Greater percentage of wrecked cars being scrapped rather than repaired

Before that it was insurance or food for his "3 or 4" kids. None of
this is really about him, it's just a bunch of buloney he's made up in
the attempt to make a point.

 

Quite true, the leasing companies are in business for profit and not
for saving the lessor money. As far as I see, leasing is a cleaner
write-off for a business than depreciation.

 

No, its handing too much power to the insurance companies, and removing
their incentive to make insurance a GOOD thing in order to attract
customers.

And I agree, up to a point. Let me backtrack and say that maybe
mandatory insurance itself isn't bad, but the current implementation is
bad. But really, I don't remember it being horrible when it WAS NOT
mandatory 20 years ago. In fact, things seemed to work better to me.

Same here- you just open yourself up to too much risk without it.

But wouldn't it be nice to be able to self-insure realistically? It used
to be quite possible, but now in the age of big jury awards for a
chipped nail, and huge medical bills for real injuries, it just isn't
possible. And I think those changes have been encouraged by mandatory
insurance (among other things- its hardly the sole cause.)

 

Dori A Schmetterling wrote:

Its mainly the driver, I think. They know that the owner thinks the
world of the vehicle and isn't going to use it as a bludgeon on the highway.

 

Jack Baruth wrote:

One NEEDS a change when the car becomes more expensive to maintain than
a new one is to purchase. That doesn't happen for many, many years- even
with a generic people-mover like an Accord. If you pick a car you like
to start with, rather than one that bores you to insanity after 5
minutes like an Accord would, there's no reason to dump it every 2
years. Yes, CERTAIN conditions might arise (a child born so the 2-seater
doesn't work anymore) but that doesn't happen over and over and over,
car after car after car.

You can put a period after the word "day" and that sentence would be
correct."

If it were a "know-nothing chestnut" then it would have been pounced on.
But its a fairly well-proven and well-accepted fact that leasing is a
losing proposition. If it weren't, then leasing companies wouldn't earn
profits. Their profits have to come out of SOMEONE'S pocket- and that
someone is the lessor.

 

I have found out the cheapest way to drive a vehicle, hands down, is
to buy a good, relatively low mileage,5 or six year old car at a
reasonable price, maintain it well, and drive it untill the repairs
start getting frequent and/or expensive.

The last car I bought for my wife was a 1988 model, purchased 6 years
old with 100,000 KM on it. A $30,000 plus car when new, I paid $5700
for it. It has served us well for 10 years and 146,000 aditional Kms.
Total repair cost over 10 years have been roughly $2000, not including
tires, oil and filter, tuneups, and brake linings. Add tires and
brakes and it's still not much over $3000.
When over a period of 2 months I had to do brakes, replace a brake
line, repair the muffler, replace a hose clamp to stop a fuel leak,and
the trunk closer motor failed, along with the headlight door motor, I
decided it was time to look for another vehicle.
I'll likely get $1000 for the old one.
I just bought an 8 year old car with 90,000 km on it, in like new
condition, for $5000. With any luck it will do us for another
100,000km or more, and another 5 to 8 years before the repair
frequency/cost starts to tell me it's time to replace it.

Now, if nobody leased cars, there would be fewer low mileage late
model cars for sale for me to buy.

There are a FEW circumstances where leasing a car makes more sense
than buying, but they are few and far between. And buuying used very
often makes more sense than buying new. You only drive a NEW car ONCE.
When it leaves the dealer lot, it is immediately a USED car.

 

That's simply silly. Both are outstanding cars and a delight to drive
but they are unusually expensive to maintain, even relative to their
cost of purchase.

So any transaction in which one's opposite number earns money is a
"loser"? We both know that isn't true. Ford made money on the '65
Mustang and lost it on the '82 Escort; by your reasoning this makes the
Escort the better choice. Is auto finance a "losing proposition"? Is
obtaining a mortgage to purchase a home, rather than saving for thirty
years and paying cash for one a "losing proposition"?

