Reinsurers claim this would hurt wind capacity. What a crock. They are not going to pull back from the most lucarative cat reinsurance market in the world.
The question “… why this was put before the Federal Government…” requires no explanation. It is a new tax. More revenue. Any other question besides why did a guy in Montana do it to the people in Louisiana?
There is no point of view here, just a statement of fact. The fact is that more taxes on reinsurance will cause insurance rates to go up and be less available. Taxes are paid by the people, not the companies. The people who pay taxes are the employees and customers of the company. If the customers cannot afford the higher prices, the company fails and the employees lose their jobs.
If there is another side, I will watch this space for an alternate explanation.
Go read the background on this subject – It has nothing to do with Big Governement Wanting More Money – It has to do with unfair tax advantages against domestic markets who pay taxes on of their domestic underwriting and investment income on business located in the USA – vs – Foreign-domiciled business operations who pay nothing or drasticly reduced taxes on the same business.
I guess if you were competing with another agent who had an off shore office (say… a beach house in Aruba…) and you paid taxes on your income but they paid nothing – wouldn’t that cut into your earnings just a tad??? Of course, you wouldn’t want a level playing field now would you – you’d rather see the Govt take your $$ in taxes – and blow off the foreign competitions obligations.
Please explain why the largest companies in the country are behind this legislation… The likes of Berkshire Hathaway (just a little fish in the pond) AMBAC Financial, Chubb, EMC Ins Co, Hartford, Liberty Mutual, Markel, MBIA Insurance, Safeco, Scottsdale, Travlers, Zenith – just to throw out a couple of names for ya…
BTW… I haven’t been asleep for 20 years, I’ve been doing this for almost 35 and have seen a lot more in that time than we have time for in this forum
It sounded like another new tax. Well, in fact it is another new tax. I am instinctively against new taxes, even if they are supposedly to “level the playing field”. The best way to “level the playing field” and to save consumers money would be to remove the equivalent tax from the local companies. If they put a new tax on the foreign companies, you do realize that they will simply pass the tax along to consumers here and raise premiums for the consumer, just like it says in the article. I haven’t been asleep for 20 years, either.
Consumers pay all taxes regardless of which (select one) A. Greedy Company, B. Greedy Foreign Company, C. Greedy Rich Person, D. Unfair Competitor gets hit with the new tax.
I do see your point but taxes are not fair to whoever gets taxed. The knee jerk reaction is to tax someone else to make the tax “fair”. Taxes never level the playing field, they just burn it.
I have heard that “Taxes are a way to get people to do or not do something when you cannot use a gun to make it happen.” I think an economics professor told me that…
Meanwhile, we’re facing an unnecessary threat: Massachusetts Congressman Richard Neal …..
so why is it that this congressman from mass and later in the article it states to write a letter to a congressman from montana, why????? why are we taxing foreign reinsurance? afterall, it’s nice to have the funds available to for a catastrophe. i think you will find not a market available in the US unless they want to spend more money. problem, is we need folks to realize to protect their lives and property appropriately.
Are they going to run another post that explains why this was put before the Federal Government in the first place?
IJ shouldn’t post one sided articles that don’t give equal time to others point of view
Reinsurers claim this would hurt wind capacity. What a crock. They are not going to pull back from the most lucarative cat reinsurance market in the world.
“Big Government want-um more money to get bigger”
nuff said
(have you been asleep for the last 20 yrs?)
The question “… why this was put before the Federal Government…” requires no explanation. It is a new tax. More revenue. Any other question besides why did a guy in Montana do it to the people in Louisiana?
There is no point of view here, just a statement of fact. The fact is that more taxes on reinsurance will cause insurance rates to go up and be less available. Taxes are paid by the people, not the companies. The people who pay taxes are the employees and customers of the company. If the customers cannot afford the higher prices, the company fails and the employees lose their jobs.
If there is another side, I will watch this space for an alternate explanation.
Oops… My mistake, it was Massachusetts not Montana where the tax idea originated. That is not a surprise, either.
Go read the background on this subject – It has nothing to do with Big Governement Wanting More Money – It has to do with unfair tax advantages against domestic markets who pay taxes on of their domestic underwriting and investment income on business located in the USA – vs – Foreign-domiciled business operations who pay nothing or drasticly reduced taxes on the same business.
I guess if you were competing with another agent who had an off shore office (say… a beach house in Aruba…) and you paid taxes on your income but they paid nothing – wouldn’t that cut into your earnings just a tad??? Of course, you wouldn’t want a level playing field now would you – you’d rather see the Govt take your $$ in taxes – and blow off the foreign competitions obligations.
Please explain why the largest companies in the country are behind this legislation… The likes of Berkshire Hathaway (just a little fish in the pond) AMBAC Financial, Chubb, EMC Ins Co, Hartford, Liberty Mutual, Markel, MBIA Insurance, Safeco, Scottsdale, Travlers, Zenith – just to throw out a couple of names for ya…
BTW… I haven’t been asleep for 20 years, I’ve been doing this for almost 35 and have seen a lot more in that time than we have time for in this forum
It sounded like another new tax. Well, in fact it is another new tax. I am instinctively against new taxes, even if they are supposedly to “level the playing field”. The best way to “level the playing field” and to save consumers money would be to remove the equivalent tax from the local companies. If they put a new tax on the foreign companies, you do realize that they will simply pass the tax along to consumers here and raise premiums for the consumer, just like it says in the article. I haven’t been asleep for 20 years, either.
Consumers pay all taxes regardless of which (select one) A. Greedy Company, B. Greedy Foreign Company, C. Greedy Rich Person, D. Unfair Competitor gets hit with the new tax.
I do see your point but taxes are not fair to whoever gets taxed. The knee jerk reaction is to tax someone else to make the tax “fair”. Taxes never level the playing field, they just burn it.
I have heard that “Taxes are a way to get people to do or not do something when you cannot use a gun to make it happen.” I think an economics professor told me that…
Another reason there shouldn’t be gun control…
A better understanding of whats going on
finance.senate.gov/hearings/testimony/2007test/092607testwb.pdf
Meanwhile, we’re facing an unnecessary threat: Massachusetts Congressman Richard Neal …..
so why is it that this congressman from mass and later in the article it states to write a letter to a congressman from montana, why????? why are we taxing foreign reinsurance? afterall, it’s nice to have the funds available to for a catastrophe. i think you will find not a market available in the US unless they want to spend more money. problem, is we need folks to realize to protect their lives and property appropriately.