According to the BTS, the average household has 1.9 vehicles. Also, higher income families drive more (they can afford more gas).
States mandate minimum insurance coverage for individuals. The households who can least afford it pay a much HIGHER percentage of the vehicle's cost than the wealthier individuals who drive significantly more miles.
Also, they aren't operating at a profit for SUV policies. They are (or at least were up until recently) LOSING money. They are doing this to attract wealthy customers (the ones who buy SUVs).
Car-only customers rates stay the same, even though the cost of covering accidents is less. Car-only customers are in effect SUBSIDIZING the switch of consumers from cars to SUVs.
Many states have elected State Insurance Commissioners (or something similar) that have to okay these kinds of changes. Is it in their best interest to increase policy rates for the wealthiest individuals (and businesses) in the state?
Macabre fact: deaths are significantly cheaper for insurance companies than life threatening injuries. Isn't it in their best interest to increase the number of deaths and decrease the number of life threatening injuries?
I'm not blaming other people. This is a documented fact. The same thing was happening with sports cars. State farm was the last of the companies to up their rates when they realized that 100% of all Porsche owners in California were customers of theirs!
Most families with SUVs have more than one vehicle. With multiple vehicles come multiple discounts.
In other words, I'm paying even MORE to to cover the liability of your SUV because you get a discount?!?!?! You just proved my point.
What they charge per vehicle is part of their marketing and economics.
Did you know that everyone who drives cars is subsidizing the liability insurance of SUV drivers (SUV damage is significantly higher than car damage). It wasn't until recently that insurance companies started increasing the liability insurance for SUV owners. However, it is still light years away from the actual amount that should be charged. How does it make you feel knowing that millions of middle class (and below) citizens are making it possible for the upper middle class to afford their SUVs due to this subsidy?
As far as government subsidies...
Why, in 2003, did Congress and President Bush agree to a big new tax break for folks to buy gas-guzzling SUVs through their small businesses? Play your cards right, and you can buy a $105,000 top-of-the-line Hummer II and get a $103,000 tax deduction this year.
Cars are not allowed a tax deduction anywhere near this ridiculous level. Thanks Republicans!
It's even more complicated than that.
Politicians are in a no win situation. SUVS saved Detroit. Saving Detroit saved union jobs. Republicans don't want to discourage SUVS because it would discourage big business. Democrats don't want to discourage SUVS because it would cause lost jobs.
Federal guidelines mandate that light trucks (vans, suvs) average 27 mpg. Supposedly, this is being met when in reality its not even close. In the late 90's, manufacturers started making dual capability engines that could run on ethanol or gasoline. Ethanol burning vehicles - even if they never see ethanol in their tanks - get their mpg multiplied by a factor that increases their "mpg". Because of this, sales of SUVS are allowed to increase and still fit the mandated figures. In reality, the average mpg of light trucks is around to 20 mpg.
A lot of people also have the mistaken belief that SUVs save lives. They do, but only for their owners. However, for every 2 lives saved by being in SUVs, 5 lives are wasted by being hit by SUVs. It's a highway arms race.
There are a lot of smart, creative people out there in the private workforce. Instead of applying their talents toward products and services, why can't there be incentives to encourage applying those talents to far more "social" problems like reinventing government, reinventing the public education system, reducing consumption of resources. We continue to think that technology is the solution to our problems. When will we learn?
I see some of the media making a big deal about Bill Clinton admitting that he had an affair "Because I Could". Isn't that this country's slogan of the last 50 years?
You have to be living a pipe dream if you think this is a free market and a free country. "Free Market and Free Country" is nothing more than a slogan that companies are selling back to us.
Our government turns a blind eye to this stuff not because it's good for the constituents, but because it's good for the people/companies who buy influence (and both parties are now equally bad when it comes to this).
What happens when those countries become hostile to us? Do we complain about our dependence on them? Do we ask why our government didn't see this coming? Do we use our military to force a democracy on them?
I would highly recommend the book Fast Food Nation in order to see what motivates McDonald's and our other favorite franchise companies.
Maybe this just proves that Linux is cheaper in the long run because they would switch to anything if it meant that they could:
downsize
dumb down their work force
cut costs
cut benefits to employees
You would be amazed at how much influence they (and other chains) have had beyond the obese-ification of the world.
another $135 million dollar fiasco
on
SARS Contained
·
· Score: 1
This seems very similar to the extreme reaction to Legionairre's disease. This fiasco cost the U.S. millions trying to create a vaccine for a disease that was worse in the fantasy news world than it was in reality. I can't wait until they spend millions on SARS drugs that are rendered useless by a single gene mutation. I personally, would rather take my chances on the current form of SARS, than a fitter, stronger virus.
