General / Off-Topic Car Insurance Is Odd

[verminstar]

Having worked in insurance, the renewal price isn't based on liability or added risk (if your circumstances haven't changed), it's there to make more money for the insurance company.

Most insurance is set to auto renew, so unless you shop around and look for better deals, you'll end up paying more. Most people, I'm afraid to say, don't shop around and hence the insurance company make a few more quid out of you than if you'd run your details through even the most rudimentary price comparison site. Back in the day NCB (which again insurers will only consider 3 years of, no matter how many you have e.g. the discount doesn't increase for 3-4 or 5 years but maxes out at 3) DID lead to a lower premium, but now as the insurance market is more cut throat the opposite happens.

The renewal price should be seen as a starting point, even with basic haggling you should be able to get it down.

Have a read of this if you can be bothered:- https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/insurance/compare-cheap-car-insurance and you're UK based.

The only other thing to be careful of is to make sure you are comparing apples with apples - so make sure you have NCB protected, legal cover etc if you have it already etc etc.

Play with your job title, add a parent or spouse sometimes, get an accurate £ for your car and so on. I can tell you the worst job titles are Scrap Dealer, Taxi Driver and anything in entertainment like Musician, Actor etc etc. The best is Librarian if you were wondering.

p.s. @Verminstar UK companies charge an OUTRAGEOUS amount for any BT postcode, never use a mainstream company if you live in Ulster!

English companies have a fairly bad rep fer over charging...lotta companies wont even touch us here and refuse point blank to deal with anyone with an Ulster postcode so I shop around every year and every year end up paying less and less...similar advice to what ye give. But then Im a disabled and unemployed single parent so I have to watch the pennies a lot closer than those who dont have money issues.

Last price check I did, I found all but one locally based company could out bid almost all English based companies. I pay a paltry 350 notes...likes of AA were asking fer over a grand and theres less extras on the policy so thats roughly three times what a local company can offer. A little difference of maybe a brick or two is one thing, but of the ten companies I could choose from, that was just about in the top ten. Every other company who was cheaper was locally based and they all offered more extras fer less money.

 

[seko]

Similar to how people who work hard, take risks and display some aptitude for earning are expected to carry the welfare state on their backs, those of us who don't make claims exist in order to subsidize those who do.

isn't that the truth

 

[EUS]

Time to call them, and dump them if they don't reduce your rates.

 

[Deleted member 115407]

Time to call them, and dump them if they don't reduce your rates.

Yeah, it's not like they're the only insurance scam in town.

Plenty of competition.

 

[ethelred]

Similar to how people who work hard, take risks and display some aptitude for earning are expected to carry the welfare state on their backs, those of us who don't make claims exist in order to subsidize those who do.

This is why I ALWAYS, go around thanking every hard-working risk taking displayer of aptitude for providing me, a beneficiary of this crazy system called the welfare state, for the additional care my disabled daughter receives.

You're quite right - why in a modern society should we ever support the weakest and most vulnerable and allow them to have any sort of quality of life? Poor people are poor because they're stupid and lazy aren't they, and as for the disabled, well I'm sorry but why should I pay to support them? Better if they just died right?

I mean, it's not as if they contribute anything to society as a whole, and after all the sole value of an individual in a society is how much money they earn isn't it?

 

[Vasious]

So my car insurance is up for renewal.

Ive been driving for like 15 years with no accidents or claims. Woop.
I owned an automatic Saab diesel, worth about £1000. Lol maybe.
God knows how many no claims. 11 or 12 years...

My current insurance is about £560 a year.
Next year's renewal quote with the same company is now £670.... Have I suddenly become a liability?

That's not all.

My girlfriend (27) wants to learn to drive. Using my car. Lol
So I did an online comparison with her on my insurance.
As. A. Learner.



£450.


I don't get it.

Without her on my insurance, it's £400.

So what insurance companies are saying is, I'm a liability, despite no evidence to prove otherwise. lol

Why would my insurance even go up?
They're basically saying they don't want me as a customer anymore, go away. Lol

Wierdos.

CMDR Cosmic Spacehead

Your old Saab is the liability, not you.
Even if you are not at fault for an accident, they are still up for repairing the car, and with its age will likely just be a total loss, so maximum exposure.
Recovery is never a certainly, cant speak for UK but here we have a lot of Uninsured Third Parities paying us 2$ a week from their Benefit for the next 173 years...

But never hurts to shop around, just make sure you are comparing apples with apples.
Read the policy wording, what are the benefits and exclusions, what is the excess, are their restrictions on the driver, is the policy Market, agreed, or market capped at sum insured.

