The Instigator
threenorns
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Pheidippies
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

If insurance is legally mandatory, then it should be covered by taxes.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/18/2012 Category: Economics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,209 times Debate No: 28411
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

threenorns

Pro

in canada, as in many industrialized countries, it is illegal to drive an uninsured vehicle.

the problem is that insurance companies have taken this as a license to print money. they base how much you'll pay on various criteria - your age, your gender, your marital status, whether or not you have children, your employment status, where you live, what kind of residence you have, history of mental illness or addiction, criminal record, and your credit report are just some of the factors that come into play. it happens all too often that someone gets their license only to discover it was a waste of time and money because they can't afford the insurance premiums (which can run as high as $10,000/yr for a newly-licensed teenager, depending which company is quoting).

when you make a claim, your premiums go up again. if you have too many claims - even if none of them were your fault - you can be denied and even blacklisted.

if the government says it's the law that all drivers must be covered by insurance, then not only should it be illegal for coverage to be denied, but also insurance premiums should be covered by taxes (since *everybody* is protected by insurance, it makes sense that everybody should pay in) and damages should be set at fixed amounts, similar to how it is now (we don't have things like million-dollar lawsuits for dubious whiplash or back injury).
Pheidippies

Con

There are three issues with your argument.

1)You are assuming that every driver is paying taxes. Rental car Companies offer insurance to foreigner so that they can get around the industrialized countries that they are visiting. The Rental Car Companies have to pay for insurance premiums on the car plus what the foreigner is paying in premiums usually much higher than the Rental Car Companies to be legal in that country. Plus, these foreigners are not paying into the system so therefore the taxes will not cover them. Also, are you going to pay the Insurance premiums twice (Rental Car Companies and the Foreigner) since taxes will now cover all insurance payment? The Insurance companies will just love that making huge profits off Double Dipping.
2)You are forgetting about substitute goods in economy such as Trains, Taxi-cabs, Buses, Bikes, and Walking. Are you going to cover insurance premiums for walking?
3)If we used a fixed amount, are you going to adjust the fixed amount for inflation or deflation?
Debate Round No. 1
threenorns

Pro

1)You are assuming that every driver is paying taxes. Rental car Companies offer insurance to foreigner so that they can get around the industrialized countries that they are visiting. The Rental Car Companies have to pay for insurance premiums on the car plus what the foreigner is paying in premiums usually much higher than the Rental Car Companies to be legal in that country. Plus, these foreigners are not paying into the system so therefore the taxes will not cover them. Also, are you going to pay the Insurance premiums twice (Rental Car Companies and the Foreigner) since taxes will now cover all insurance payment? The Insurance companies will just love that making huge profits off Double Dipping.
==================

when we rented a car, we didn't have to take the insurance bec he already had his own insurance. that meant in the event of an accident, the rental company's policy didn't come into play. as far as i know, it is illegal to double-dip insurance policies so if the vehicle is already covered, it's covered. it's not the driver that is insured, it's the vehicle. if the rental company has done their due diligence, then insurance would cover everyone renting their vehicles. if they rent to someone who is actually not a qualified driver, then that's out of their own pocket. they would, of course, have the option to refuse to rent to someone who does not hold a driver's license valid in their state/province/whatever. the govt could have "visitor" insurance packages on offer should they be required (some foreigners find it cheaper to buy a car for the duration of their stay), similar to the health insurance offered by travel companies in case one finds oneself needing medical attention while on vacation.

==================

2)You are forgetting about substitute goods in economy such as Trains, Taxi-cabs, Buses, Bikes, and Walking. Are you going to cover insurance premiums for walking?

==================

ppl who are walking or bicycling are unlikely to cause damages in a collision with a vehicle. they are, however, very likely to suffer damages. right now, if they are taken out by an uninsured driver, they're screwed unless the driver is rich enough to cover the cost of their treatment, therapy, and compensation. having insurance automatically guaranteed by the govt ensures they won't be robbed. if they were paying in through taxes, they would be contributing to insurance which they are not doing now. as i said, if insurance is intended to protect "everybody on the road" from driver or mechanical error, it's only fair that "everybody on the road" chips in. right now, if a pedestrian walks out from between two parked cars and gets taken out by an insured driver, the insurance company is likely to not only reject the claim bec it was technically the pedestrian's fault, but they would also jack up the driver's premium even though they haven't actually had to pay anything out.

trains, cabs, bus, and similar public transit systems are already required to have insurance - since they are a transit business, i'm sure there would be an additional business premium. it's not like "Metro Transit" with 1500 artic busses would pay the same insurance premium as Joe Blo and his Honda Civic.

