Commercialism rant! (long but worth a read)

LilacPixie

chippy_250 wrote: »

!

2. Mortgages
Like I said the government should lend people the money at the base rate. End of!

3. Savings accounts. There should be an incentive to actually save. I think the current rates are pointless. I don't really know what can be done about this at the moment.

.

these two points.... You do understand that funding for mortgages is not linked to the bank of england base rate don't you?? Apparently not.

Not to mention if base rate is oh so important then surely savings rates should also be 0.5%

You cannot say in one breath you want mortgage lending to be 0.5% then in the next you want savings rates higher than 3% unless of course you really want to spend as little as possible on interest paying for housing while 'earning' as much as possible interest on savings. Not sure how this makes you different to companies who also want to make the most profit.

I won't even touch on your opinions on car insurance as they are really just too bizzare to even question.

chippy_250

PhylPho wrote: »

OP: give it a rest. You're actually making yourself look a hell of a lot younger than 21.

I said I was almost 21 actually. And yes I do sound so childish by creating a constructive debate which has grabbed the attention of many people already. Clearly what I have to say has some meaningful otherwise no-one would have posted. Your the childish one by posting a comment which just slags someone off without any actual input into the debate!

PhylPho

chippy_250 wrote: »

I said I was almost 21 actually. And yes I do sound so childish by creating a constructive debate which has grabbed the attention of many people already. Clearly what I have to say has some meaningful otherwise no-one would have posted. Your the childish one by posting a comment which just slags someone off without any actual input into the debate!

But you aren't seriously after a "constructive" debate with anyone, are you?

chippy_250 wrote: »

Just like home insurance if someone robs you, YOUR OWN INSURANCE PAY UP. So it should be for car insurance. It shouldn't be the LAW to have car insurance. If you have insurance and someone hits you who is uninsured then YOUR OWN INSURANCE SHOULD PAY UP. THAT'S WHAT YOUR BLOODY PAYING THEM FOR!

That comment alone shows how daft you're being -- for someone railing against commercial exploitation, you've sure got a blind spot when it comes to ways of making sure I and everyone else on this thread pays treble our current insurance premiums to cope with the costs of damage perpetrated by the uninsured.

benb76

Some bizarre opinions on motor insurance here! People who are saying that your own insurance should stump up no matter who is fault are clueless. If this was the case then there would be no reward for careful driving. To give a good example, I've had insurance for 10 years and not made a claim, so have obviously earnt cheap premiums. In that time I've been shunted from behind no less than 3 times on wet or icy roads, would it be fair if I forfeited my cheap premiums because my insurer had to account for the potential of less careful drivers shunting me?!!

Procrastinator333

Percy1983 wrote: »

I don't see why insurance can't run the same as say home contents insurance. I insure my car and it gets damaged (doesn't matter how) then it gets fixed, I choose not to insure it and if gets damaged (doesn't matter how) it doesn't get fixed.

It is not your car that is the issue. What about the pedestrian crossing a zebra who ends up eating through a straw for the rest of their life becasue some idiot was messing with their radio. Who should pay for that care? Are you saying they should insure themselves in case they are hit by an idiot?

Percy1983 wrote: »

I too paid to write off my 10 year old fiesta twice over my first 2 years of insurance yet I never crashed it or have crashed any other car since.

I have been driving for about 10 years now. Never cost the insurance companies a penny. The first 3 years of insurance cost more than my car in every individual year. But I don't know of a better way, so can't really argue with it. Perhaps there should be greater training. Maybe restrictions on the cars the young can drive. Maybe the first year or 2 should only be supervised driving. Maybe the age should be higher. But insurance companies have to use statistics and price risks.

Percy1983 wrote: »

My point is there is a lot of descrimination in insureance, currently pricing says that every women is better than every man and every old person is better than every young person. Yes I can't deny the stats say young males are most at risk, but that doesn't mean all young males should be condemned. You about policies are dished out on good and bad drivers and all are innocent until proven guilty.

Not being sarcastic here. If you can come up with a way to pick out the good vs bad drivers before any accidents, you should set up your own insurance company. You could charge below market rates to the safe bets you identify and you would become a very rich individual. But until that day, insurance companies will continue to use statistics.

Percy1983 wrote: »

As it is we mess with my other halfs quote last renewal and found with 3 years less NCB and 1 accident she would still get cheaper insurance than me on the same car/same area/same age. How is that right?

Because statistically even a female with 3 years less experience who has already had 1 accident has a lower probability weighted cost to the insurer than a male of the same age. It is not just about the probability of an accident, it is also the type of accident. I'm not actually sure young males have the highest number of accidents, but they almost certainly have the most high speed high cost accidents.

I hated it when I was paying through the nose for it, but even then I grudginly accepted it because I could not think of anthing better. Sorry.

Procrastinator333

chippy_250 wrote: »

A GLOBAL FREE MARKET DOESN'T WORK!!! THE SYSTEM MUST CHANGE!

Ok, let's see what ou are suggestin then....

chippy_250 wrote: »

What I want to happen is the government should provide the most essential things in life for a non-profit. E.G. Food, water, gas, electricity, mortgages, insurance, clothes etc should be produced by the public sector and sold for the cheapest price possible without making any profit.