Slashdot Mirror
Weilding a gun in public is also not a good idea.
States mandate minimum insurance coverage for individuals. The households who can least afford it pay a much HIGHER percentage of the vehicle's cost than the wealthier individuals who drive significantly more miles.
Also, they aren't operating at a profit for SUV policies. They are (or at least were up until recently) LOSING money. They are doing this to attract wealthy customers (the ones who buy SUVs).
Car-only customers rates stay the same, even though the cost of covering accidents is less. Car-only customers are in effect SUBSIDIZING the switch of consumers from cars to SUVs.
Many states have elected State Insurance Commissioners (or something similar) that have to okay these kinds of changes. Is it in their best interest to increase policy rates for the wealthiest individuals (and businesses) in the state?
Macabre fact: deaths are significantly cheaper for insurance companies than life threatening injuries. Isn't it in their best interest to increase the number of deaths and decrease the number of life threatening injuries?
I'm not blaming other people. This is a documented fact. The same thing was happening with sports cars. State farm was the last of the companies to up their rates when they realized that 100% of all Porsche owners in California were customers of theirs!
In other words, I'm paying even MORE to to cover the liability of your SUV because you get a discount?!?!?! You just proved my point. Have you ever heard of collusion?!?!?Choosing a vehicle is certainly your choice.
Facts to know:Did you know that everyone who drives cars is subsidizing the liability insurance of SUV drivers (SUV damage is significantly higher than car damage). It wasn't until recently that insurance companies started increasing the liability insurance for SUV owners. However, it is still light years away from the actual amount that should be charged. How does it make you feel knowing that millions of middle class (and below) citizens are making it possible for the upper middle class to afford their SUVs due to this subsidy?
As far as government subsidies...
Cars are not allowed a tax deduction anywhere near this ridiculous level. Thanks Republicans!It's even more complicated than that. Politicians are in a no win situation. SUVS saved Detroit. Saving Detroit saved union jobs. Republicans don't want to discourage SUVS because it would discourage big business. Democrats don't want to discourage SUVS because it would cause lost jobs. Federal guidelines mandate that light trucks (vans, suvs) average 27 mpg. Supposedly, this is being met when in reality its not even close. In the late 90's, manufacturers started making dual capability engines that could run on ethanol or gasoline. Ethanol burning vehicles - even if they never see ethanol in their tanks - get their mpg multiplied by a factor that increases their "mpg". Because of this, sales of SUVS are allowed to increase and still fit the mandated figures. In reality, the average mpg of light trucks is around to 20 mpg. A lot of people also have the mistaken belief that SUVs save lives. They do, but only for their owners. However, for every 2 lives saved by being in SUVs, 5 lives are wasted by being hit by SUVs. It's a highway arms race.
There are a lot of smart, creative people out there in the private workforce. Instead of applying their talents toward products and services, why can't there be incentives to encourage applying those talents to far more "social" problems like reinventing government, reinventing the public education system, reducing consumption of resources. We continue to think that technology is the solution to our problems. When will we learn? I see some of the media making a big deal about Bill Clinton admitting that he had an affair "Because I Could". Isn't that this country's slogan of the last 50 years?
Their fries are flavored with beef artificial flavoring.
You have to be living a pipe dream if you think this is a free market and a free country. "Free Market and Free Country" is nothing more than a slogan that companies are selling back to us. Our government turns a blind eye to this stuff not because it's good for the constituents, but because it's good for the people/companies who buy influence (and both parties are now equally bad when it comes to this). What happens when those countries become hostile to us? Do we complain about our dependence on them? Do we ask why our government didn't see this coming? Do we use our military to force a democracy on them?
- downsize
- dumb down their work force
- cut costs
- cut benefits to employees
You would be amazed at how much influence they (and other chains) have had beyond the obese-ification of the world.This seems very similar to the extreme reaction to Legionairre's disease. This fiasco cost the U.S. millions trying to create a vaccine for a disease that was worse in the fantasy news world than it was in reality. I can't wait until they spend millions on SARS drugs that are rendered useless by a single gene mutation. I personally, would rather take my chances on the current form of SARS, than a fitter, stronger virus.