==================

3)If we used a fixed amount, are you going to adjust the fixed amount for inflation or deflation?

==================

that would naturally follow. furthermore, it should be done in classes: residential (non-commercial) drivers of economy cars pay 'x'; non-commercial drivers of luxury or high-powered cars pay 'x plus a bit'; commercial non-transit drivers, where the driving is integral to but not central to the work performed (ie, travelling salesmen, building contractors, etc) pay 'y'; commercial transit, where the driving is central to the work performed (public transit or delivery, f.ex) pay 'y plus whatever'.

furthermore, if it turns out there have been more claims than would have reasonably been expected in a particular sector, premiums go up; if there have not been as many claims as was reasonably expected, premiums go down. if there have been a massive number of claims in the commercial transit sector but the residential economy car sector had a very clean year, Metro Transit's premiums would go up while Joe Blo in his Civic would enjoy a reduced premium.

right now, the only way premiums go is up - insurance companies *claim* to lower your premiums over time and they give you a reduction at certain intervals but only to a point. then they start clawing back: ex-boyfriend of mine with over 25 years' clean driving saw his insurance premium (with the same company) more than double in that time while they cut back coverage and increased his deductible. excuses he was given included "the economy", "an increase in the number of traffic accidents in his area" (remote northern ontario!), and "9/11".

the system as it stands very quickly and very heavily penalizes drivers. it doesn't take much to drive the cost of insurance beyond what a low-income earner who relies on his car to get to and from work can afford - this increases the risk of him taking the chance of driving without insurance, especially in rural and remote areas where there is unlikely to be any public transit system and amenities are few and far between. by paying it through taxes, he is guaranteed coverage in the event of an accident and the public is spared cases such as these with the attendant time wasted dragging it through court and the appeals process:

http://insurancenewsnet.com... (chiropractic treatment plus headache - no surgery, no fractures, no broken bones, but he gets $160,000)

and http://www.bizjournals.com... (where the woman caused the accident, yet was awarded $14.6 million dollars in damages)

head injury with no broken bones, 100% chance of full recovery expected once the headaches clear in a week or so (what we in the "mom" business like to call "a widdle booboo")? you get 'this' much.
head injury with whiplash expected to leave permanent results? you get 'that' much.
injury with permanent loss of income? you get an amount factored by the injury plus the reasonable amount of income you would've earned over your working life - no millions of dollars "just because".
Pheidippies

Con

How many rental car companies do there due diligence? Can you provide me a number?

So, are you going to insurance premium for marine transport? Marine transport is just like automobile transport. If you have uninsured driver, they"re screw unless the driver is rich enough to cover the cost of their treatment. Are you going to cover the insurance premium by taxes? Only rich and upper middle class only boats? This is unfair to poor and middle class because they cannot get insure by the government because they can"t own a boat.

A fixed amount is fixed rate for everything. You did not provide a fixed rate yet, rates by type of drivers and that"s discernment against driver. Why does residential and commercial drivers have to receive different amounts of money if they are both shared the road. Are you going to create a lane just for residential or commercial?
Debate Round No. 2
threenorns

Pro

okay, are you going to just keep asking questions or are you actually going to debate at some point? i have presented more than enough points to get you going.

==============================

How many rental car companies do there due diligence? Can you provide me a number?

==============================

every single one of them - that's why they photocopy your driver's license, ask to see your driver's insurance papers, and require a credit card.

==============================

So, are you going to insurance premium for marine transport? Marine transport is just like automobile transport. If you have uninsured driver, they"re screw unless the driver is rich enough to cover the cost of their treatment. Are you going to cover the insurance premium by taxes? Only rich and upper middle class only boats? This is unfair to poor and middle class because they cannot get insure by the government because they can"t own a boat.

