He’s going to anger the vermin community too.
I am not really sold on this one either. Historically, its the taxpayer that ends up subsidising the predictable losses.
This guy read “The Jakarta Method.” Probably just a little squeamish on mass killings.
Isn’t that kind of the point of any socialist type program?
1 Like
How much is the taxpayer accountable for the cost of insurance. Seems like there would be a connection between the quality of the infrastructure and the risks of property losses.
And is there any general agreement on the “rising cost of insurance”? And if so, what is driving that increase?
Someone is asking the right question. If insurance is redistribution of risk, what are you saving? You can control the admin expense level to some degree, but you can’t go to 0 expense in reality. If you claim to, it is cost shifting to someone(taxpayer).
If the things insurance cover are increasing claim costs, what levers does the city have over them? Reducing permitting costs? Building code changes?
I think there is general agreement among P&C actuaries that homeowners are paying, on average, quite a bit more than they were several years ago.
That the second derivative has recently declined may not be appreciated by the general public who still remember what they were paying years ago.
On an inflation / CAT controlled for basis? Maybe a little bit because real GDP per capita tends to increase but most of the change is inflation followed by they live in a state with silly regulations followed by they live in a CAT exposed state and that has gradually gone up
NY is a pretty tightly regulated state. The city providing subsidized insurance will just result in inefficient wealth redistribution.
On a nominal basis.
The target audience isn’t thinking on a real basis; their focus is “numbers on bill go up”.
Blatant pandering to the underage voters.
2 Likes
Better than what Epstein did.
2 Likes