So we are moving to almost partial communism with this. Great. That has worked well in the past. But leaving that point aside. With no competition and the fact that about the only thing you can count on within government is waste, I can't think of anything worse. Take something the government currently has a monopoly on - HMRC. HMRC is the most awful, badly run, !!!! poor non customer orentated organisation I have ever had the miss fortune to deal with.

chippy_250 wrote: »

1. Car insurance.
Just like home insurance if someone robs you, YOUR OWN INSURANCE PAY UP. So it should be for car insurance. It shouldn't be the LAW to have car insurance. If you have insurance and someone hits you who is uninsured then YOUR OWN INSURANCE SHOULD PAY UP. THAT'S WHAT YOUR BLOODY PAYING THEM FOR!

What about the pedestrian who is hit bya driver? Who pays for them? And just think about what you are saying, the logical outcome of that is for the little chav in his £50 battered fiesta to drive like an even greater moron. There would be absolutely no ramification if he drives in to a BMW. Why should their insurance pay if some idiot drives in to them? That is just stupid. If they caused the accident they should pay.

Home insurance is different because in the vast majority of claims there is no person or party to whom blame can be attached and redress sought.

chippy_250 wrote: »

2. Mortgages
Like I said the government should lend people the money at the base rate. End of!

Let me guess, you also dislike high house prices.

chippy_250 wrote: »

3. Savings accounts. There should be an incentive to actually save. I think the current rates are pointless. I don't really know what can be done about this at the moment.

Great post. As the banks will no longer be able to lend for mortages - The government will be lending at base rate, who is going to pay a higher saving rate. Where does that return come from?

chippy_250 wrote: »

4. Clothes shops
The price we're currently paying doesn't seem to be anywhere near the quality. I think trading standards need to get involved more. For a start, most companies are probably using slave labour abroad anyway.

Ok. So prices are too high. But you want to cut off their supply of cheap labour. You really need to join up the dots on your posts.

chippy_250 wrote: »

Overall, I think the free market system currently in place clearly doesn't work. This is the reason for the current mess we're in because no-one has monitored it and regulated it.

I think the government needs to impose a LAW which means that no item or service can be sold with more than a NET PROFIT OF 5%.
This would allow companies to function whilst they'll still be able to trade.

I see. So first point is that in doing that, the government has just wiped out a rather large % of the tax revenues. How will you plug that gap?

Also, you just destroy innovation and aspiration. What is the point in setting up a new company? Why would you start something like google? Why take a risk when you can just keep going with the same old and generate that 5% return.

But, having said all that, we live in a democracy. Go get 10m ish to agree with you and you can do what you like. Good luck to you.

tomterm8

My response is: life is unfair.

No one ever promised you fairness, except politicians, and they are contractually required to lie.

Percy1983

Mr Procrastinator333,

I can see you points and don't complete disagree, but I go back to discrimination, just because I am a male doesn't make me the same as all other males yet insureance companies say I am.

Also you have missed the later point I made:

How about charging all over 25's 5% more (which would generate a lot) to which would mean you could put a cap on insurance for young drivers if they stay within certain rules (eg no bigger than a 1.2, no accidents and no points on license, car worth no more than £2000) then the maximum insurance is say £800.

That way if you buy a sensible first car and drive it sensibly you will be fine, if you are proven a bad driver or don't pick a sensible car you suffer.

I do agree life isn't fair, but we could try and add a little fairness here and there surely.

Generali

If you run me over, who is going to pay to raise my kids? You should if it was down to your incompetence. Perhaps there could be a system where you lodge a bond to cover my medical bills and the cost of educating (privately as I plan to do), housing etc my wife and kids. £1,000,000 would probably do it.

If you can't come up with the cash then get insured.

Procrastinator333

Percy1983 wrote: »

Mr Procrastinator333,

I can see you points and don't complete disagree, but I go back to discrimination, just because I am a male doesn't make me the same as all other males yet insureance companies say I am.

Also you have missed the later point I made:

How about charging all over 25's 5% more (which would generate a lot) to which would mean you could put a cap on insurance for young drivers if they stay within certain rules (eg no bigger than a 1.2, no accidents and no points on license, car worth no more than £2000) then the maximum insurance is say £800.

That way if you buy a sensible first car and drive it sensibly you will be fine, if you are proven a bad driver or don't pick a sensible car you suffer.

I do agree life isn't fair, but we could try and add a little fairness here and there surely.

I felt hard done by too. I knew I was a significantly safer driver than some of the idiots. I knew one chap who treated the local roads literally like a racetrack. Would be doing 70 or 80mph round blind bends on the wrong side of the road. But how can you prove that to an insurance company? They did try that black box scheme where they track your useage. And maybe in future they will extend that to track speed and driving style too. At that point there may be some differentiation.

At the moment, younger male drivers cause the majority of costs for insurance companies. At the moment, they charge that age group the most. I would argue that is fair. I paid through the nose while I was younger, like you. And in a few years when they get to 25 they will see the premiums start to fall away. It really won't seem fair when you are 30 and being asked to subsidise the young male driver category.

You have just picked that £800 number out of the air. My guess is that when averaged, insurance companies actually spend more than £800 per young male driver. You may find nobody actually offers insurance.

A further problem is tha unless every insurance company applies that 5%, price differentials will kick in. Insurer A who does this may find that they can't actually get any older male drivers becasue insurer B doesn't apply this 5%.

The insurer can't wait for someone to prove they are a bad driver, that is usually proven via very costly insurance claims. By then it is too late!

The only realistic way I see for insurance for young males to come down would be if they had a speed / tracking device fitted to their car - E.g. If they proved to the insurance company they stuck to the speed limit, sensible roads and drove carefully. Until that happens it will always be a function of statistics. No doubt it hurts like hell when you are on the wrong end of those statistics, but in my opinion that is actually quite a fair system. We all suffer as younger drivers and all enjoy lower premiums later in life.