New DSLR lenses from Nikon
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Problem solved:
Next: ARGUS - DARPA's All-Seeing Eye
From: Ray Fischer on 10 Feb 2010 02:54 Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote: >On 2010-02-09 21:48:54 -0800, rfischer(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) said: >> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote: >>> I have been with Allstate since September 1993 for both my Homeowners >>> Insurance, and that uniquely Californian policy, Earthquake Insurance >>> which is separate. Fortunately I am not in a flood, or slide zone, so >>> that is a risk which is minimized for me. >> >> How did you justify the earthquake insurance? To me it seems way >> overpriced for what you get. That 15% deductable was the deal breaker >> for me. > >Once my equity exceeded the deductible, and knowing my comprehensive >Homeowner's policy would not cover earthquake damage, the annual >premium was not unreasonable. $900/year with a $35,000 deductable doesn't seem very reasonable. >If not I would only have possible assistance to repair or rebuild if >FEMA came into play with a disaster declaration, and there is no >consistent guarantee of that happening. > >I was lucky with our 6.5 earthquake in December 2003. The epicenter was >about 20 miles from us. My house (we're about the same distance in the S. Bay) has stood without damage for 60 years. I've chosen to ensure that it's structurally sound. >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_San_Simeon_earthquake Oh, THAT earthquake. I was referring to the Loma Prieta. >It felt as though a truck had run into the house. With all the shaking >I couldn't even take the initial move of getting out of the house, as I >was knocked off my feet. There was only some dry wall crack damage, and >the stove pipe for my wood stove got shaken loose. Two women in Paso >Robles weren't so lucky when a building collapsed on them. > >So as long as I am living between the Oceanic fault zone in the Santa >Lucia mountains and the Coastal ranges and the faults they harbor, and >the San Andreas Fault, 30 miles to the East, I think I can justify the >cost of Earthquake insurance. Shrug. Everyone makes their own risk assessment. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: Savageduck on 10 Feb 2010 06:02 On 2010-02-09 23:54:39 -0800, rfischer(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) said: > Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote: >> On 2010-02-09 21:48:54 -0800, rfischer(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) said: >>> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote: > >>>> I have been with Allstate since September 1993 for both my Homeowners >>>> Insurance, and that uniquely Californian policy, Earthquake Insurance >>>> which is separate. Fortunately I am not in a flood, or slide zone, so >>>> that is a risk which is minimized for me. >>> >>> How did you justify the earthquake insurance? To me it seems way >>> overpriced for what you get. That 15% deductable was the deal breaker >>> for me. >> >> Once my equity exceeded the deductible, and knowing my comprehensive >> Homeowner's policy would not cover earthquake damage, the annual >> premium was not unreasonable. > > $900/year with a $35,000 deductable doesn't seem very reasonable. Which insurance company gave you that price? Are you in some high ticket Bay Area home? or are you in one of the shaky land reclamation areas like The Marina, or a potential slide area? ...or all of those? I wouldn't pay that either. Perhaps the insurance companies don't want the "Earthquake" business in the Bay Area. I have a feeling that there must be some sort of insurance company "red-line" zoning for the Bay Area, or I am benefitting from living in a rural area. With Allstate I am paying less than $900 a year for Homeowner's & Earthquake insurance combined. -- Regards, Savageduck
From: Ray Fischer on 10 Feb 2010 22:58 Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote: >On 2010-02-09 23:54:39 -0800, rfischer(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) said: > >> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote: >>> On 2010-02-09 21:48:54 -0800, rfischer(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) said: >>>> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote: >> >>>>> I have been with Allstate since September 1993 for both my Homeowners >>>>> Insurance, and that uniquely Californian policy, Earthquake Insurance >>>>> which is separate. Fortunately I am not in a flood, or slide zone, so >>>>> that is a risk which is minimized for me. >>>> >>>> How did you justify the earthquake insurance? To me it seems way >>>> overpriced for what you get. That 15% deductable was the deal breaker >>>> for me. >>> >>> Once my equity exceeded the deductible, and knowing my comprehensive >>> Homeowner's policy would not cover earthquake damage, the annual >>> premium was not unreasonable. >> >> $900/year with a $35,000 deductable doesn't seem very reasonable. > >Which insurance company gave you that price? That's the standard California insurance terms. State Farm offers it. >Are you in some high ticket Bay Area home? Is there any other kind of Bay Area home? I live in the South Bay. The median price is around $550,000 (still). >I wouldn't pay that either. Perhaps the insurance companies don't want >the "Earthquake" business in the Bay Area. > >I have a feeling that there must be some sort of insurance company >"red-line" zoning for the Bay Area, or I am benefitting from living in >a rural area. With Allstate I am paying less than $900 a year for >Homeowner's & Earthquake insurance combined. Hmmph. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: Peter on 11 Feb 2010 08:17 "J�rgen Exner" <jurgenex(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4km3n5h2gifbk1hgjpc4fhpfuad4rrd30q(a)4ax.com... >C J Campbell <christophercampbellremovethis(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>Either that or their own tax-hungry governments think they are. America >>has no VAT. > > 1: Canada does have VAT, it is called "Goods and Services Tax". Don't > know about other countries in America. > 2: I am quite certain I prefer a flat simple straightforward VAT over > the impenetrable jungle of local, state, county and other sales taxes > that are slapped on in the US and sometimes vary just across the street. > 3: Not to mention that VAT is refundable upon export of the good while > sales tax is not. Almost right. What you call a sales tax is actually a use tax. If a purchase is made for resale, or to be shipped outside the taxing jurisdiction, the purchase is usually exempt. -- Peter
From: Peter on 11 Feb 2010 08:24
"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message news:ksm3n51bm4hcrmn5hg8ob32u8t75mijcvk(a)4ax.com... > > While visitors to the US often object to this because they feel the > advertising falsely represents the actual price to be paid, there is a > good reason for stating the pre-tax price. If Best Buy (a chain of > stores) advertises a camera for $100, the final price will be $106 if > the purchase is made in Orange County (FL) or $107 if the purchase is > made in Seminole County (FL) due to local option tax rates. If the > camera is purchased by a hospital or other exempt entity, the final > price is $100. The stores involved may be equidistant from the > customer's home. > True, but under most jurisdictions, if you make a purchase in a lower tax jurisdiction than where it will be used, technically you may, depending on the item, owe the using jurisdiction the difference. There are serious enforcement issues. For real dollar differences think automobiles and recreational boats. -- Peter |