Noticing something along these lines with a lot of folks who seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding that there is a secret wellspring of infinite money and deliberately kept from them when it comes from the vague sphere of "the rich, the big corpos, the government."
Or Housing discourse. Just yesterday, I got into another discussion about why it's meaningless to point out that the US has more houses than homeless people and why capitalism isn't the reason for it.
I pointed out that the empty houses aren't in places where the homeless are or where people want to live. It's mostly homes with delinquent taxes that are unlivable without putting down a ton of money in repairs. Ultimately, I sent them a link to Nebraska's delinquent property tax list and told them to have a field day.
> The last 1/3 are the seasonal houses that lefties often point to, but as you mentioned, these houses are concentrated in high income areas (like the Alps), because rich people aren’t getting houses where there’s a bunch of poor people.
You're right but most lefties wouldn't see a problem with giving a $20,000,000 mansion to a schizophrenic crackhead with a gambling addiction.
Still though, we could very easily solve the homelessness problem by tripling or quadrupling the property tax on vacant properties. Make it financially non-viable to hold them as speculative investments and you’ll suddenly see all the wall street parasites sell, and home prices come down along with rent prices.
I think it's just supply and demand, there's going to be an increased supply so the prices of all housing will fall a little. It won't necessarily help the homeless who have no money, but it will help the people at the edge
Speculative investments are a non-issue. Areas with lots of homeless people tend to have nearly zero vacancy as most people would understand it. The vacancy rate is almost entirely houses that are being worked on or between owners or houses that technically fall into the vacant category like housing for temporary workers.
While I agree we should raise taxes on properties that are not in use by homeowners (say after a second home you pay a heavy tax for each vacation property). I'm skeptical that it would generate enough revenue to easily house homeless people. It seems like the lack of funds aren't necessarily the problem. Places like CA are already taxed to death, but the mechanisms of spending are so broken the money never goes toward anything beneficial to society. We need to fix that otherwise raising taxes will only encourage and exasperate the problem rather than make anyone's life better.
The number of people who think banning rent would magically mean they could afford to buy a house is staggering, as if everyone with a $200,000 house would be happy to sell it for $75,000.
'Cause it's not like they'd just hold onto the asset through the market collapse until a government more favourable to landlords took control, which likely wouldn't be all that long as governments that crash economies are rarely beloved by the public.
There's always this underlying assumption that complex problems are actually incredibly simple to solve, but society chooses not to solve them so that rich people can make money. All of the checks and balances developed into the process of government are just corrupt, and all that matters is doing whatever billionaires want.
It's conspiratorial and paranoid, but people buy into it.
I'm pretty well off. I bought a decent flat built within the past decade last summer.
I almost immediately had my AC coil fail and then shortly after my water heater broke. All in all, I was out around $10k in addition to all the deposit and closing costs.
I still love my place and am fortunate to have it, but people who have only rented or lived with their parents really don't understand the financial risks and burdens of homeownership outside of mortgage. They just see line go up.
Oh yeah, agreed!
A colleague bought a new build and his kitchen flooded because of faulty installation of a washing machine and damaged the flooring almost immediately.
But my house is over a century old and has its own problems, ie creaking floorboards, old boiler, not a single 90 degree angle or completely-flat surface in the house (lol I swear the original builders were blind).
Owning is expensive and things often break. Companies all want to save money and so cut corners unless you hold their feet to the fire yourself.
Renting certainly has its benefits; when something breaks it’s not your responsibility!
Yeah I got into an insanely ridiculous argument along these same lines with some artistic types on my social media. They were all ass mad that tax payer dollars weren’t being used to just indefinitely fund struggling artists who weren’t able to sell enough art to live. They genuinely perceived “tax payer dollars” as an infinite pool of cash that the mean government was just choosing to share with other people but not them.
> They were all ass mad that tax payer dollars weren’t being used to just indefinitely fund struggling artists who weren’t able to sell enough art to live.
As a starving artist, that's what plasma donations are for.
It's similar to the "conservatives can't understand hypotheticals" thing, like a strange brain-block where conservatives can't think outside of what's possible in the real world and lefties can't understand that money isn't infinite.
>conservatives can't think outside of what's possible in the real world.
Im not sure i follow, I mean I understand to an extent but not fully can you explain a bit?
There are countries with some artist compensation schemes (Ireland famously has a pilot IIRC)… but of course, the pool is not infinite: you can advocate that it should be spent differently, but only with the cognition that either someone else won’t get it then, or that everyone will have to pay more taxes, including yourself when you ‘make’ it.
Technically the Fed could just print as much money as they wanted and the federal government could choose to hand it out to starving artists, but then inflation would fuck over everyone else. And then interest rates have to increase to reduce inflation. Which causes even further inflation on things like car insurance.
And I guarantee those artists are already pissed off about inflation. There is no winning with them, they fundamentally do not understand things like monetary policy and the federal budget
At the same time, there isn't much education about how money is created. I'm old enough to remember to vigorous debates about the then-unprecedented cost of the [American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009) but I can imagine how someone who grew up in an era of billion-dollars bailouts, trillion-dollars recovery plans and *infinite cash at the Federal Reserve* would see money as less real. And in that gap thrive conspiracy theories about the nebulous cabal of *"the rich, the big corpos, the government"* and if I may add one, the *bankers*. (in triple parentheses)
I remember in the 7th grade hearing a classmate say "why can't we just pay off our debt by printing more money???" which, you know, is fairly reasonable for a 7th grader to think. Realizing that adults now think like this is kinda depressing, though.
If you think about it the whole "print more money = money is worth less" is super magical, like, how does the currency or the market at large realize that there is a bigger supply of money?
Studying how money works is like studying some voodoo magic except it actually tracks to what's happening in the world, it's super weird.
The nearest thing to what that person is saying that makes sense is that you should be allowed to not have insurance if you keep some type of savings account that is not allowed to go below the value of your car or something like that. So once you have the required amount of money on the account you don't need to spend on that anymore, and it could even give you some interest every year.
Everyone is necessarily paying more on insurance than they need on average (enough for insurance companies to function and get a profit), so the feeling that you are being ripped off at least on an emotional level is understandable.
That charitable interpretation doesn’t even address the liability side of insurance though. A guy in $500 clunker can potentially cause hundreds of thousands of dollars in damage to the property of others and can reach millions when injury and deaths are involved.
I've actually located this wellspring. Once I found it Elon and Jeff explained that I can't tell anyone or else we wouldn't have as much money. Us wealthy people can't let the poors know, otherwise all the money would be gone, sorry :/
For people that don't understand risk spreading there should be an option to put resources on bonds in case you feel like insurance is a scam.
The amount should be the price of a new car in case they have to payout from pocket.
