insurance

[Malc]

18 hours ago, b4u2 said:

Not sure what you mean by change name, address, postcode?

it seems to also make a difference to the premium if you are keeping your car on the driveway rather than on the road outside your home ....  it's cheaper to keep it on the road 

But there again, maybe ( inter alia )  it depends too on the postcode etc

Malc

[Linas.P]

3 hours ago, johnatg said:

I can understand Linas's frustration with insurance companies, but really, you can't get away with things which are simply untrue. Apart from Sergio's point re other countries, let's take 'they pay 0 taxes'. The accounts of public insurance companies are available for all to see - eg in 2019 Aviva paid £378M in Corporation tax. LV is owned by Allianz (basically a German company) and their corporate structure is extremely complex but they certainly pay a lot of tax in a lot of countries - too much to quote here. I expect those two cover quite a lot of people here but similar is the case for other insurance companies. Tax rates are set by the Government and are based on profits. Insurance companies do not claim to make no profits - just read the annual reports.

Insurance companies are not the only ones who decide who can drive - (the courts have quite a say) - they might charge a lot for some people but insurance costs are based on statistics. They show that particular people in particular cars are more or less likely to incur accidents than others and insurance costs are set accordingly - it's perfectly reasonable that a 50 year old experienced driver in a Seat Mii should pay a lot less than a 24 year old in a modified BMW. Insurance costs are so high because people crash cars and sometimes they do a lot of damage or cause devastating injuries where the courts award enormous compensation to pay for the ongoing care needed for victims. Someone has to pay.

And in some areas of the country there are a lot of scroats about stealing cars and causing damage - that's why it costs a lot to insure a car in London or Manchester but a lot less than in Devon or wherever.

It is perfectly reasonable for insurance costs to be based on statistics - a driver's history and the history of drivers in a similar circumstance - age, previous offences, occupation, car they want to drive and so on. Re sharing of information - people lie. If they didn't, insurance companies wouldn't need to share information.

Some things are a bit of a mystery (eg why does it cost less if you name your wife as a driver, rather than if you don't) but overall I think insurance companies are fairly reasonable - even if it pains me to say that!

I probably need to clarify my statement a little bit - yes they pay some taxes, but not the fair share of taxes. Secondly, insurance companies in UK in particular have been crying for several decades they they make no profit from car insurance and it is merely the compliance thing, apparently they only make profit from other products they up-sell e.g. break-down covers, home insurances etc. And looking at their public declarations most shows very small profits ~1-8% at most. That is one of the ways how they justify crazy high prices and usually avoids further scrutiny.

The only people who pay a lot of tax is "us" - that is simple working people... with average rate ~35%, most of corporations are subject to 20%, but realistically they pay far less... to the point where many pays only fractions of the percent. Insurance companies are one of the worst in this game and I know exactly how they dodge the tax (sadly my job is to know - I can explain exactly how it is done).

Don't you think it is strange that same Allianz behind LV charges £5000 for new driver in UK, yet they charge £500 same driver in Germany? Are there more accidents in UK? Are the claims bigger in UK? how comes in UK insurance is at least 10 times more expensive than comparable countries like Germany, France, Italy or Spain? So it is not 3rd world countries we are talking about here. Surely, what you mentioned does impact the premium, but equally it just cannot explain such crazy difference.

Why insurance companies needs to know your occupation? Why they need to know how many kids you have? If you own house? How does that relate to your driving exactly? I agree they need to know 2 things - the car you driving and your driving experience (not age, because that is ageist). 

What I mean by insurance companies deciding who drives - is simply that in UK it is possible for insurance to be real barrier to driving, although legal age to drive the car is 17, realistically nobody drives the car until they 25 nowadays. And sure I know people who drive at 17, but that is because they parents pays for their insurance and they drive absolute ****-boxes with 0.9l engine or they live in private estate in middle of nowhere. That is not normal.

"Reasonable" depends on perspective - if you never lived outside of UK and you have not seen what "reasonable" looks like... then how can you say what is reasonable? 