 

[jasonbarron]

This is why I ALWAYS, go around thanking every hard-working risk taking displayer of aptitude for providing me, a beneficiary of this crazy system called the welfare state, for the additional care my disabled daughter receives.

You're quite right - why in a modern society should we ever support the weakest and most vulnerable and allow them to have any sort of quality of life? Poor people are poor because they're stupid and lazy aren't they, and as for the disabled, well I'm sorry but why should I pay to support them? Better if they just died right?

I mean, it's not as if they contribute anything to society as a whole, and after all the sole value of an individual in a society is how much money they earn isn't it?

Well, I may be wrong, but despite the fact that it SHOULD be that way, a recipient of the hard work and entrepreneurial spirit of another when they themselves cannot take care of their own obligations and needs taking the time to display a measure of humility and gratitude to those who lift their own burden for them, I detect equal measures of haughtiness, sarcasm and entitlement in the first part of your statement to me.

The point you make in no way shape or form takes away or even addresses my point which you obviously take issue with. My point was concerning factual reality, while your refutation was simply speaking to "feelings." You seem to want to claim some moral high ground based on your child's need which you cannot meet based on the efforts of your own labor, so therefore "someone else" is obligated to. I do happen to believe that we need a safety net in society, especially for children, but before I go any further down this road with you, I am curious as to what you do for a living and just how much of your own responsibilities do you meet? My experience, and it is considerable, is that most people who are so truculently willing as you are to lay claim to the prosperity of others are doing much less than their share in society.

I am sorry to hear about your child; my own daughter suffers from an immune deficiency disease with no cure.

 

[Necronaught]

Just wait till you get married and see what your liabilities are then LOL

Reep, rep, rep,rep and bring back the Grid Girls. Don't they dare remove them from the Octagon

 

[Necronaught]

Well, I may be wrong, but despite the fact that it SHOULD be that way, a recipient of the hard work and entrepreneurial spirit of another when they themselves cannot take care of their own obligations and needs taking the time to display a measure of humility and gratitude to those who lift their own burden for them, I detect equal measures of haughtiness, sarcasm and entitlement in the first part of your statement to me.

The point you make in no way shape or form takes away or even addresses my point which you obviously take issue with. My point was concerning factual reality, while your refutation was simply speaking to "feelings." You seem to want to claim some moral high ground based on your child's need which you cannot meet based on the efforts of your own labor, so therefore "someone else" is obligated to. I do happen to believe that we need a safety net in society, especially for children, but before I go any further down this road with you, I am curious as to what you do for a living and just how much of your own responsibilities do you meet? My experience, and it is considerable, is that most people who are so truculently willing as you are to lay claim to the prosperity of others are doing much less than their share in society.

I am sorry to hear about your child; my own daughter suffers from an immune deficiency disease with no cure.

Someone mentioned before the welfare state is there to prevent revolutions.....Also to provide a surplus of cannon fodder for any crisis designed to push the agenda of The Great Work.

 

[Deleted member 115407]

I am sorry to hear about your child; my own daughter suffers from an immune deficiency disease with no cure.

Ooh, sorry to hear that, dude.

Someone mentioned before the welfare state is there to prevent revolutions.....

The Romans called it "Breads and Circuses"

 

[starman]

isn't that the truth

The welfare state is there for everyone and to stop peasant revolts.

If the economy was better then there would be more jobs. Would you expect someone in coma to be available for work. It also provides the state pension that most people will receive on retirement.

Many people who claim benefits in UK are not UK nationals or have never paid in contribution. Id start there.

 

[Manticore]

I do happen to believe that we need a safety net in society, especially for children, but before I go any further down this road with you, I am curious as to what you do for a living and just how much of your own responsibilities do you meet?

With regard to Objectivism; and Galt went into a monologue on it for seventy plus pages (yes, I have read that book) there exists a striving to harmonise individual endeavour with the desire for self-worth and happiness and also the correct behaviour towards others (o.k. you can shoot me down in flames over that statement).

What I'm unfortunately seeing with this society is that safety nets, those that are provided to support those who strive to improve their worth and achievement, are being eroded in the name of greed, by a powerful few.

The result: Massive inequity and systemic failure of these safety nets and many, many people are getting unhappy (or unhappier).

In my view nobility arises from the way one treats oneself and others. It appears that is sucking at the moment on many societal levels.

I think Rand was right, up to a point, but underestimated the spread of modern capitalism as we know it now.

I would have loved to ask her what she thought about car insurance.

 

[ethelred]

stuff

Thanks for your reply Jason. My response was indeed full of snark, and I must genuinely commend you on the use of the word truculent. We don't see enough of that these days.

Quite happy to go down this road - didn't quite expect it in a thread about insurance tbh, but there you go.