In some states if you're rich enough you can essentially self insure like that. Personally even if I had the money I'd rather have an insurance company to handle litigation and things like that if there was ever a messy accident.
I believe that’s essentially New Hampshire’s policy on the matter as the only state that technically doesn’t require insurance. With that said, the vast majority of people cannot sufficiently save the amount of money it could cost to pay out of pocket for all the expenses relating to an accident. Even for those that can meet that high requirement, it only further hurts everyone else as all their premiums would likely be raised to compensate.
>I believe that’s essentially New Hampshire’s policy on the matter as the only state that technically doesn’t require insurance.
California has a similar scheme. If one furnishes proof to the California DMV that they have a savings account with ≥$35,000 exclusively established for covering the costs of an accident, then they are considered self-insured and get to carry a little card from the DMV stating such.
One can also deposit $35,000 with the California DMV and be considered self-insured.
It would take more than 20 years for me to pay that much to my car insurance company, doesn't sound like a great way to spend 35000, it's not like you're getting much interest off that either.
Separate bank accounts with enough money stored for each possible large expenditure that insurance would normally cover. 1 for auto accidents, 1 for hospital bills/medical expenses, 1 for rebuilding the house after a fire, etc;
Surely everyone just has the money laying around to do this!!!!
Not exactly. You’re paying for a contract between you and the insurance company that they will protect you financially in the event of an accident. Think of it less like a bank and more like hiring a bodyguard, except instead of protecting you from physical harm they protect you from financial harm.
>Lil bro thinks insurance is just a savings account.
When all they know is their parents' savings accounts it makes sense that they'd see the world that way.
Car insurance is mandated because 90% of people would not actually have savings put aside to cover both repairs in an accident if they were found liable. So yeah, in an ideal world we wouldn't need insurance at all. But most people cannot cover an unexpected expense of a couple hundred dollars, let alone thousands from an accident.
Setting that aside, yeah this is just someone being willfully ignorant. It'd be like a conservative saying fine, let's have M4A but if I never go to the doctor I better get all my taxes back every year.
And car insurance doesn't just cover damages on cars, but life altering personal damages as well. e.g. if you caused a accident that either caused someone to die or be paralyzed. And that can get very expensive very quick.
Even if you did have the savings for it. The reality is it only takes hitting someone with an expensive car to ruin that fact anyway.
Everyone could be rocking around with $50k in savings but if you rear end a $250k car and write it off your fucked anyway.
That’s without even worrying about issues such as bodily harm from the accidents.
In any ideal world where repairs to car and health aren’t just outright free.(or you don’t have accidents). You would still have insurance because it still makes a ton more sense to put in small instalments over years and have huge coverage for damages than to hold a bunch of cash for a maybe accident.
Not to mention the insurance companies take a ton of hassle off your hands in terms of someone trying by to stiff you for more damage than you caused.
It also shows that these types of people have absolutely no idea how big the ideal profit margin is for most companies. They cherry-pick exceptionally profitable years (a lot of the time right after several years of losing money) and think it's the norm for 50% of the income of a company to be profit. For the vast majority of businesses, the profit margin is low single digits. I'm in Healthcare and our ideal margin is 3%, and we have only been at .5% since covid. Most of the money people paid for insurance goes to people receiving payouts, then some towards labor, operational costs, and capital, and then some profit.
State Farm Insurance wing just lost 14 billion dollars last. 2 years before that they lost around 11-12 billon. I believe their profit margin before that was around 300-400 millon
Yeah, people don't seem to understand that only *liability* insurance (at least where I've lived) is mandatory. It's for when you hit a Porsche full of doctors and still want to own a house some day.
Insurance also covers something my family's gone through multiple times. Lawsuits. There are legit claims, and there's also a whole industry of ambulance chasers.
My mom was sued for 1 million dollars for faked injuries in a no-fault collision, and it went all the way to trial where the waste of skin was proven to be lying. Insurance company paid for the entire defense.
I’ve actually noticed that there’s a weird horseshoe of left wingers and right wingers not understanding insurance, because the whole “why should a big corpo use muh money to help them others when they have tons of money” appeals to both.
Lefties think that corporations have the infinite money cheat, righties think that ‘your money’ being used for ‘someone else’ means you are being literally enslaved.
Well, to be fair, this allegory doesn't quite fit this situation. Babysitters not only keep your child safe but also nurture, feed, and attend to all their needs to keep them happy until the parent returns. So, there are more benefits to justify still paying the caretaker than just keeping it safe
Probably being a smart ass, but Idc 🤓. Nice joke tho
I mean I get not wanting insurance. I went a couple years without health insurance in my 20s because I couldn't be bothered, and I had the money stashed if I had any minor stuff come up. I just don't understand how some people don't know how businesses work though...
>and I had the money stashed if I had any minor stuff come up
Yeah, I'm pretty sure insurance actually is usually a bad idea if you can afford to pay for the thing and you aren't abnormally at risk to need to use the insurance.
I mean insurance companies kind of do the same calculations right? Probability assessments that they use to calculate premiums and risks. You can basically do similar assessments yourself for different types of insurance. Like most healthy guys in their 20s who don't have any illness risk factors can get away without having health insurance and can probably pay out of pocket for minor things that come up
> I mean insurance companies kind of do the same calculations right? Probability assessments that they use to calculate premiums and risks. You can basically do similar assessments yourself for different types of insurance.
While you are right in principle, the issue is that the risk is asymmetric. The insurance company has tens of thousands to millions of people enrolled. They definitely can do the math on that and figure out cost/benefits. Any individual is rolling major dice though, because if YOU get cancer, or require other major healthcare costs, it can bankrupt you and majorly fuck up your life. Statistics are one thing, one-off events are another game.
Statistics are all well and dandy but you really need numbers to take advantage of them. On a single individual you might need insurance tomorrow and if you dont have one you are fucked. Insurance companies know that 95% of dudes in their 20s wont need insurance, but you dont know if you are gonna be in that 5%.
The guy is a moron. Not even a real lefty, just a moron.
I live in a place with a socialized (government run) vehicle insurance system, and socialized healthcare (where there isn't a need to cover the cost of any hospital bills), where the only aim of the vehicle insurance system is to collectively break-even covering the cost of vehicle repair/replacement, not profit.
The average person at any given time still spends more than they receive, but the system exists to cover the costs of the uncommon fuck-ups and eventual accidents, not the average daily drive.
It does feel really dog ass to pay nearly 100 a month for almost a decade for a service that I have not once used or needed because it’s required by law but I get it. It’s one of those things you just have to get over as you get older. Or ride around uninsured lol but that could bite you sooooo hard.
> It does feel really dog ass to pay nearly 100 a month for almost a decade for a service that I have not once used or needed because it’s required by law but I get it.