[Steven Lockey]

21 hours ago, serbarry said:

I think he meant that it is unreasonably too expensive like in Ireland. I got a quotation for a GS of around 400 euros, but I am 50 and been driving since I was 18 and never made a claim. With the Prius I paid 280 euros.

Really? Cos I'm 40 and I pay around £300/year for my insurance on a GS450h

[b4u2]

@Steven Lockey

I'm jealous of you. How come so cheap? Which company? 

[Steven Lockey]

Just now, b4u2 said:

@Steven Lockey

I'm jealous of you. How come so cheap? Which company? 

I have multiple quotes at about that number on compare the market. Its not just one company.
Insurance cost does tend to drop quite a bit when you hit 30.

[b4u2]

@Steven Lockey

I've got 4+ years until then ☹

[Steven Lockey]

2 hours ago, Linas.P said:

I probably need to clarify my statement a little bit - yes they pay some taxes, but not the fair share of taxes. Secondly, insurance companies in UK in particular have been crying for several decades they they make no profit from car insurance and it is merely the compliance thing, apparently they only make profit from other products they up-sell e.g. break-down covers, home insurances etc. And looking at their public declarations most shows very small profits ~1-8% at most. That is one of the ways how they justify crazy high prices and usually avoids further scrutiny.

The only people who pay a lot of tax is "us" - that is simple working people... with average rate ~35%, most of corporations are subject to 20%, but realistically they pay far less... to the point where many pays only fractions of the percent. Insurance companies are one of the worst in this game and I know exactly how they dodge the tax (sadly my job is to know - I can explain exactly how it is done).

Don't you think it is strange that same Allianz behind LV charges £5000 for new driver in UK, yet they charge £500 same driver in Germany? Are there more accidents in UK? Are the claims bigger in UK? how comes in UK insurance is at least 10 times more expensive than comparable countries like Germany, France, Italy or Spain? So it is not 3rd world countries we are talking about here. Surely, what you mentioned does impact the premium, but equally it just cannot explain such crazy difference.

Why insurance companies needs to know your occupation? Why they need to know how many kids you have? If you own house? How does that relate to your driving exactly? I agree they need to know 2 things - the car you driving and your driving experience (not age, because that is ageist). 

What I mean by insurance companies deciding who drives - is simply that in UK it is possible for insurance to be real barrier to driving, although legal age to drive the car is 17, realistically nobody drives the car until they 25 nowadays. And sure I know people who drive at 17, but that is because they parents pays for their insurance and they drive absolute ****-boxes with 0.9l engine or they live in private estate in middle of nowhere. That is not normal.

"Reasonable" depends on perspective - if you never lived outside of UK and you have not seen what "reasonable" looks like... then how can you say what is reasonable? 

So if they are only making 1-8% profits, then how are they meant to make cheaper? Can't realistically expect them to make a loss.

And I seriously doubt your £5000 vs £500 claim. 
In fact, all the numbers I just looked up say insurance in Germany is MORE expensive than in the UK.....
https://www.ashburnham-insurance.co.uk/blog/2017/06/countries-with-the-highest-car-insurance-costs/
Is probably the one that illustrates it best. Not saying its 100% accurate but I know people in germany and 
know they pay about the same as me.

I've been driving since I was 17 and admittedly had a 1l then, but never paid more than £300 for a year 3rd party insurance.
Now if you are a new driver trying to insure a brand new sports car... different matter. 

Also occupation does make a certain amount of sense, if you do a job that normally involves long shift, you are more likely to be driving home tired so more likely to crash. 
Young people are more likely to be less cautious than older people regardless of driving experience. These are all facts backed up by statistics.
And if you live in an area where car crimes are common, yeah they are going to take if you are more likely to have your car stolen into account cos they are more likely to have to pay out.... 

Otherwise you are basically expecting either the company or other people to subsidise your costs. They don't pull the numbers out of thin air, its all based on statistical analysis.