Fundamentally we hold different opinions about society, I would say that those opinions are probably at opposite ends of the political spectrum. Whilst my personal dreams of an anarchic utopia would necessitate a revolution and the deaths of about half of the population of the UK in the resulting civil war, I'm pragmatic enough to settle for mere socialism for the moment, but probably more of that later.

Inherent in your question about me is the (unspoken?) premise that only people who have contributed to a society should benefit to it inasmuch as what a person gets in welfare should be in proportion to what they have contributed. That's the issue I have with what you said, and probably the sticking point between us - the fact that to me it doesn't matter what someone has contributed in order to have access to what they need from the state in the form of welfare, unemployment benefit, housing and so on. I'm guessing it does to you?

In terms of your original statement, I took it to mean exactly what you have accused me of - claiming a moral high ground of being a net contributor to a society, and therefore being entitled to "welfare" or begrudging the fact these people have to "pay" for people who haven't or aren't net contributors to society. The factual argument is indisputable - people pay taxes to support welfare and in purely £ terms they pay more. In the UK at least, poorer people pay more of a % of their income in taxes across the board, so perhaps it could be argued that they contribute more? Lies and statistics Jason. Lies and statistics.

If that's not what you meant then I do apologise, if you could state unequivocally what you did mean that would be helpful.

This is the internet, and I'm fairly anonymous so take what comes with a pinch of salt, but to answer your question (which, as I have said tells me more about your unstated premises and how we differ in terms of thinking about a society):-

I'm 40 year old, mixed race, straight, male who's degree educated (Linguistics if you were bothered), a marxist, an atheist and gainfully employed. I work for Cambridge University. My wife works part time and together we earn, before tax, about £80k which just about puts us in the top 5th of earners in the UK. (for reference the mean household income in the UK is £23.5k). My house of which I own about half, (the rest currenly owned by Halifax bank) is worth about £550k.

Champagne socialist then? Very probably.

How about you?

 

[Yaffle]

So my car insurance is up for renewal.

Ive been driving for like 15 years with no accidents or claims. Woop.
I owned an automatic Saab diesel, worth about £1000. Lol maybe.
God knows how many no claims. 11 or 12 years...

My current insurance is about £560 a year.
Next year's renewal quote with the same company is now £670.... Have I suddenly become a liability?

That's not all.

My girlfriend (27) wants to learn to drive. Using my car. Lol
So I did an online comparison with her on my insurance.
As. A. Learner.



£450.


I don't get it.

Without her on my insurance, it's £400.

So what insurance companies are saying is, I'm a liability, despite no evidence to prove otherwise. lol

Why would my insurance even go up?
They're basically saying they don't want me as a customer anymore, go away. Lol

Wierdos.

CMDR Cosmic Spacehead

Get on an insurance quote website, find the cheapest equivalent quote, ring your insurance company say 'I am out of here, because ABC Insurance Co can do this for £X, I can send you the quote'. You'd be amazed how often they suddenly find they can give you a discount for some 'forgotten' reason in the original quote.

 

[Rob At Work]

With regard to Objectivism; and Galt went into a monologue on it for seventy plus pages (yes, I have read that book) there exists a striving to harmonise individual endeavour with the desire for self-worth and happiness and also the correct behaviour towards others (o.k. you can shoot me down in flames over that statement).

What I'm unfortunately seeing with this society is that safety nets, those that are provided to support those who strive to improve their worth and achievement, are being eroded in the name of greed, by a powerful few.

The result: Massive inequity and systemic failure of these safety nets and many, many people are getting unhappy (or unhappier).

In my view nobility arises from the way one treats oneself and others. It appears that is sucking at the moment on many societal levels.

I think Rand was right, up to a point, but underestimated the spread of modern capitalism as we know it now.

I would have loved to ask her what she thought about car insurance.

I don't think the majority of people actually mind funding the welfare state for those in essential need, pensioners etc... what most people object to, is those that can contribute but wont for more often than not minor reasons. It the excuses that wear people down and get their hackles up. This is not the fault of a society whether it is capitalism or some other creed, it is the fault of the individuals attitude towards their contribution to society.

 

[jasonbarron]

Messrs Manticore & Ethelred, I see that you both wrote me lengthy, well thought out posts overnight (I'm in the Pacific Northwest of USA), and I don't have time to give them the response (s) they deserve as I'm getting ready for a hectic work day; I may have to "chip away" at replying to them over the next 18 hours or so.

Besides my work schedule, I also promised to help a local Ultra marathon sled dog race (300 miles) put their trail in and that's seriously complicating my schedule. The race travels through a mostly unpopulated region in the Rocky mountains and we're currently in the grip of a pretty nasty little storm that's making mincemeat out of our efforts

 

[StiTch]

Get a bike. As in, the kind with an engine attached

First year as a learner rider, so no license - just CBT - allowed to ride around on my laz for about £270 a year.