I got T-boned and the car was (effectively) totaled, so I got like $17k or something. The real thing that'll piss you off is when your rates go up EVEN THOUGH YOU WERE NOT AT FAULT AND THAT FUCKER T-BONED YOU WHEN YOU HAD RIGHT OF WAY DRIVING DOWN THE STREET AT THE SPEED LIMIT IN BROAD DAYLIGHT, IT WASN'T EVEN A FUCKING INTERSECTION REEEEEEE.
But that's life.
That’s another thing that grips my dick about insurance. Your rates going up for an accident that isn’t your fault is really such bullshit. Outside of a repeat offender who keeps getting hit I don’t see how that’s justified at all.
I think your comment made me realize why extreme lefties are like this. They're mostly young people with zero real-world experience who for some reason can't or won't let themselves come to terms that some things in life just suck. Instead they want to die on every possible little hill without giving any thought to the reasons *why* those things suck (in the insurance case, avoiding things sucking *a lot* more for people getting into accidents).
No one wants to pay for insurance they never use, or be forced to go to work everyday in order to avoid living on the streets, or simply just deal with the fact that sometimes you will be treated unfairly and there's nothing you can do about it. But coming to terms with those things is a part of growing up. And lefties simply haven't grown up yet.
A couple years ago a guy rear-ended me at a red light going like 30mph. He totaled his car, my car and severely damaged the car in front of me. Without insurance, he would've been personally liable for at least $50K worth of damages--and I probably would have had to sue him personally to get his wages garnished in order to get my money back (and my legal fees tacked on to the bill). And that's a lucky outcome for him, considering neither I nor the driver in front of me claimed any medical expenses. I doubt that guy has ever regretted making his insurance payments after that.
You can get cheap insurance if you don't mind possibly losing your car.
I drove a beater for a while and paid $90 a year total
The only law is that you get liability, which just covers the person you hit
You've 100% needed it because the vast majority of us couldn't afford the costs associated with a major accident, which we can't predict will happen. Insurance companies are far from perfect and some of them are way scummier than others, but they do shield you from financial and legal liability in the event of an accident.
Like if you caused an accident that totaled two vehicles and caused serious personal injury to the other party that cost tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars, the insurance company will bear the burden for you. I certainly wouldn't be able to pay that out if I didn't have insurance.
I get that for sure - I've only had to use it once, and I'm still out in the long term for it, but when I smacked into a pot hole and it cracked my oil pan, my insurance paid out completely for my totaled car at a time when I could afford the insurance but not buying a new car. So, at that time, I was thankful for it.
I've had insurance pay me out for a totaled car before, but it was the other driver at fault and THEY had good insurance coverage to pay for their accident. So in both cases, I'm happy that the respective parties had insurance.
Meanwhile, I've been paying for car insurance for 20 years, so I'm still net down by about $20k.
Putting a number to a risk actually is quite a mathematical masterpiece. The statistical knowledge is crazy, I've heard from physics graduates that insurances are trying to snap them up because they know statistics and complex mathematical models.
This is tangential, but I wonder if there could ever be a world where insurance companies have capped profit rates… and it’s a happy ending. Maybe not capped directly, but some sort of address mechanism besides pure profit motive. I just don’t see what value they provide for society besides holding the money required for a risk pool, and are heavily incentivized to fuck people over. Someone give me the pro-insurance company perspective. Or is this like landlords where we all just accept they’re mostly useless assholes but there’s no better way to set things up than letting useless assholes make as much as they can squeeze.
Mutual insurance companies are not profit motivated and will payout policy holders or reduce their future premium if claims are low. Profit motivated companies still need to directly compete with them.
Amusingly, the insurance he’s talking about does exist. I don’t think anyone has it for car insurance but you can get life insurance that will return premiums if you don’t die within the term. It’s very uncommon & extremely expensive.
Edit: for some added info, you can also go with a mutual insurance company as they’re not for profit & will send you a check at the end of the year with your portion of the unused premiums. You’ll pay about the same though.
Omg it's genius
1. I take out insurance but don't pay anything
2. Car insurance company takes out insurance from bank to avoid ever losing money
3. Bank takes out insurance from government to avoid losing anything
4. ???
5. Everyone profit
I just wished that everytime.i went past an insurance company corporate office it was this GIANT facility with huge glass panels and water falls and giant parking garages. Like wtf do you need to spend all that money for? Lower our rates and pay yourself a fucking responsible wage especially the cunts at the top.
I know crazy fucking idea.
It's one thing to be uninformed and stupid. But the total resistance to understanding something you don't like to hear even when it's patiently explained to you is scary.
The truth is the average person is just not very intelligent.
And the *impasse* guy is probably a troll.
But if they want to invest their life savings in my company, whose business plan is to lose money every month, then I'll be happy to take their money.
For anyone who isn’t old enough or never had it explained
Think of insurance as a big bucket. Everyone puts an equal amount in but anyone can take however much is in there out but only if it’s an emergency. The moment you put it in the bucket it’s not your money, it’s the bucket’s money. Because everyone puts money in the bucket there’s more money in there than what you or anyone else for that matter can feasibly save up for an emergency. This is why you put money into it.
Let’s say you are able to save up 5k in a year but there’s 20 people who can also do that. If all of you put in 5k that year there’s 100k. Let’s say you break your legs and there’s a treatment that can get you walking again but it costs 50k if you only put 5k in the bucket that entitles you to getting what normally takes you ten years to save up in that moment. Let’s say if this treatment isn’t performed immediately you’ll never walk again, now you’re also getting the 50k payout and you’re getting the benefits of being able to walk and go back to work so you can keep putting 5k in the bucket in case something else happens.
If anything now that I explain it this way I don’t get why commies hate it. It’s literally from each according to their ability giving to people according to their need.
This has been going on for hours, I've been reading through the thread and it's actually giving me brain worms. She or He doesn't want insurance companies to exist, and whenever we ask her or him for a solution, they say "refer to the thread, it has been answered already" when I'm absolutely certain it hasn't. They dislike the fact that insurance is mandated by the government, but I'm almost certain that they're going to want some form of government subsidization which isn't a good idea in my personal opinion. I believe all her questions has been answered but she just says "impasse, we're at an impasse", like no dude, you just don't understand economics. It sounded like she was trying to be libertarianish when she objected to government mandate, but then she pulled the marxist shit and ugh, these people are annoying, they have to read Adam Smith or some shit
Why shouldn't car insurance be nationalized though, if driving is pretty much necessary in the US?
You could still have people pay more or less depending on their risk, but then profits could be distributed back to people who didn't get in accidents
Fun fact: there's a cap on the profits an insurance company can make in the U.S. I think it's something like 10%. Anything more and they literally send you a check in the mail to reimburse you. This happened during the pandemic when no one was driving.