The fact is that the ownership and operation of automobiles is almost
always a "losing proposition". The vehicle owner almost always loses
money while others - dealers, mechanics, body shop owners, banks,
wholesalers, detailers, the fine folks at AutoZone - earn a profit.
Leasing offers people the opportunity to absolutely fix their costs.
Anybody who leased, say, an Isuzu Trooper around the Consumer Reports
scandal, or an Audi 5000, or a mid-Nineties domestic automobile, "made
out" in that they spent far less money to lease the vehicle than they
would have spent to "own" it for a similar period.

Yes, leasing has been abused. Auto time purchase has been abused.
Trade-in practices have been abused. Heck, before Monroney *cash
purchase* was abused... and don't forget all those folks who waited a
decade for their KdF-Wagen savings plans to come to fruition. As
noted before, the knowledgeable buyer will pay less than the sucker
no matter how he arranges the acquisition of the car.

 

And therefore not worthy to be owned or driven. I see nothing
"outstanding" about a car that is unreliable and expensive to maintain,
unless its a 1932 Duesenberg.

Nope- but any transaction where there is an EXTRA party making money
compared to a similar transaction without the extra party is a loser for
the buyer.

Not if you use the full life of the automobile. Its only a losing
proposition when you throw money away- EITHER by selling soon when the
resale value is much lower than the utility value of the car, or by
leasing. Cars are unique in that regard because while they perform like
other "durable goods," their value artifically falls off much faster
than other durable goods in the first months (hours!) of ownership. But
the curves converge again out at around 10-15 years of ownership.

If you just HAVE to have a different car every few years, it makes 100
times more sense to buy a 1-5 year old used car than to buy or lease
new. Then you're the one taking advantage of the artifically low resale
value.

 

Before that it was insurance or food for his "3 or 4" kids. None of
this is really about him, it's just a bunch of buloney he's made up in
the attempt to make a point.
********
You're right; this is not ONLY about me. It's about the HUNDREDS OF
THOUSANDS of poor folks & families out there that it's very obvious YOU
don't care about. YOU are what's WRONG with this country!!!
~ Paul
aka "Tha Driver"

 

Wait a minute. Earlier in this thread it was "one mile to the country
store". Which is it?
*************
It's one mile to the store, which dosen't even stock milk. Their prices
are near double what the grocery store charges, & I'm trying to buy
groceries here lately with $10 or $20. And my knees can barely take *that*
two-mile round trip. Why do you doubt EVERYTHING I say? I DO NOT LIE.

a.) You *choose* to be a criminal by doing the crime. Nobody *turns* you
into a criminal, especially not the "law". You, and only you, are
responsible for your own actions. Period.
*********
So I'm supposed to sit here & STARVE just so I won't be breaking any
laws???



b.) You've said elsewhere in this thread you own multiple vehicles. Hmm.
That means you have assets, and therefore you have choices. What's
keeping
you from selling off some of the vehicles you *can't drive anyway* and
using
the proceeds to pay for insurance on one or more of the remaining ones,
eh,
Driver? Or is it part of your "pursuit of happiness" to have a bunch of
undriveable vehicles around, or are you just regularly driving without
insurance and this is all BS anyway?
***********
I'm trying to sell the only complete, nice car I have. It's a *beautiful*
mild custom VW Cabriolet: http://AngelOnEarth.net/Cabrio/Cabrio.html WANT
IT?
It's my pursuit of happiness as an artist that compells me to build them.
Then I like to be able to drive them occasionaly. My insurance just ran
out on the 8th. I've been trying to get work or sell parts & the Cabrio
for three months now, & I'm completely broke. I've sold just enough parts
to buy groceries, & now I can't even do that as I have no way to drive to
the post office to send them.

claims???

My insurance company has paid on every claim I've ever made, and there
have
been several over the years. All of the claims were legitimate, too.
**********
Yeah, sure they do. I'm not disputing that. They pay on millions of
claims. It's the LEGITIMATE ones that they DON'T pay on that pisses me
off!

