881
A cut, sure, but the whole fuckin thing? (lemmy.dbzer0.com)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/whitepeopletwitter@sh.itjust.works
171 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

That's the way you do it, if it must be done at all. And despite my antipathy towards cars, it seems it must.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    I would think it would disincentivize driving?

    Drive less > less chance of accident > fewer payouts > bigger refund check > adjust forecast lower for next year > lower premiums > GOTO 1

    Or maybe it's closer to zero sum. because some think that way while some asshole cough Alberta uses the money on extra tires and gasoline to drive even more.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Why would you pay for a car to not drive it but instead collect the refunds? It would be cheaper to not have a car. I think it would incentivize driving more as the premiums are low and when that causes premiums to rise higher it would disincentivize owning a car.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Not surprising that the refund check doesn't reduce driving in practise. If memory serves - you can't reward a behaviour into extinction, just like you can't punish a new behaviour into existence.

    At least, that's if you credit what they teach in applied behaviour analysis courses. I don't get to use my degree much, except at times like this.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent