen million shares or so (sjobs 20M was rescinded),
with say, $5 per share edge, or $60M. this doesn't seem
material to earnings. however, is there some sort of
treble damages to SEC if this is proven?
does any recovery (whether or not there is legal indemnification
for board members) distribute evenly to shareholders?
my guess is that, as usual, lawyers profit the most.
nonetheless, since AAPL legal signs off on all this, where is
ms. nancy heinen now that we need her? oops.
looks like my estimate when this thing broke in june/july was off by a little,
but not the horrendous amounts bandied about by the fourth estate.