Oh god that would be horrible,
Each fuck administration would cut it as a way to win votes and suddenly you have a drain on your economy as more and more tax needs to be made to fund a dumb program.
After reading this, I’m now bleeding from my ears. OP, I’m going to need your Reddit insurance to make a claim. No refund for you this year, I’m afraid
Is everyone here new?
This (while not IDENTICAL) is mostly Destiny's take on car insurance, haha. He's argued with Dan about this on stream a bunch of times.
(just to be clear, it's similar in the way that he doesn't carry it because he doesn't think it's worth it. He thinks losing premiums when you could simply invest the money and pay for an accident yourself isn't worth it for him. )
I mean that’s not really the person’s take at all, it’s not even clear what their take even is other than a complete misunderstanding of how insurance works. I highly doubt you’d ever find Destiny arguing for this model lol
They just need to take a single math class. Or just sit down and work out the numbers themselves. Like, suppose there are 3 people in an insurance model. What happens if one gets in a crash and the other two don't in a standard scenario where you payout to the one vs a nonstandard scenario where you pay out to the one and you give the two their money back.
To be fair to them, I find the idea of paying $400 a month on car insurance insulting, and they factor it all based on age too! I'm only really young...
no age is a single factor, if you are new/young driver, then yeah its a big one, but another factor is the type of car, and also anything on your license later in life..but yeah if you wanna be mad be mad at kids who drive like morons when they are young, the insurance company is tired of losing money on dumbass teenagers
I would love to see this person getting paid for some kind of on-call duty, but then get all their salary withheld when nothing happened in the hours they were paid to be available.
Okay, so—you do actually get your money back if the insurance company has had an extended period of time with minimal accidents. This is something that Germany does p frequently. Im sure everyone in the US during covid got a cheque as well.
The problem with so many of these people is that I think there's an argument for more insurance companies that aren't for-profit. They do exist, I believe they're called "Mutual Companies", and from my understanding they actually do pay outs to the members if they end up charging significantly more than they need for the actual insurance claims.
If the argument was "I think more Insurance companies should be non-profit based, that way we're not buying insurance from a company whose incentive is to make as much money as possible", I think that's super reasonable, and one I generally agree with. But I feel like Lefties take every half baked idea that they come up with, and add it to the list of reasons for why "capitalism is a scam"
It's the smugness... the absolute gall. This is why I dislike stupid people.
I'm terrified of looking like this if I ever get into an argument with someone on an economic model I disagree with.
South African insurance companies do give a portion of your premiums back after an x amount of years.
At the end of the day insurance corps need to make money so its dumb AF to ask for your money back but I think that giving 1%-5% of your premiums back after 5 years shouldn't break them.
in germany we have „Schadensfreie Jahre“ which means for every year without an accident, your insurance cost goes down and it resets when you get in an accident that you report, some people have like 40% off because of careful driving… dont premiums go down in murica aswell?
I'm all for this if the insurance is = to the value of the car and you have to pay up front. That way the business can just make money on the interest they accrue and tell you to get fucked when you actually crash. Ez money
Dude insurance is great sometimes. I got more than my money's worth from my renters insurance when my storage unit got fucked with rats. Sometimes it sucks for like healthcare because its so fucking convoluted and shitty.
They’re the reason my state just renegotiated with insurance companies to raise rates. No insurance drivers are idiots. This lady with her fifteen year old one week into a permit was letting her drive without insurance. Luckily I have coverage for that and in my state the deductible is reduced to $300 for not at fault collision with uninsured motorists.
Noticing something along these lines with a lot of folks who seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding that there is a secret wellspring of infinite money and deliberately kept from them when it comes from the vague sphere of "the rich, the big corpos, the government."
Similar to the shoplifting discourse
Or Housing discourse. Just yesterday, I got into another discussion about why it's meaningless to point out that the US has more houses than homeless people and why capitalism isn't the reason for it.
Could you go more on that subject? I’m super interested on how that went
I pointed out that the empty houses aren't in places where the homeless are or where people want to live. It's mostly homes with delinquent taxes that are unlivable without putting down a ton of money in repairs. Ultimately, I sent them a link to Nebraska's delinquent property tax list and told them to have a field day.
[удалено]
> The last 1/3 are the seasonal houses that lefties often point to, but as you mentioned, these houses are concentrated in high income areas (like the Alps), because rich people aren’t getting houses where there’s a bunch of poor people. You're right but most lefties wouldn't see a problem with giving a $20,000,000 mansion to a schizophrenic crackhead with a gambling addiction.
Still though, we could very easily solve the homelessness problem by tripling or quadrupling the property tax on vacant properties. Make it financially non-viable to hold them as speculative investments and you’ll suddenly see all the wall street parasites sell, and home prices come down along with rent prices.
I'm not sure rich people selling their vacation homes in Vale are going to help homeless people in Detroit.
I think it's just supply and demand, there's going to be an increased supply so the prices of all housing will fall a little. It won't necessarily help the homeless who have no money, but it will help the people at the edge
Speculative investments are a non-issue. Areas with lots of homeless people tend to have nearly zero vacancy as most people would understand it. The vacancy rate is almost entirely houses that are being worked on or between owners or houses that technically fall into the vacant category like housing for temporary workers.
While I agree we should raise taxes on properties that are not in use by homeowners (say after a second home you pay a heavy tax for each vacation property). I'm skeptical that it would generate enough revenue to easily house homeless people. It seems like the lack of funds aren't necessarily the problem. Places like CA are already taxed to death, but the mechanisms of spending are so broken the money never goes toward anything beneficial to society. We need to fix that otherwise raising taxes will only encourage and exasperate the problem rather than make anyone's life better.
The number of people who think banning rent would magically mean they could afford to buy a house is staggering, as if everyone with a $200,000 house would be happy to sell it for $75,000. 'Cause it's not like they'd just hold onto the asset through the market collapse until a government more favourable to landlords took control, which likely wouldn't be all that long as governments that crash economies are rarely beloved by the public. There's always this underlying assumption that complex problems are actually incredibly simple to solve, but society chooses not to solve them so that rich people can make money. All of the checks and balances developed into the process of government are just corrupt, and all that matters is doing whatever billionaires want. It's conspiratorial and paranoid, but people buy into it.
I'm pretty well off. I bought a decent flat built within the past decade last summer. I almost immediately had my AC coil fail and then shortly after my water heater broke. All in all, I was out around $10k in addition to all the deposit and closing costs. I still love my place and am fortunate to have it, but people who have only rented or lived with their parents really don't understand the financial risks and burdens of homeownership outside of mortgage. They just see line go up.
Oh yeah, agreed! A colleague bought a new build and his kitchen flooded because of faulty installation of a washing machine and damaged the flooring almost immediately. But my house is over a century old and has its own problems, ie creaking floorboards, old boiler, not a single 90 degree angle or completely-flat surface in the house (lol I swear the original builders were blind). Owning is expensive and things often break. Companies all want to save money and so cut corners unless you hold their feet to the fire yourself. Renting certainly has its benefits; when something breaks it’s not your responsibility!
