3 ms·
$500 * 50 years is still $25,000 over a lifetime. I feel safe in saying that that number doesn't come anywhere close to the damages that an average person actua
by dougk16 14y ago
$500 * 50 years is still $25,000 over a lifetime. I feel safe in saying that that number doesn't come anywhere close to the damages that an average person actually causes. And besides, I paid about that much when living in the midwest for a stint, but around an east coast city you'll be lucky to get that price for half a year.
My master plan could similarly relate population density to accountability.
You have a good point about "luxury" assets (and certainly there would be many special cases like this to account for), but I'm not really talking about government insurance per se, because it's based on actual damages. If no car accidents happened in a year, nobody would pay any money.
- maxerickson 14y agoI have more than the legal minimum of liability insurance, live in an East coast state and pay less than $600 year. I do have a fairly clear record. People that carry collision are doing so because someone made it a condition of a loan or because they are worried about the cost of losing a vehicle. I don't see any reason to bring the government into those situations.
- dougk16 14y agoFair enough. I ran an orange light a few years ago and my insurance costs went up by 150%. While the $500/year price tag may be what's on paper, I find that it isn't the reality for most people. It isn't so much bringing the government in, as just using them as the non-profit middle man to tally all the car-related damage costs, then foot the bill to the public. If someone wanted to opt out and use private insurance, they would be free to do so. Obviously this will never happen in the USA, but it would be an interesting social experiment for a smaller country perhaps.