[Steven Lockey]

9 minutes ago, b4u2 said:

@Steven Lockey

I've got 4+ years until then ☹

I've rather pay a bit more insurance and have the benefits of been 25 again! 😉 

[b4u2]

@Steven Lockey

Ok let's swap then! 

[Neo_gsf]

24 minutes ago, b4u2 said:

@Steven Lockey

I'm jealous of you. How come so cheap? Which company? 

Last year I paid £383 fully comprehensive on my GS F. 🙂 I use price comparison sites and several were around that figure.  Passing the Advanced Driving test helps.

[Linas.P]

46 minutes ago, Steven Lockey said:

So if they are only making 1-8% profits, then how are they meant to make cheaper? Can't realistically expect them to make a loss.

And I seriously doubt your £5000 vs £500 claim. 
In fact, all the numbers I just looked up say insurance in Germany is MORE expensive than in the UK.....
https://www.ashburnham-insurance.co.uk/blog/2017/06/countries-with-the-highest-car-insurance-costs/
Is probably the one that illustrates it best. Not saying its 100% accurate but I know people in germany and 
know they pay about the same as me.

I've been driving since I was 17 and admittedly had a 1l then, but never paid more than £300 for a year 3rd party insurance.
Now if you are a new driver trying to insure a brand new sports car... different matter. 

1. Also occupation does make a certain amount of sense, if you do a job that normally involves long shift, you are more likely to be driving home tired so more likely to crash. 
2. Young people are more likely to be less cautious than older people regardless of driving experience. These are all facts backed up by statistics.
3. And if you live in an area where car crimes are common, yeah they are going to take if you are more likely to have your car stolen into account cos they are more likely to have to pay out.... 

Otherwise you are basically expecting either the company or other people to subsidise your costs. They don't pull the numbers out of thin air, its all based on statistical analysis.

That is because you take this statistic at face value - they deliberately make no profit (or make loss) not to pay taxes and there are ways to do it via complex tax avoidance schemes they employ. In reality they make billions of profit, but you don't want to understand it... fine! I really cannot believe you are that naive... 

Yes you been driving since you were 17 - how many years ago was that? Where do you live.... yes maybe that was the case when you were 17, but not anymore. Today 17 years old in city are simply priced out of driving - they have licence, they have money for car, but they simply can't get insurance. My first insurance (which I bought) in London was £2800 and I was not 17! My first quote was £36000 and despite being joke such quote could only exist in UK.

I have friends and family in Germany and nobody pays nowhere near the price for car insurance as it costs here. In Germany somebody who is 18 (that is legal age when they can start diving there) can legitimately get some mediocre 2L BMW for 1000EUR and insure it for another 600EUR. One thing for sure, in Germany you will never pay more for insurance then the car is worth - just not possible. 

1. You wrong about occupation, sure some fake statistics can be made out of it, but it is irrelevant for driving. You need to understand that one can make up statistics from anything - from hair colour, skin colour, sexual orientation and the length of the thing between the legs... they all will create some sort of statistical correlation for sure! However, statistical correlation is not equal to reasonable criteria. I really don't know why they include these irrelevant things in UK insurance quote, but I am starting to thing it is included to deliberately remove any sense from the quote process and "muddy the water", so that if somebody would start looking for "price fixing" and market abuse they would not be able to make any sense out of it with so many criteria.

2. No it is your ageist view. Yes statistically young people are more likely to cause accident - that is true. But it is not proven this is because they are generally less cautious or simply because they have less experience... which of course they have less of. It is impossible to start driving at 17 and instantly have experience. But again people should not be judged on their age, they should be judged on their experience - if you just judge people on their age and especially with stereotypes like yours, then this is discrimination (which UK insurance de-facto is). They even admitted they discriminated against man, but instead of reducing prices for man they simply increased prices for woman as well.