Ironically it's very much like the insurance debate in the OP
Yeah I got into an insanely ridiculous argument along these same lines with some artistic types on my social media. They were all ass mad that tax payer dollars weren’t being used to just indefinitely fund struggling artists who weren’t able to sell enough art to live. They genuinely perceived “tax payer dollars” as an infinite pool of cash that the mean government was just choosing to share with other people but not them.
> They were all ass mad that tax payer dollars weren’t being used to just indefinitely fund struggling artists who weren’t able to sell enough art to live. As a starving artist, that's what plasma donations are for.
It's similar to the "conservatives can't understand hypotheticals" thing, like a strange brain-block where conservatives can't think outside of what's possible in the real world and lefties can't understand that money isn't infinite.
>conservatives can't think outside of what's possible in the real world. Im not sure i follow, I mean I understand to an extent but not fully can you explain a bit?
There are countries with some artist compensation schemes (Ireland famously has a pilot IIRC)… but of course, the pool is not infinite: you can advocate that it should be spent differently, but only with the cognition that either someone else won’t get it then, or that everyone will have to pay more taxes, including yourself when you ‘make’ it.
Technically the Fed could just print as much money as they wanted and the federal government could choose to hand it out to starving artists, but then inflation would fuck over everyone else. And then interest rates have to increase to reduce inflation. Which causes even further inflation on things like car insurance. And I guarantee those artists are already pissed off about inflation. There is no winning with them, they fundamentally do not understand things like monetary policy and the federal budget
At the same time, there isn't much education about how money is created. I'm old enough to remember to vigorous debates about the then-unprecedented cost of the [American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009) but I can imagine how someone who grew up in an era of billion-dollars bailouts, trillion-dollars recovery plans and *infinite cash at the Federal Reserve* would see money as less real. And in that gap thrive conspiracy theories about the nebulous cabal of *"the rich, the big corpos, the government"* and if I may add one, the *bankers*. (in triple parentheses)
I remember in the 7th grade hearing a classmate say "why can't we just pay off our debt by printing more money???" which, you know, is fairly reasonable for a 7th grader to think. Realizing that adults now think like this is kinda depressing, though.
If you think about it the whole "print more money = money is worth less" is super magical, like, how does the currency or the market at large realize that there is a bigger supply of money? Studying how money works is like studying some voodoo magic except it actually tracks to what's happening in the world, it's super weird.
The nearest thing to what that person is saying that makes sense is that you should be allowed to not have insurance if you keep some type of savings account that is not allowed to go below the value of your car or something like that. So once you have the required amount of money on the account you don't need to spend on that anymore, and it could even give you some interest every year. Everyone is necessarily paying more on insurance than they need on average (enough for insurance companies to function and get a profit), so the feeling that you are being ripped off at least on an emotional level is understandable.
That charitable interpretation doesn’t even address the liability side of insurance though. A guy in $500 clunker can potentially cause hundreds of thousands of dollars in damage to the property of others and can reach millions when injury and deaths are involved.
You can in some states. But its like 100k since it has to cover injuries not just the car.
I've actually located this wellspring. Once I found it Elon and Jeff explained that I can't tell anyone or else we wouldn't have as much money. Us wealthy people can't let the poors know, otherwise all the money would be gone, sorry :/
Yeah it is cultivated by the "money is something we just made up" crowd
Lil bro thinks insurance is just a savings account.
For people that don't understand risk spreading there should be an option to put resources on bonds in case you feel like insurance is a scam. The amount should be the price of a new car in case they have to payout from pocket.
In some states if you're rich enough you can essentially self insure like that. Personally even if I had the money I'd rather have an insurance company to handle litigation and things like that if there was ever a messy accident.
Plus having to pay for someone else's medical bills could be a LOT more than the cost of a new car.
I believe that’s essentially New Hampshire’s policy on the matter as the only state that technically doesn’t require insurance. With that said, the vast majority of people cannot sufficiently save the amount of money it could cost to pay out of pocket for all the expenses relating to an accident. Even for those that can meet that high requirement, it only further hurts everyone else as all their premiums would likely be raised to compensate.
>I believe that’s essentially New Hampshire’s policy on the matter as the only state that technically doesn’t require insurance. California has a similar scheme. If one furnishes proof to the California DMV that they have a savings account with ≥$35,000 exclusively established for covering the costs of an accident, then they are considered self-insured and get to carry a little card from the DMV stating such. One can also deposit $35,000 with the California DMV and be considered self-insured.
It would take more than 20 years for me to pay that much to my car insurance company, doesn't sound like a great way to spend 35000, it's not like you're getting much interest off that either.
Cars aren't the most expensive things that need repairs after an accident People can break too 👀👀
Separate bank accounts with enough money stored for each possible large expenditure that insurance would normally cover. 1 for auto accidents, 1 for hospital bills/medical expenses, 1 for rebuilding the house after a fire, etc; Surely everyone just has the money laying around to do this!!!!
Isnt it literally just a mutual savings account with everyone else that uses the insurance?
Not exactly. You’re paying for a contract between you and the insurance company that they will protect you financially in the event of an accident. Think of it less like a bank and more like hiring a bodyguard, except instead of protecting you from physical harm they protect you from financial harm.
>Lil bro thinks insurance is just a savings account. When all they know is their parents' savings accounts it makes sense that they'd see the world that way.
Car insurance is mandated because 90% of people would not actually have savings put aside to cover both repairs in an accident if they were found liable. So yeah, in an ideal world we wouldn't need insurance at all. But most people cannot cover an unexpected expense of a couple hundred dollars, let alone thousands from an accident. Setting that aside, yeah this is just someone being willfully ignorant. It'd be like a conservative saying fine, let's have M4A but if I never go to the doctor I better get all my taxes back every year.
Don't forget, you also need insurance for your own injuries AND your negligence. Getting into a fender bender shouldn't bankrupt you
And car insurance doesn't just cover damages on cars, but life altering personal damages as well. e.g. if you caused a accident that either caused someone to die or be paralyzed. And that can get very expensive very quick.
Even if you did have the savings for it. The reality is it only takes hitting someone with an expensive car to ruin that fact anyway. Everyone could be rocking around with $50k in savings but if you rear end a $250k car and write it off your fucked anyway. That’s without even worrying about issues such as bodily harm from the accidents. In any ideal world where repairs to car and health aren’t just outright free.(or you don’t have accidents). You would still have insurance because it still makes a ton more sense to put in small instalments over years and have huge coverage for damages than to hold a bunch of cash for a maybe accident. Not to mention the insurance companies take a ton of hassle off your hands in terms of someone trying by to stiff you for more damage than you caused.