Just after passing, not much more for a high-end sports bike.

£8 a week fuel cost.

Actually enjoy my commute to work.

Have it.

 

[jasonbarron]

Thanks for your reply Jason. My response was indeed full of snark, and I must genuinely commend you on the use of the word truculent. We don't see enough of that these days.

Quite happy to go down this road - didn't quite expect it in a thread about insurance tbh, but there you go.

Fundamentally we hold different opinions about society, I would say that those opinions are probably at opposite ends of the political spectrum. Whilst my personal dreams of an anarchic utopia would necessitate a revolution and the deaths of about half of the population of the UK in the resulting civil war, I'm pragmatic enough to settle for mere socialism for the moment, but probably more of that later.

There could never be an "anarchic utopia" because of the "anarchy" part of the equation. Why exactly do you feel that way about society in general? I assume you would be in the 50% that was allowed to survive, but if that scenario played out, who would support your daughter, then?

Inherent in your question about me is the (unspoken?) premise that only people who have contributed to a society should benefit to it inasmuch as what a person gets in welfare should be in proportion to what they have contributed. That's the issue I have with what you said, and probably the sticking point between us - the fact that to me it doesn't matter what someone has contributed in order to have access to what they need from the state in the form of welfare, unemployment benefit, housing and so on. I'm guessing it does to you?

In terms of your original statement, I took it to mean exactly what you have accused me of - claiming a moral high ground of being a net contributor to a society, and therefore being entitled to "welfare" or begrudging the fact these people have to "pay" for people who haven't or aren't net contributors to society. The factual argument is indisputable - people pay taxes to support welfare and in purely £ terms they pay more. In the UK at least, poorer people pay more of a % of their income in taxes across the board, so perhaps it could be argued that they contribute more? Lies and statistics Jason. Lies and statistics.

I'm not familiar with how it works in the UK. In the US, you only qualify for "welfare" if you happen to fall below a certain financial threshold, and that threshold depends on family size and several other factors, but in general the people who receive various benefits are "poor." For instance, I doubt if you and your wife would qualify for the US version of welfare. As to my thoughts on the system; I concede that our society requires a safety net to get people back on their feet and into "productivity" and that productivity is a powerful determining factor on who gets to eat and how much. Children and the catastrophically disabled are exactly who I'm thinking of when I say that I "concede the need for a safety net," and that all others should only be using welfare when there is objectively no way around it. In other words, the man/woman who takes a fall and needs help with their bills and perhaps retraining to either get back into their old job or into a new field that their health permits. That is a very important consideration for me, that people on welfare (excluding children and catastrophically ill) use it as a support to quite literally get back on their feet and into production and off of the welfare. What I don't think is that just because a person exists they have a claim on the efforts of my own production, and as far as I'm concerned that is simply a concept that's been handed down through the generations to legally steal from me.

At present my situation is that I've created and own my business, which I began with an overall negative balance in terms of bank account and property ownership. I'm now in a tax bracket several notches up from you, similar property value to ownership ratio, all based on my own ingenuity, hard work and risk taking both in terms of financial risk and personal safety; if I make a mistake at work, I may never walk again, or possibly worse. If I make a mistake at work, my business could flounder or even perish, and for these qualities I am compensated very well to offset these risks. I do not qualify for any kind of welfare, not for myself, my wife, or our children, nor do I expect it. I accept that in order to enjoy the benefits of a stable society, I must contribute to it's overall well being, which I do both in terms of my direct productivity (I remodel homes & businesses, mostly focusing on re-roofing) and indirectly in terms of the tax revenue I generate. The problem is, for every genuinely needy recipient of that largess (children & disabled), I can point to 1000 recipients who are lazy and slothful to the point of criminality who expect me to take care of them because I am succesful. These people have many strategies to justify their situations, but what it really comes down to is greed and the needs of a parasite.

Socialists/Communists/Marxists (which is what the Democratic party is here in the US) have harnessed these parasites for generations in order to steal from producers such as myself, and to keep themselves in power politically speaking. Also, in my experience, there are the "champaign socialists" such as yourself who live in a glass bubble of afluenza that simply have no idea the true meaning of practical, logical reality; if the world descended into "anarchy" people such as yourselves would be the first to go down the tubes. In a situation of anarchy, only people who know how to get their hands dirty and those who actually know how to produce would stand a chance at survival.

 

[ethelred]

Stuff again

Jason, I'm going to open a new thread so we can argue it out. Looking forward to it!

 

[jasonbarron]

Looking forward to it my friend. Might be a while before I get back to you on it, though