Quote:
Originally Posted by Yodamaster
IMO wage, distance to commute, and record should play a part.
A person who makes $12 an hour and has to drive 60km to get to that job shouldn't be paying a ridiculous amount of money because of what opportunities were (or in this case weren't) afforded to them, given that they have a good record.
A person who drives less than 15km to work with a so-so record should be paying substantially more, more accidents per kilometer driven.
|
That makes zero sense to me, like none. If you drive less you're less likely to get in an accident which is why they offer the discount if you're close to work. The wage thing really makes no sense, who cares what someone gets paid as my dad would say what's that got to with the price of rice in China? That's like saying I should pay $2,000 for a TV and some kid who works at Walmart should pay $600 because he makes way less then me.
It's all about risk management, some people are more risky then others so how do you judge who's more of a risk? IMO the only thing that's relevant is how long have been driving, how many accidents, distance to work and tickets should be factored in there as well. Those are the only fair metrics you can use that fairly judges where someones insurance rate should be. It's not perfect, but I can't think of any other way that would be more efficient or fair.
__________________
The world ain't all sunshine and rainbows. It's a very mean and nasty place... and I donīt care how tough you are, it will beat you to your knees and keep you there permanently, if you let it. You, me or nobody, is gonna hit as hard as life. But ain't about how hard you hit... It's about how hard you can get hit, and keep moving forward... how much you can take, and keep moving forward. Thatīs how winning is done. Now, if you know what you worth, go out and get what you worth. - Rocky Balboa
|