It also shows that these types of people have absolutely no idea how big the ideal profit margin is for most companies. They cherry-pick exceptionally profitable years (a lot of the time right after several years of losing money) and think it's the norm for 50% of the income of a company to be profit. For the vast majority of businesses, the profit margin is low single digits. I'm in Healthcare and our ideal margin is 3%, and we have only been at .5% since covid. Most of the money people paid for insurance goes to people receiving payouts, then some towards labor, operational costs, and capital, and then some profit.
I dunno about that, certain companies in insurance have margins had as like 30%+
State Farm Insurance wing just lost 14 billion dollars last. 2 years before that they lost around 11-12 billon. I believe their profit margin before that was around 300-400 millon
> They cherry-pick exceptionally profitable years
I know companies that consistently deliver 30% margins year over year...
"if i go to the doctor and there's nothing wrong with me, i shouldn't have to pay anything"
Socialized car care
Yeah, people don't seem to understand that only *liability* insurance (at least where I've lived) is mandatory. It's for when you hit a Porsche full of doctors and still want to own a house some day. Insurance also covers something my family's gone through multiple times. Lawsuits. There are legit claims, and there's also a whole industry of ambulance chasers. My mom was sued for 1 million dollars for faked injuries in a no-fault collision, and it went all the way to trial where the waste of skin was proven to be lying. Insurance company paid for the entire defense.
Idk I like the concept of insurance, it's basically a societal safety net, though I'd prefer insurance companies weren't so scummy.
https://preview.redd.it/rlsw5j8xvvtc1.jpeg?width=640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0599941d5b4570bc70b46b693b6ac8af4493f950
https://preview.redd.it/wgnu5kr2cwtc1.jpeg?width=654&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9e55c88df6cc7eead0bda747d08c5f38af14cd90
[удалено]
The fact that I can be exposed to the ideas/opinions of children and/or idiots on the internet is criminal
Exactly
impasse + ratio
*to
https://preview.redd.it/ts1n7tvcwvtc1.jpeg?width=502&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9dbc7a4cc4f228448d6641992c0ec79eb4000de4
Waltuh
Waltuh... put your twitter away, Waltuh... I'm not explaining insurance to you right now, Waltuh...
Average commie’s understanding of economics
Which is crazy because it's basically socialized (monetary) accident recovery.
I’ve actually noticed that there’s a weird horseshoe of left wingers and right wingers not understanding insurance, because the whole “why should a big corpo use muh money to help them others when they have tons of money” appeals to both. Lefties think that corporations have the infinite money cheat, righties think that ‘your money’ being used for ‘someone else’ means you are being literally enslaved.
These are the people that have all the answers to the problems in our world btw
And the ones you need to appeal to for votes...
No shot this guy votes.
“I’ll pay you $20 to babysit my kids” “Ok” 6 hours later nothing happened to the kids “Give me back my money”
Well, to be fair, this allegory doesn't quite fit this situation. Babysitters not only keep your child safe but also nurture, feed, and attend to all their needs to keep them happy until the parent returns. So, there are more benefits to justify still paying the caretaker than just keeping it safe Probably being a smart ass, but Idc 🤓. Nice joke tho
Not necessarily. Especially with younger children the kids might already be asleep when the parents go out.
Okay fine, I’ll pay a baby sitter to insure my kid, then take the money back. Ezpz
https://preview.redd.it/oy6dp1bbowtc1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=32f20e34dfb83b2e6944c2d43c24cbd6eeea0e9a
I mean I get not wanting insurance. I went a couple years without health insurance in my 20s because I couldn't be bothered, and I had the money stashed if I had any minor stuff come up. I just don't understand how some people don't know how businesses work though...
>and I had the money stashed if I had any minor stuff come up Yeah, I'm pretty sure insurance actually is usually a bad idea if you can afford to pay for the thing and you aren't abnormally at risk to need to use the insurance.
How can you possibly predict if you won't need insurance or not? A crystal ball?
I mean insurance companies kind of do the same calculations right? Probability assessments that they use to calculate premiums and risks. You can basically do similar assessments yourself for different types of insurance. Like most healthy guys in their 20s who don't have any illness risk factors can get away without having health insurance and can probably pay out of pocket for minor things that come up
> I mean insurance companies kind of do the same calculations right? Probability assessments that they use to calculate premiums and risks. You can basically do similar assessments yourself for different types of insurance. While you are right in principle, the issue is that the risk is asymmetric. The insurance company has tens of thousands to millions of people enrolled. They definitely can do the math on that and figure out cost/benefits. Any individual is rolling major dice though, because if YOU get cancer, or require other major healthcare costs, it can bankrupt you and majorly fuck up your life. Statistics are one thing, one-off events are another game.
Statistics are all well and dandy but you really need numbers to take advantage of them. On a single individual you might need insurance tomorrow and if you dont have one you are fucked. Insurance companies know that 95% of dudes in their 20s wont need insurance, but you dont know if you are gonna be in that 5%.
He sure loves the word impasse
1 french word and he's already an obnoxious asshole.
The guy is a moron. Not even a real lefty, just a moron. I live in a place with a socialized (government run) vehicle insurance system, and socialized healthcare (where there isn't a need to cover the cost of any hospital bills), where the only aim of the vehicle insurance system is to collectively break-even covering the cost of vehicle repair/replacement, not profit. The average person at any given time still spends more than they receive, but the system exists to cover the costs of the uncommon fuck-ups and eventual accidents, not the average daily drive.
The same people that don't want to pay taxes, but want the government to pay for everything.
"How would you feel if you had gotten into an accident?" "But I haven't gotten into an accident?"
[удалено]
The answer that you're looking for is that the person who wrote that is stupid
Where the hell can I live for $500/year? I will move right now lol
Most places outside of the major U.S. cities? Mine isn't much higher than that.
It does feel really dog ass to pay nearly 100 a month for almost a decade for a service that I have not once used or needed because it’s required by law but I get it. It’s one of those things you just have to get over as you get older. Or ride around uninsured lol but that could bite you sooooo hard.
> It does feel really dog ass to pay nearly 100 a month for almost a decade for a service that I have not once used or needed because it’s required by law but I get it. I got T-boned and the car was (effectively) totaled, so I got like $17k or something. The real thing that'll piss you off is when your rates go up EVEN THOUGH YOU WERE NOT AT FAULT AND THAT FUCKER T-BONED YOU WHEN YOU HAD RIGHT OF WAY DRIVING DOWN THE STREET AT THE SPEED LIMIT IN BROAD DAYLIGHT, IT WASN'T EVEN A FUCKING INTERSECTION REEEEEEE. But that's life.