Although, I suspect they still discriminate against man a lot. As I said I paid £2800 for my first insurance on IS250 when I was 24, at the time I had license for 8 years already, because I got mine at 16. Then I paid £1400 for my insurance on RC200t when I was 29, with 13 years experience and 5years NCB... yet my girlfriend who is 25 and does not have license quoted insurance recently, just for fun as if she got license yesterday and her quote came out as ~1300 for RC200t. I mean sure - I get same quote with 15 years experience and 7 years NCB as my girlfriend who is younger with no NCB and not experience. This is not discriminatory at all. But if I would make a big deal out of it and sue them for sexism then they will find million excuses why I am different and why the price is justified, simply because they ask million irrelevant questions to make it impossible to prove what in particular defines the price.

3. this is the easiest so far to debunk - absolute nonsense. So if I get TP only it should be cheap right? After all if car is TP only and it get's stolen then it is not a problem for insurance? Right? So why my fully comprehensive insurance is £1400, but TP only is £6000. No the area has no relevance - they just quote the prices completely out of the blue and charge anything they like... So yes - that is exactly what they are doing - they make-up the numbers which works for them. They not wrong numbers, they all add-up but they make no relevance whatsoever - they exist to justify the price.

Why? Simply because they can - insurance market is "price inelastic", meaning that no matter the price we just have no option but to pay it.

 

 

[Linas.P]

35 minutes ago, Neo_gsf said:

Last year I paid £383 fully comprehensive on my GS F. 🙂 I use price comparison sites and several were around that figure.  Passing the Advanced Driving test helps.

No it doesn't. It literally takes away £20-40. Sure you can say it helps when you pay £383 for insurance, but when I pay £1400 for RC200t (not RC-F) then the saving suddenly becomes irrelevant. 

[Steven Lockey]

39 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

 

That is because you take this statistic at face value - they deliberately make no profit (or make loss) not to pay taxes and there are ways to do it via complex tax avoidance schemes they employ. In reality they make billions of profit, but you don't want to understand it... fine! I really cannot believe you are that naive... 

Yes... but they pay tax on their TOTAL profit...
Not just off the profit from their insurance. That's not he reason they keep the profit low on the main insurance, its cos if they get you to sign up for the insurance, they are more likely to also sell you the add-ons they make more on.

That's how most companies operate....
Same as how Tesco was selling certain items at a loss to get more people in store.

 

39 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

Yes you been driving since you were 17 - how many years ago was that? Where do you live.... yes maybe that was the case when you were 17, but not anymore. Today 17 years old in city are simply priced out of driving - they have licence, they have money for car, but they simply can't get insurance. My first insurance (which I bought) in London was £2800 and I was not 17! My first quote was £36000 and despite being joke such quote could only exist in UK.

Yes, some companies won't want to insure you so they give a stupid quote.
But if you've got a expensive car with no secure parking in a high crime area, them yep, you'll pay a lot of insurance cos they are more likely to have to pay out.
That's just how maths works.

 

39 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

I have friends and family in Germany and nobody pays nowhere near the price for car insurance as it costs here. In Germany somebody who is 18 (that is legal age when they can start diving there) can legitimately get some mediocre 2L BMW for 1000EUR and insure it for another 600EUR. One thing for sure, in Germany you will never pay more for insurance then the car is worth - just not possible

I know it can happy cos a guy I used to work with lived in germany and had that exact situation when he first started driving over there...

 

39 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

2. No it is your ageist view. Yes statistically young people are more likely to cause accident - that is true. But it is not proven this is because they are generally less cautious or simply because they have less experience... which of course they have less of. It is impossible to start driving at 17 and instantly have experience. But again people should not be judged on their age, they should be judged on their experience - if you just judge people on their age and especially with stereotypes like yours, then this is discrimination (which UK insurance de-facto is). They even admitted they discriminated against man, but instead of reducing prices for man they simply increased prices for woman as well.

Well, that goes completely against the statistics on the subject..... A new driver who is 30 is less likely to have an accident than a new driver who is 17.
Its a bit unfair on those drivers who do drive sensibly at 17, but its just a matter of cold hard math. The 'boy racer' stereotype didn't come from nowhere....
 

