The parents of young drivers have enough to worry about, but a new study from insuranceQuotes.com finds that those who add coverage for an 18-to-24-year-old can expect to see an average annual premium increase of 80 percent on their existing car insurance. The good news: That’s still cheaper than if the young drivers bought insurance on their own. If those young drivers were to buy individual plans of their own, they’d pay 8 percent more on average — and in some cases, over 50 percent more — than their coverage costs on a parental plan.
Premiums can vary widely depending on the driver’s age and state. An 18-year-old can expect to pay an average of 18 percent more for an individual policy than he or she would if added to an existing policy. But in Rhode Island, an 18-year-old will pay an average of 53 percent more for an individual policy. In Connecticut and Oregon, the difference is 47 percent.
In states such as Arizona, Hawaii, and Illinois, it actually becomes cheaper, on average, for a young driver to get his or her own policy after turning 19. When it comes to determining premiums, Hawaii is the only state that doesn’t allow insurance providers to consider age, gender, or length of driving experience.
These are the five states with the greatest difference in premiums for young drivers buying their own coverage.
1. Rhode Island: 19 percent
2. Connecticut: 16 percent
3. North Carolina: 14 percent
4. Vermont: 14 percent
5. Maine: 14 percent
And these five states have the smallest difference:
1. Hawaii: No difference
2. Illinois: No difference
3. Arizona: 2 percent
4. Mississippi: 5 percent
5. South Carolina: 5 percent.
Top Reads from The Fiscal Times:
- As Politicians Bicker Over Funding, Military Families Cut Back on Vacations
- Why We’re Wasting Billions on Teacher Development
- The Future of War Belongs to the Bots
Ahead of a House Ways and Means Committee hearing scheduled for Wednesday, the Joint Committee on Taxation prepared an analysis of the distributional effects of the 2017 Republican tax bill. The New York Times’ Jim Tankersley highlighted the fact that according to the JCT analysis, about 75 percent of the individual and business benefits of the tax cuts will go to filers earning more than $100,000 in 2019. And nearly half of the benefits will flow to filers earning over $200,000.
President Trump’s 2020 budget includes up to $1.2 trillion in “potentially phantom revenues” — money that comes from taxes the administration opposes or from tax hikes that face strong opposition from businesses, The Wall Street Journal’s Richard Rubin reports, citing data from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. That total, covering 2020 through 2029, includes as much as $390 billion in taxes created under the Affordable Care Act, which the president wants to repeal.
The $1.2 trillion in questionable revenue projections is in addition to the White House budget’s projected deficits of $7.3 trillion for the 10-year period. That total is itself questionable, given that the president’s budget relies on optimistic assumptions about economic growth and some unrealistic spending cuts, meaning that the deficits could be significantly higher than projected.
Ben Ritz of the Progressive Policy Institute slams President Trump’s new budget:
“It would dismantle public investments that lay the foundation for economic growth, resulting in less innovation. It would shred the social safety net, resulting in more poverty. It would rip away access to affordable health care, resulting in more disease. It would cut taxes for the rich, resulting in more income inequality. It would bloat the defense budget, resulting in more wasteful spending. And all this would add up to a higher national debt than the policies in President Obama’s final budget proposal.”
Here’s Ritz’s breakdown of Trump’s proposed spending cuts to public investment in areas such as infrastructure, education and scientific research:
Since roughly the end of World War Two, individual income taxes in the U.S. have equaled about 8 percent of GDP. By contrast, the Tax Policy Center says, “corporate income tax revenues declined from 6% of GDP in 1950s to under 2% in the 1980s through the Great Recession, and have averaged 1.4% of GDP since then.”