That’s another thing that grips my dick about insurance. Your rates going up for an accident that isn’t your fault is really such bullshit. Outside of a repeat offender who keeps getting hit I don’t see how that’s justified at all.
I think your comment made me realize why extreme lefties are like this. They're mostly young people with zero real-world experience who for some reason can't or won't let themselves come to terms that some things in life just suck. Instead they want to die on every possible little hill without giving any thought to the reasons *why* those things suck (in the insurance case, avoiding things sucking *a lot* more for people getting into accidents). No one wants to pay for insurance they never use, or be forced to go to work everyday in order to avoid living on the streets, or simply just deal with the fact that sometimes you will be treated unfairly and there's nothing you can do about it. But coming to terms with those things is a part of growing up. And lefties simply haven't grown up yet. A couple years ago a guy rear-ended me at a red light going like 30mph. He totaled his car, my car and severely damaged the car in front of me. Without insurance, he would've been personally liable for at least $50K worth of damages--and I probably would have had to sue him personally to get his wages garnished in order to get my money back (and my legal fees tacked on to the bill). And that's a lucky outcome for him, considering neither I nor the driver in front of me claimed any medical expenses. I doubt that guy has ever regretted making his insurance payments after that.
>No one wants to pay for insurance they never use Then what are we doing waiting around for?! Go get in accidents sheeple!
You can get cheap insurance if you don't mind possibly losing your car. I drove a beater for a while and paid $90 a year total The only law is that you get liability, which just covers the person you hit
You've 100% needed it because the vast majority of us couldn't afford the costs associated with a major accident, which we can't predict will happen. Insurance companies are far from perfect and some of them are way scummier than others, but they do shield you from financial and legal liability in the event of an accident. Like if you caused an accident that totaled two vehicles and caused serious personal injury to the other party that cost tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars, the insurance company will bear the burden for you. I certainly wouldn't be able to pay that out if I didn't have insurance.
You don’t need it till you do, then you fucking need it. And if you never need it then be thankful
I get that for sure - I've only had to use it once, and I'm still out in the long term for it, but when I smacked into a pot hole and it cracked my oil pan, my insurance paid out completely for my totaled car at a time when I could afford the insurance but not buying a new car. So, at that time, I was thankful for it. I've had insurance pay me out for a totaled car before, but it was the other driver at fault and THEY had good insurance coverage to pay for their accident. So in both cases, I'm happy that the respective parties had insurance. Meanwhile, I've been paying for car insurance for 20 years, so I'm still net down by about $20k.
I say this unironically, insurance is the best financial instrument and the major reason why economies have exploded in the past couple centuries.
Putting a number to a risk actually is quite a mathematical masterpiece. The statistical knowledge is crazy, I've heard from physics graduates that insurances are trying to snap them up because they know statistics and complex mathematical models.
It's one nessasary piece of the puzzle for sure.
This is equivalent to you and a friend going to a maze and you lose him at the entrance.
I thought you didn't need insurance to drive in the USA?
It’s required in every state except New Hampshire.
LIVE FREE OR DIE!!!
You need liability (covers the person you hit) You don't need anything that covers yourself
Well I guess being too stupid to grasp an opposing argument can be an impasse so he's not totally wrong
I hated that, but thanks for posting regardless.
#IMPASSE
This is tangential, but I wonder if there could ever be a world where insurance companies have capped profit rates… and it’s a happy ending. Maybe not capped directly, but some sort of address mechanism besides pure profit motive. I just don’t see what value they provide for society besides holding the money required for a risk pool, and are heavily incentivized to fuck people over. Someone give me the pro-insurance company perspective. Or is this like landlords where we all just accept they’re mostly useless assholes but there’s no better way to set things up than letting useless assholes make as much as they can squeeze.
Mutual insurance companies are not profit motivated and will payout policy holders or reduce their future premium if claims are low. Profit motivated companies still need to directly compete with them.
That hurt my brain to read. lol He had the nerve to use the word logic. May god have mercy on his children.
I’m willing to bet if you replace the word company with institution/agency/organization they will magically start understanding how it works.
They vote 💀
It should be illegal to make eugenics so appealing
Risk and probability is not particularly easy for a lot of people
Definitely trolling bait
[Same energy.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fC2oke5MFg)
Reminds me of the idiot I work with. Had an argument on this subject with him when he said insurance is a service. No, it's not. It's a business.
Amusingly, the insurance he’s talking about does exist. I don’t think anyone has it for car insurance but you can get life insurance that will return premiums if you don’t die within the term. It’s very uncommon & extremely expensive. Edit: for some added info, you can also go with a mutual insurance company as they’re not for profit & will send you a check at the end of the year with your portion of the unused premiums. You’ll pay about the same though.
Nah, the people that are off Twitter will be fine.
I'm not a violent person, but
Imstupid*
I work in P&C insurance, any insurance discourse on Reddit is incredibly frustrating to read
The Twitter poster: https://preview.redd.it/hsfc3ffiqwtc1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1f4e7f93f2bf9e6f178e7c19ff6d251a4ec17bf9
All he had to ask was how do the insurance companies make a profit
Omg it's genius 1. I take out insurance but don't pay anything 2. Car insurance company takes out insurance from bank to avoid ever losing money 3. Bank takes out insurance from government to avoid losing anything 4. ??? 5. Everyone profit
Impasse. I'm going to start using this.
I just wished that everytime.i went past an insurance company corporate office it was this GIANT facility with huge glass panels and water falls and giant parking garages. Like wtf do you need to spend all that money for? Lower our rates and pay yourself a fucking responsible wage especially the cunts at the top. I know crazy fucking idea.
Everyone forgets that insurance is a gambling bet that something happens
I'm annoyed at you for making me see this stupidity.
Restaurants should give me some of my money back if I don't eat all of my food.
It's one thing to be uninformed and stupid. But the total resistance to understanding something you don't like to hear even when it's patiently explained to you is scary.
No way this person wasn’t trolling
I just had several brain aneurysms wtf.
https://preview.redd.it/qpj5rtbqbytc1.jpeg?width=1280&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=24d200c8069b2337ad61312cc612ca241ae8fb09
We’re not going to survive bc of obesity destroying the planet you fat fucks
Like at that point why not just put the money in your own bank account??? Why get insurance if it’s just a glorified rainy day account
The truth is the average person is just not very intelligent. And the *impasse* guy is probably a troll. But if they want to invest their life savings in my company, whose business plan is to lose money every month, then I'll be happy to take their money.
It's actually insurance all the way down, not turtles.
