Re: Comment on car insurance

Sir F. A. Rien, wrote the following at or about 6/29/2007 3:07 PM:

Haven't found that to be the case with The Hartford (AARP. This thread caused me to check the past three annual premiums. $1539 in 2004 and $2007 in 2006. That seems like a big change BUT the coverage has remained constant with no changes to the limits, etc., there have been no claims BUT the number/type of vehicles insured has been a moving target.

Currently they are insuring a '01 Buick Park Av, '03 Chrysler T&C, '06 Honda Accord and '94 Corvette convertible. A fifth car was on that $2007 billing which has since been sold so they haven't been playing the "Merry Go Round" game with me. It's not worth the time and effort to pro-rate the premiums based on acquisition dates and sale dates to figure out an exact increase/decrease. Suffice it to say it's pretty stable. There's been some fluctuation in premiums on the individual cars but very nominal and not always an increase.

Do you REALLY need ****FOUR***** vehicles? Since my wife and I dumped our extra vehicles we have saved THOUSANDS.

Say... you aren't a Commie, are you? ;-)

Need? WTF? Maybe he WANTS four vehicles. What difference does it make (other than perhaps lowering the rates on some of the cars due to multi-car discounts, low annual mileage rating, etc.)?

Truth is, one can save a LOT more by ditching even ONE extra vehicle than they can by checking the costs of ALL insurance companies in the entire country.

Some of us wish to find the best rate for what we own, not get the best rate for what we don't own.

sharx35 wrote: ...

Truth is, one can save a LOT more by ditching all your vehicles. :)

Anthony

WE have saved thousands by such techniques as cutting down on total insured value--what do we really NEED. Some things are cheaper to rent for a day or two every year or so than to BUY and have to maintain, register and insure. Similarly, by increasing deductibles and by NOT having expensive glass or unnecessary coverage. It is also very, very foolish to make small claims. SELF-insuring is the CHEAPEST insurance possible--that's why larger companies and local governments have deductibles of several million--if you can AFFORD to pay a claim, it is cheaper to pay out the rare smaller type claim then it is to have a LOW deductible and pay higher premiums for it, year AFTER year AFTER year. Premium savings can be invested and earn a LOT more than hypothetical claims, covered, can save you.

Agreed. However, we have cut down to just one dependable vehicle. If we REALLY need a truck to haul something, it can be rented for a LOT cheaper than BUYING a truck, registering, insuring and maintaining it. Never mind cluttering up the yard or street with it.

Well, sorry if having more cars than drivers is such a heretic practice. Just call me the devil... ;-)

There is an old expression, "A fool and his money are soon parted." Capeche?

There are many old expressions quoted by those that have nothing of value to say.

Entienda?

Read the parable about the ant and the grasshopper.

We have the movie (Bug's Life).

It seems you only know one way. That's OK, though, blinders are a good fit for some people.

AMF

I've been on this earth long enough to see where wastefuly, spendthrift ways has gotten many people. A whole lot of people *look* well off...until someone who is privy to their finances, such as myself, as a close look. As often as not, a majority of people are 2 or 3 pay cheques away from a financial crisis. I learnt that by observation AND by personal experience.

It all depends. I don't worry much about carrying an extra car, but my home is mine free and clear and I could retire now if I didn't love what I do so much, and I'm a long ways off from collecting any SS or from pulling from IRA or 401k investments.

I've spent many years scrimping, and now I prefer (and can afford) not to.