Commercialism rant! (long but worth a read)

Percy1983

Conrad wrote: »

OP - you pay A LOT less for life and critical insurance than older people. According to your logic, you should be made to pay more so fat oldies get a discount.

Dare a say its a fact that the older you are the closer to death you are, where as it isn't a fact that if you are under 25 you will crash your car.

diable

Doozergirl wrote: »

Hooray for sweatshops and cheap throw away clothing.

hmmmm torn knickers spring to mind..................

ukcarper

Percy1983 wrote: »

Dare a say its a fact that the older you are the closer to death you are, where as it isn't a fact that if you are under 25 you will crash your car.

but it's more likely

Percy1983

ukcarper wrote: »

but it's more likely

I have never disagreed with that, just the fact they ALL pay for the privilage of a crash they will probably never have.

Doozergirl

diable wrote: »

hmmmm torn knickers spring to mind..................

There's a very easy way to save money on knickers and that's not to wear any.

ukcarper

Percy1983 wrote: »

I have never disagreed with that, just the fact they ALL pay for the privilage of a crash they will probably never have.

Isn’t that what insurance is about I have had house insurance for 40 years and never claimed.

Percy1983

ukcarper wrote: »

Isn’t that what insurance is about I have had house insurance for 40 years and never claimed.

Very true, but in the case of home insurance the claim is most likely to be more than a single years insurance premium, to a young driver thats not always the case.

Yet again I am not against the fact that i have paid for insurance and got nothing back, I am against the amount I had to pay in to get nothing back.

lostinrates

Percy1983 wrote: »

I am against the amount I had to pay in to get nothing back.

Are you also opposed to % of earning and higher band tax rates? Higher rate tax payers might choose not to use the services for which private alternatives exist while they can afford too....but there is the ''insurance'' the exist in paying the tax that these services can exist should personal situation change.

fimonkey

Procrastinator333 wrote: »

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.

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. .

I don't really think its fair because the insurance companies are using statistics incorrectly and not applying any common sense. It may be that there is a correlation between being young and male and being in an accident, but that is not cause and effect! You could look at the same data and look for correlations between hair colour and accidents (presuming they collected hair colour data) and you would likely find a correlation between a certain colour and accidents - do you therefore charge more for people with certain colour hair?.. again its merely a correlation!

You may argue that young males are more likely to speed - but again gender and age are not a CAUSE of speeding!

Stats can easily be misrepresented which is what the insurance companies are doing IMO. They're not looking for cause and effect with accidents/claims and weighting against known causes instead. For instance speed is a known cause, and your suggestion of a speed tracking device would easily collect this data for them to use, and be easily fitted to cars. You speed - you pay more insurance. THAT would be a fair use of statistics.

As an aside, did you know that statistically speaking the average person has less than two legs?!

fimonkey

Percy1983 wrote: »

Anyway, my point is rather than trying to get every age group to balance its self I am in short saying make a loss on young drivers and charge the rest (the majority) a small amount more. In many respects if the government forced a s capped insurance with conditions the insurance companies would do this anyway to recoup the loss....

.....but in short I would happily pay a bit more on my premium if it meant the generations below me would get a better deal.

The older generation already subsidise the younger generation to an extent - your schooling is free and your healthcare is free, the Govenrment even give child benefit and tax credits to parents!! - All paid for by the tax-payer with no immediate or guaranteed return - and those taxpayers without kids are really missing out by subsidising a younger generation.

The sooner the young start to financially stand on their own two feet the better - and there will be no incentive to do that if everything is subsidised!

That said I see your point re: insurance companies and to some extent I agree with you. I think if you take the debate on this thread seriously and read up further on a few issues you will learn a lot (i.e how communism really works etc). This will inform you and allow you to make a more reasoned arguement - THAT is how you effect change.

Throwing your toys outta the pram and merely complaining with uniformed views will get you nowhere. You want more money and cheaper insurance? - Make that happen by learning how systems work and how you can make them work to your advantage. .... Or keep complaining and look back on this thread in 10 years time.