It is, they are and they do.
*******
WRONG AGAIN!!! If they choose not to pay you on your claim, & it's too
small for a lawyer to screw with for TEN YEARS (or you don't have the
money to pay him up front), there is NOTHING you can do! The insurance
regulators won't do anything, the state legislators won't do anything - NO
ONE WILL HELP YOU!!!! (why should they; they're the ones who are getting
the payoffs in the first place!)

Then you think you should be able to just do whatever the f*ck you want
to,
and to hell with everyone else, eh? Because that's what you're saying.
*********
No; I'm saying I should be able to go get groceries without going to
jail!!! (As long as I don't hurt anyone, yes I SHOULD be able to do
WHATEVER I want!)

Who said I had a material problem involving you? I disagree with you.
That's life, this is Usenet. Get over it.
*******
Accidents - that's life: get over it. (according to your philosophy). The
fact that we let CRIMINALS go free is the problem. *Mandatory* insurance
dosen't help us at all.

Using what funds? He *had no funds*. He was an unemployed three-time
loser
with a pickup truck and a suspended driver's license and enough money for
gas, booze and pain meds. You mean to tell me that I should wait around
for
this creep to come up with the $4 or $5K this ultimately cost to get
resolved? I got a life to live, bud. That's why he *should have had
insurance*!!!
*********
Granted. The mandatory law didn't help you at all, did it? But you said
YOUR insurance paid for it. He should be made to work & pay back any of
your losses as well as pay back your ins. co.

If you're getting state assistance for medical, food stamps, WIC,
subsidized
housing *you're on welfare*.
********
I don't get ANYTHING. I'm living a MOVING VAN, without a well. I have to
bring in 5 gals. of water at a time, & put it on top of the van running
through a black hose just to take a shower. I have to shower at a certain
time of the day (outdoors) in order for the water not to be steaming or
*very* cold.
I say again: Show me where mandatory insurance has reduced welfare
claims/costs.

This is starting to sound like an opera. Wait, there's a violin playing
in
the background.
********
Too bad it's TRUE for SO MANY PEOPLE!


Which would *you* choose? Then of

Then I guess all the greedy bastard owners of the insurance companys
ought
to take it in the shorts, eh?
*******
They should be sent to jail for running a protection racket, along with
the politicians that helped them.



In State Farm's case, the owners are the policy holders. In GEICO's
case,
the shareholders of Berkshire Hathaway are the owners.
So you think people who own stock or who have State Farm policies are
greedy, eh?
******
They're not the ones making the decisions to screw people. But if they're
involved in that, then yes they should be in jail.

Haven't heard of angelfire.com, eh?
*******
They don't have CGI to run the scripts that allow folks to post their
stories or for the message boards. You REALLY don't have a clue of
ANYTHING that you're talking about, do you?

Were any of those three things true, I wouldn't be happy with them
either.
******
Then you're a fool for thinking that the insurance cartel is OK, just
because YOUR life is just hunky-dory.

Aha! Another sock-it-to-the-rich liberal. I guess by now I'm not
surprised.
*********
Everyone can only do what they can. You protect yourself & as you said
manage your risks as best you can; I try to do the same. If the insurance
cartel wants to make it illegal to drive a car, them they shouldn't be
allowed to charge 1/4 of a man's income to do so. Do you not have any
parents or grandparents on a fixed income?
It must be nice to be able to sit here & argue for the rich & corrupt. I
can only think you're one of them!
~ Paul
aka "Tha Driver"

Giggle Cream - it makes dessert *funny*!

P.S. THE END: I'm not wasting any more of my time with this BS. When my
site is back up, come visit & we'll discuss this in a forum where folks
concerened with insurance issues can see it.

 

It must be nice to be able to sit here & argue for the rich & corrupt. I

Sure...if you don't STARVE to death first!!!! LOL!

--Geoff