 

39 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

Then I paid £1400 for my insurance on RC200t when I was 29, with 13 years experience and 5years NCB...

You have made claims then... that really pumps up your costs. Were you at fault as well?  You know the bit when you sign up for insurance that you agree for them to search your records... most likely they say your previous claims.

 

 

39 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

this is the easiest so far to debunk - absolute nonsense. So if I get TP only it should be cheap right? After all if car is TP only and it get's stolen then it is not a problem for insurance? Right? So why my fully comprehensive insurance is £1400, but TP only is £6000

Do you mean £600? If you are claiming its 6k its probably cos that company does use TP so artificially bump the price, there are plenty that do TP a lot cheaper than fully comp....  Its their way of saying use someone else.

Sounds like the problem is more your driving record/claims than anything else.
 

[Sundance]

3 hours ago, Linas.P said:

That is because you take this statistic at face value - they deliberately make no profit (or make loss) not to pay taxes and there are ways to do it via complex tax avoidance schemes they employ. In reality they make billions of profit, but you don't want to understand it... fine! I really cannot believe you are that naive... 

Yes you been driving since you were 17 - how many years ago was that? Where do you live.... yes maybe that was the case when you were 17, but not anymore. Today 17 years old in city are simply priced out of driving - they have licence, they have money for car, but they simply can't get insurance. My first insurance (which I bought) in London was £2800 and I was not 17! My first quote was £36000 and despite being joke such quote could only exist in UK.

I have friends and family in Germany and nobody pays nowhere near the price for car insurance as it costs here. In Germany somebody who is 18 (that is legal age when they can start diving there) can legitimately get some mediocre 2L BMW for 1000EUR and insure it for another 600EUR. One thing for sure, in Germany you will never pay more for insurance then the car is worth - just not possible. 

1. You wrong about occupation, sure some fake statistics can be made out of it, but it is irrelevant for driving. You need to understand that one can make up statistics from anything - from hair colour, skin colour, sexual orientation and the length of the thing between the legs... they all will create some sort of statistical correlation for sure! However, statistical correlation is not equal to reasonable criteria. I really don't know why they include these irrelevant things in UK insurance quote, but I am starting to thing it is included to deliberately remove any sense from the quote process and "muddy the water", so that if somebody would start looking for "price fixing" and market abuse they would not be able to make any sense out of it with so many criteria.

2. No it is your ageist view. Yes statistically young people are more likely to cause accident - that is true. But it is not proven this is because they are generally less cautious or simply because they have less experience... which of course they have less of. It is impossible to start driving at 17 and instantly have experience. But again people should not be judged on their age, they should be judged on their experience - if you just judge people on their age and especially with stereotypes like yours, then this is discrimination (which UK insurance de-facto is). They even admitted they discriminated against man, but instead of reducing prices for man they simply increased prices for woman as well.

Although, I suspect they still discriminate against man a lot. As I said I paid £2800 for my first insurance on IS250 when I was 24, at the time I had license for 8 years already, because I got mine at 16. Then I paid £1400 for my insurance on RC200t when I was 29, with 13 years experience and 5years NCB... yet my girlfriend who is 25 and does not have license quoted insurance recently, just for fun as if she got license yesterday and her quote came out as ~1300 for RC200t. I mean sure - I get same quote with 15 years experience and 7 years NCB as my girlfriend who is younger with no NCB and not experience. This is not discriminatory at all. But if I would make a big deal out of it and sue them for sexism then they will find million excuses why I am different and why the price is justified, simply because they ask million irrelevant questions to make it impossible to prove what in particular defines the price.

3. this is the easiest so far to debunk - absolute nonsense. So if I get TP only it should be cheap right? After all if car is TP only and it get's stolen then it is not a problem for insurance? Right? So why my fully comprehensive insurance is £1400, but TP only is £6000. No the area has no relevance - they just quote the prices completely out of the blue and charge anything they like... So yes - that is exactly what they are doing - they make-up the numbers which works for them. They not wrong numbers, they all add-up but they make no relevance whatsoever - they exist to justify the price.