==============================

why do you assume "poor and middle class" cannot own a boat? not all boats are yachts. ppl who are swimming, kayaking, canoeing, etc, won't cause much damage in a collision but the same principle applies: if they get hit by a motorized vehicle that's uninsured, they're SOL.

==============================

A fixed amount is fixed rate for everything. You did not provide a fixed rate yet, rates by type of drivers and that"s discernment against driver. Why does residential and commercial drivers have to receive different amounts of money if they are both shared the road. Are you going to create a lane just for residential or commercial?

==============================

insurance rates are not predicated on the square footage of road used - it's based on the statistical probability of being involved in an accident. Metro Transit with 1500 artic busses on the road 22 hours a day in all weather is way more likely by a factor of several than Joe Blo in his Honda Civic to be involved in an accident. therefore, the bus company should pay a higher premium. commercial drivers where the transit is central to the business (taxi, courier, public transit, etc) are statistically more likely to play fast and loose with the rules of the road because their profit margin depends on speed and deadlines - they should pay more than Joe Blo who can come into work a bit late if speeding means he runs the risk of landing in the ditch. people with luxury and high-speed cars are going to rack up higher dollar claims in the event of an accident than a common import or a domestic vehicle so they should pay more.

since the insurance would be part of income tax, it stands to reason that income would have a large part to play - someone who is an unemployed pedestrian would pay less than someone who drives to their minimum-wage 9-5 in a domestic car while someone who owns a prosperous cab company in three towns would pay significantly more.
Pheidippies

Con

Your honor, jury members of the industrialized countries and the people of the world, the pro side has proved that their motive for personally gains. The pro side motive does not benefit the people as whole but for few select groups (awful drivers, unemployed, and wealthy people). One reason the pro side does not want to pay insurance premium because the pro side is awful driver, itself. The pro side is trying to manipulative federal tax system and states/province/territory tax system in each industrialized countries due fact they are awful driver. For example, in the USA, this industrialized country has to be either Federal taxes and/or States taxes. The following states do not have income tax Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, Wyoming (source http://en.wikipedia.org...). The pro side wants to void the tenth amendment rights for people of these eight states in forcing these states to create income tax. (Source http://en.wikipedia.org...). The pro side also wants to void the other 48 states ten amendment by covering other states driver to cover the eight states that do not have income taxes. The Federal tax systems breaks downs for the USA such as Excises taxes 3%, Estate & Gift Taxes 1%, Other 6%, Individual income Taxes 41%, Payroll Taxes 40%, and Corporate income Taxes 9%.
(Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org...). Therefore, if the pro sides gets the those eight states to have income tax then the federal government can take that money from the states and give them to all the awful drivers in that countries.
The pro side has showed that the working class has to pay all the taxes for insurance premium so that the unemployed, poor and rich people can have insurance premium. I stated from the pro side "the bus company should pay a higher premium. commercial drivers where the transit is central to the business (taxi, courier, public transit, etc) are statistically more likely to play fast and loose with the rules of the road because their profit margin depends on speed and deadlines - they should pay more than Joe Blo who can come into work a bit late if speeding means he runs the risk of landing in the ditch. people with luxury and high-speed cars are going to rack up higher dollar claims in the event of an accident than a common import or a domestic vehicle so they should pay more." These are the working class of the industrialized countries. If the bus companies have to pay higher taxes due to paying for insurance premium then the worker wages will go down due to the bus companies having less profit. This will cause less money for corporate income taxes and this leads to another reason why the pro sides has a personally agenda for personally gains.

The pro sides want to bankruptcy these industrialized countries for the wealthy people of the world. If these countries start covering insurance premium for everyone in industrialized countries then will dry up the tax funds because spending will be higher than revenue. This is why he USA is in financial cliff. Spending is higher than revenue. This will only benefit the wealthy people because the government will have to borrow against these rich people. Therefore, your honor, jury members of the industrialized countries and the people of the world, the pro side has proved that their motive for personally gains for theses select groups (awful drivers, unemployed, and wealthy people).
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.