Posts by David Barrett85

rustycyclist5 said:The acquisition value is usually pulled from CarMax, specifically using the VIN data.

If you walk in there with a valid receipt, they should be legally obligated to honor that figure.

So, what you're suggesting is that if I show up with a receipt, they’re legally bound to calculate the car's value based on whatever price is printed there—say, applying a 2% premium to that total?

What happens when they start playing games with the math?

EDIT: I just checked the Allianz website, and they list the vehicle's replacement value as $45333, making the difference to 105,000 exactly $10333...which, let's be honest, results in a $267 higher premium if we're calculating based on last year's 2.6% comprehensive rate.

Furthermore, how exactly is this "50% bonus" calculated? Because in my experience, a 50% discount is never actually 50%; at best, you're looking at 35%, according to this latest comprehensive quote.

I hope everyone understands why I'm so frustrated here. They are being incredibly slippery with these numbers.

Hannah Allen5 said:Man, I don't know about this... If his car is only worth something like $2,000, I wouldn't be surprised at all. These insurance companies are notorious for absolutely tanking the value just because a vehicle is getting older.

I actually have a quote from State Farm where, if I pay an extra $217, I get coverage for animal strikes, natural disasters, increased passenger protection, roadside assistance, and I think there's a few other things too. But honestly, what I'm really sweating is how they’re going to value an 11-year-old car today, since they base everything on the original MSRP.

To hell with their games; they quote one value to me at $49000, another one at $127,000, and a third at $124,000, yet I actually paid $105,000 for the thing.🤣
When you try to show them your actual receipt, they just shrug and tell you it doesn't matter because they have their own internal pricing models. If the premium is supposed to be 2% of the vehicle's acquisition cost, then it should be calculated based on what was actually paid, not some arbitrary figure they pulled out of thin air.

This really ought to be regulated by law. That way, we could actually choose providers based on who offers a fair premium—say, 1.2% or 3% of the true purchase price minus any bonuses—instead of dealing with this shady business where they artificially inflate the car's value by 45% just to pad their margins.

Hannah Allen5 said:Man, I don't know about this... If his car is only worth something like $2,000, I wouldn't be surprised at all. These insurance companies are notorious for absolutely tanking the value just because a vehicle is getting older.

I actually have a quote from State Farm where, if I pay an extra $217, I get coverage for animal strikes, natural disasters, increased passenger protection, roadside assistance, and I think there's a few other things too. But honestly, what I'm really sweating is how they’re going to value an 11-year-old car today, since they base everything on the original MSRP.

Allstate is decent; I opted for just the basic liability and for a measly $23 more, I added driver and passenger coverage, bonus protection, legal aid, roadside assistance, and extra coverage for the driver if they happen to be at fault in an accident.

A lot of insurance companies won't even offer full comprehensive coverage once a car hits the ten-year mark. It’s highly likely he was sold a policy with a deductible—though I doubt it—or perhaps just collision coverage. Well, I'll head down to their office this year and see if those claims hold water...

Dana Torres9 said:I've got some collision coverage through an insurer like GEICO $367, but it’s basically limited to just one claim. It could be anything from a tiny scratch to a total wreck, but once you use it up, I think you have to pay an extra premium to keep the coverage active. Not really sure how much that would run, though.

There isn't even a theoretical chance that for $367 you actually have full comprehensive coverage...

It seems Laura Chavez93 always carries some sort of lingering resentment toward banks; maybe she should find a more productive way to spend her time.

If I go with this Allstate package—including full comprehensive coverage plus a few extra riders—it’s looking like it'll cost me about $900 for my car. When I was shopping around last year, the absolute cheapest quote I could find for everything they're bundling here was roughly $1233...

I can't help but wonder what the catch is; how did prices drop this much? It seems almost too good to be true that I could snag full comprehensive coverage for just $467??

Henry Martinez27 said:Trolling? No way. Maybe just toss in another two scenarios so people actually have a choice. Let them pick from three different proposals depending on what works for them.

------
👍

I actually plotted a graph that strips out inflation entirely, showing the real growth of gold prices expressed in dollars. Once you account for inflation, you see that gold saw significant real growth during only three specific windows over the last century: 1930–1934, 1970–1980, and 2001–2012. Every other year was either stagnation—back when the gold standard was still a thing—or a straight decline.

Ultimately, this data doesn't tell us much because the exchange rates between the Republican Party's currency, then later the European Union's, against the dollar have fluctuated too wildly.

Here in California, we really ought to be looking at gold prices exclusively in terms of the European Union's currency, or if one insists on being pedantic about the Federal Reserve's influence, adjusting for inflation. That would be the only way to find a truly meaningful indicator.

wearyotter36 said:Can one of the veterans here call this what it is—trolling? Some people might actually take this seriously.

https://www.macrotrends.net/1333/his...100-year-chart

Amanda Allen4 said:An old man from San Francisco—specifically from a little town just south of Sioux Hills, tucked right against the southern edge of the Rocky Mountains—once told me a story. He claimed that in the days leading up to the fall of Nazi Germany, people were trading exclusively in gold. Apparently, nobody wanted to touch paper currency anymore! Instead, they were doing what he called "gold for gold" trades—with a bit of a smirk, too. It only clicked for me much later: they weren't just hoarding wealth; they were using actual gold jewelry to buy basic necessities like corn.

This is precisely why you should keep some gold on hand in small denominations—1g, 2g, or 5g pieces. Think of it as a survival fund for roughly two years of basic living expenses in the event of a full-scale war (food, water, medicine, fuel, and clothing, plus enough ammo for a couple of rifles and a handgun). Don't view this as a traditional savings account; it’s strictly an emergency contingency.

Carol Newman2 said:exit poll NBC:

V: 9.8%
S: 25.4%
MP: 5.8%
C: 9.4%
KD: 6.6%
L: 5.7%
M: 18.4%
SD: 16.3%

The Left coalition sits at 41%
The Right coalition is at 40.1%
SD "only" 16.3%

They spent all season branding them as Nazis, so naturally, nobody wants to admit on national television that they actually voted for them.🤔

Mark Sanders66 said:but I suppose I'd be losing points in the process, wouldn't I?

You're losing all of them.☕