Why? Simply because they can - insurance market is "price inelastic", meaning that no matter the price we just have no option but to pay it.

 

 

Now just slow down a bit Linas, you seem to be causing a bit of a stir.  You clearly have very strong views on this topic which I'm sure are very well intentioned but it would greatly help us all to try and understand and indeed value your viewpoint if you would please detail your professional insurance and/or underwriting qualifications which will then replace what seem to be purely personal experiences and a not inconsiderable degree of conjecture.

[serbarry]

4 hours ago, Steven Lockey said:

Really? Cos I'm 40 and I pay around £300/year for my insurance on a GS450h

Well £300 equal to nearly 350 euros so it is not a huge difference, but yes 10 years difference is not little.

[Phil xxkr]

10 hours ago, Sundance said:

Now just slow down a bit Linas, you seem to be causing a bit of a stir.  You clearly have very strong views on this topic which I'm sure are very well intentioned but it would greatly help us all to try and understand and indeed value your viewpoint if you would please detail your professional insurance and/or underwriting qualifications which will then replace what seem to be purely personal experiences and a not inconsiderable degree of conjecture.

But the thing is Rowley it does make for lively debate🤭 and how good is that for the forum? The fact that Linas believes in some form of insurance premium entropy is appealing. But could it please be extended to include car ownership? You see as a person of pensionable age I don't think its fair that I can't have a brand new RX. I mean, why should people half my age be allowed to? Something must be done 🤢🤢🤢

Oh, and Linas, if Insurance companies are "hiding" their ill-gotten gains they must have a pretty big bed! But I think I may have found it, so, next time you look at your pension statement ask your provider which insurance companies have they put your money in because you clearly need a good return. 💰💰💰

[Shahpor]

16 hours ago, Neo_gsf said:

Last year I paid £383 fully comprehensive on my GS F. 🙂 I use price comparison sites and several were around that figure.  Passing the Advanced Driving test helps.

I'm curious Phil, is that a limited mileage policy or is the GS F your daily driver?

Thanks.

[Neo_gsf]

4 minutes ago, Shahpor said:

I'm curious Phil, is that a limited mileage policy or is the GS F your daily driver?

Thanks.

@Shahpor It is only limited in the fact that I declared to the insurance company I would do around 8,000 miles per year.  Even when it was higher mileage, the premium didn't change that much to be fair.

[H3XME]

@b4u2 not sure if your question has been answered, but I'm also 25. Insurance for my 08 IS250 Manual came to £500 when I renewed end of last year. Online quotes were all over £1k for me. I then picked up my phone and called Adrian Flux - quoted me £670. Ended up calling GreenLight and they offered me a full comp for £520ish. No extra costs for modifications, so a perfect deal for me. I will never use an online insurance quote again. It's always a lot cheaper over the phone. They offer discounts for being a club/forum member too. 

BTW I've been with Flux for years and they also don't charge extra for certain mods. Never had an issue, but last year just happened that GreenLight were cheaper. All that being said, I never had an accident, (touch wood) so I wouldn't know what they're like when something happens, but yeah, I'm happy with both Flux and GreenLight simply just because it's all about money.

[Shahpor]

12 minutes ago, Neo_gsf said:

@Shahpor It is only limited in the fact that I declared to the insurance company I would do around 8,000 miles per year.  Even when it was higher mileage, the premium didn't change that much to be fair.

Thanks for the info.  That does make it a very good quote then!  Do you mind tell us who you're insured with?

Thanks.

[Neo_gsf]

3 minutes ago, Shahpor said:

Thanks for the info.  That does make it a very good quote then!  Do you mind tell us who you're insured with?

Thanks.

I am insured through the Institute of Advanced Motorists (who use Cornmarket Insurance brokers), but as stated previously, I use Comparison websites to get the quotes.  Cornmarket have a policy to beat any like for like quote for IAM members so I get the lowest from the Comparison sites and Cornmarket will beat it.