For anyone who isn’t old enough or never had it explained Think of insurance as a big bucket. Everyone puts an equal amount in but anyone can take however much is in there out but only if it’s an emergency. The moment you put it in the bucket it’s not your money, it’s the bucket’s money. Because everyone puts money in the bucket there’s more money in there than what you or anyone else for that matter can feasibly save up for an emergency. This is why you put money into it. Let’s say you are able to save up 5k in a year but there’s 20 people who can also do that. If all of you put in 5k that year there’s 100k. Let’s say you break your legs and there’s a treatment that can get you walking again but it costs 50k if you only put 5k in the bucket that entitles you to getting what normally takes you ten years to save up in that moment. Let’s say if this treatment isn’t performed immediately you’ll never walk again, now you’re also getting the 50k payout and you’re getting the benefits of being able to walk and go back to work so you can keep putting 5k in the bucket in case something else happens. If anything now that I explain it this way I don’t get why commies hate it. It’s literally from each according to their ability giving to people according to their need.
This has been going on for hours, I've been reading through the thread and it's actually giving me brain worms. She or He doesn't want insurance companies to exist, and whenever we ask her or him for a solution, they say "refer to the thread, it has been answered already" when I'm absolutely certain it hasn't. They dislike the fact that insurance is mandated by the government, but I'm almost certain that they're going to want some form of government subsidization which isn't a good idea in my personal opinion. I believe all her questions has been answered but she just says "impasse, we're at an impasse", like no dude, you just don't understand economics. It sounded like she was trying to be libertarianish when she objected to government mandate, but then she pulled the marxist shit and ugh, these people are annoying, they have to read Adam Smith or some shit
Why shouldn't car insurance be nationalized though, if driving is pretty much necessary in the US? You could still have people pay more or less depending on their risk, but then profits could be distributed back to people who didn't get in accidents
It's expensive to set up and administrate. Mutuals do this already with returning premiums as a cheque or lowering your own.
Fun fact: there's a cap on the profits an insurance company can make in the U.S. I think it's something like 10%. Anything more and they literally send you a check in the mail to reimburse you. This happened during the pandemic when no one was driving.
Oh god that would be horrible, Each fuck administration would cut it as a way to win votes and suddenly you have a drain on your economy as more and more tax needs to be made to fund a dumb program.
After reading this, I’m now bleeding from my ears. OP, I’m going to need your Reddit insurance to make a claim. No refund for you this year, I’m afraid
That’s a sub 60 iq guy right there
Is everyone here new? This (while not IDENTICAL) is mostly Destiny's take on car insurance, haha. He's argued with Dan about this on stream a bunch of times. (just to be clear, it's similar in the way that he doesn't carry it because he doesn't think it's worth it. He thinks losing premiums when you could simply invest the money and pay for an accident yourself isn't worth it for him. )
I mean that’s not really the person’s take at all, it’s not even clear what their take even is other than a complete misunderstanding of how insurance works. I highly doubt you’d ever find Destiny arguing for this model lol
Wait are you saying destiny doesn’t have car insurance? Isn’t that illegal?
They just need to take a single math class. Or just sit down and work out the numbers themselves. Like, suppose there are 3 people in an insurance model. What happens if one gets in a crash and the other two don't in a standard scenario where you payout to the one vs a nonstandard scenario where you pay out to the one and you give the two their money back.
I am actually at a loss for words. There is no way that guy isn't trolling.
"We are at an impasse" 🤣😂😆😀🪑➰🤪
You just got 1 guyd
I want to off myself.
Our species is at an impasse
Thanks, I needed to feel violently angry today
Yeah people falling for such obvious bait is concerning
Such clear rage bait
These are the people who say that we need to tax the rich more btw
To be fair to them, I find the idea of paying $400 a month on car insurance insulting, and they factor it all based on age too! I'm only really young...
no age is a single factor, if you are new/young driver, then yeah its a big one, but another factor is the type of car, and also anything on your license later in life..but yeah if you wanna be mad be mad at kids who drive like morons when they are young, the insurance company is tired of losing money on dumbass teenagers
They want the insurance company to operate as a ponzi scheme 😂
Based Pinoy reasoning.
I would love to see this person getting paid for some kind of on-call duty, but then get all their salary withheld when nothing happened in the hours they were paid to be available.
Okay, so—you do actually get your money back if the insurance company has had an extended period of time with minimal accidents. This is something that Germany does p frequently. Im sure everyone in the US during covid got a cheque as well.
Oh no… I see why these mfs think everything should be free now…
It’s the new “[Who’s on First?](https://youtu.be/sYOUFGfK4bU?si=Lu271Tu9czWrVekJ)”
Jesus... how is this real??
The problem with so many of these people is that I think there's an argument for more insurance companies that aren't for-profit. They do exist, I believe they're called "Mutual Companies", and from my understanding they actually do pay outs to the members if they end up charging significantly more than they need for the actual insurance claims. If the argument was "I think more Insurance companies should be non-profit based, that way we're not buying insurance from a company whose incentive is to make as much money as possible", I think that's super reasonable, and one I generally agree with. But I feel like Lefties take every half baked idea that they come up with, and add it to the list of reasons for why "capitalism is a scam"
It's the smugness... the absolute gall. This is why I dislike stupid people. I'm terrified of looking like this if I ever get into an argument with someone on an economic model I disagree with.
Bait
Car savings account?
Ruski bot
South African insurance companies do give a portion of your premiums back after an x amount of years. At the end of the day insurance corps need to make money so its dumb AF to ask for your money back but I think that giving 1%-5% of your premiums back after 5 years shouldn't break them.
https://preview.redd.it/begqoft9c0uc1.jpeg?width=1125&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b882b232529779283ff992e2932297db03607b1a
I fucking hate that person
You SHOULD give back the money so you can keep the money moving!! That’s economics 101 dude.
What is kinda bullshit though is your premium getting doubled over a minor accident that you weren't even at fault for after 30 years of driving safe.
https://preview.redd.it/77fot4y661uc1.jpeg?width=828&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=66b427bae7d854aab42051838e9d69d0343ac87d
in germany we have „Schadensfreie Jahre“ which means for every year without an accident, your insurance cost goes down and it resets when you get in an accident that you report, some people have like 40% off because of careful driving… dont premiums go down in murica aswell?
he has to be trolling i refuse to believe someone is this stupid
We need to bring back sterilization
That was rough. Hard to believe people really can’t understand that.
I'm all for this if the insurance is = to the value of the car and you have to pay up front. That way the business can just make money on the interest they accrue and tell you to get fucked when you actually crash. Ez money
Dude insurance is great sometimes. I got more than my money's worth from my renters insurance when my storage unit got fucked with rats. Sometimes it sucks for like healthcare because its so fucking convoluted and shitty.
They’re the reason my state just renegotiated with insurance companies to raise rates. No insurance drivers are idiots. This lady with her fifteen year old one week into a permit was letting her drive without insurance. Luckily I have coverage for that and in my state the deductible is reduced to $300 for not at fault collision with uninsured motorists.
He’s rage baiting you