What this whole thread shows, though, is that some people have extortionate quotes and some people have very cheap quotes.  There is absolutely no way of comparing one person's quote with another.  There is also little point in thinking some (reputable) insurance companies are always cheaper than others - otherwise almost everyone would insure with those and all the others would go under.

There are probably well over 100 variables (I am guessing) when Insurance companies work out a premium so unless 2 people have exactly the same 100 variables, the quotes will be completely different.  This is also not taking into account the fact that an Insurance company may have too many of a certain type of car or demographic of people on their books, so deliberately give ridiculous quotes to discourage those groups.  Likewise, the opposite is true if they wanted to attract a demographic onto their books.

[Malc]

3 hours ago, H3XME said:

All that being said, I never had an accident, (touch wood) so I wouldn't know what they're like when something happens, but yeah, I'm happy with both Flux and GreenLight simply just because it's all about money.

Please don't think it's ever just about the money

It's also about your experience when a claim is made upon your policy

I will NEVER use AF again simply coz their insurance company, and all around them, to me, wasn't at all honourable and " right " in a claim made against my car insured with them

Malc

[Linas.P]

On 4/19/2021 at 8:24 PM, Sundance said:

Now just slow down a bit Linas, you seem to be causing a bit of a stir.  You clearly have very strong views on this topic which I'm sure are very well intentioned but it would greatly help us all to try and understand and indeed value your viewpoint if you would please detail your professional insurance and/or underwriting qualifications which will then replace what seem to be purely personal experiences and a not inconsiderable degree of conjecture.

My expertise is in wealth management (meaning tax avoidance is part of the deal), although I have family member working in insurance (Aviva). I was about to explain it in detail, but to be honest I realised people are so ignorant that it is pointless to even try.

I had my usual 2000 words post pretty much ready, but then just deleted it and decided to take a brake from the whole forum thing. 

In short, the system is created specifically so that rich could legally avoid taxes and insurance is one of the areas where this is most abused. It is abused in all the countries as well, but there are very few countries where it is as bad as in UK. Based on my observation and some insider knowledge I just concluded that this is the case because it is convenient for the government... or simply insurance business was really successful with lobbying in UK.

In either case the way insurance works in UK is not OK. Calling it fraud is technically not correct, because fraud would be something illegal and insurance companies brakes no laws... although saying that - when the law is selectively created for your to be able to abuse consumer how can you break it?!

[Sundance]

6 hours ago, Linas.P said:

My expertise is in wealth management (meaning tax avoidance is part of the deal), although I have family member working in insurance (Aviva). I was about to explain it in detail, but to be honest I realised people are so ignorant that it is pointless to even try.

I had my usual 2000 words post pretty much ready, but then just deleted it and decided to take a brake from the whole forum thing.

As expected I guess, a typically subjective view and of course not short of the usual dose of patronising content.  No place for you in the Corps Diplomatique I'm afraid Linas!  But glad to hear that you felt the need to take a break (brake?) from Forum involvement, it happens to us all. 😉

[LenT]

2 hours ago, Sundance said:

the need to take a break (brake?)...

Slight digression here, Rowley, but this error/typo seems to crop up a lot on this site.  I would point out that Linas does get it right for the penultimate word of his last post.

But I have noticed it occurring even in the titles for posts, with someone asking for advice about their ‘breaks’.  Now as someone who made a career out of writing, I am always irritated by the common errors prevalent when people try to write the way they talk, but...the chance that a car enthusiast doesn’t know the difference between ‘brake’ and ‘break’ seems vanishingly small to me.

So in such instances I’m inclined to blame the dictatorial hand of the Predictive Test Monster - a shadowy figure lurking in the background and waiting to pounce on a barely completed word, determined to change sense into nonsense.  I know I’ve nearly fallen victim and this site does seem to employ a particularly vindictive predictive!

 So all I can suggest is that before posting, everyone checks, cheques and Czechs again.