Higher auto insurance costs: keep car or switch to public transit?
"Looking at your numbers, I would definitively consider selling the car, and use the public transportation instead. You could easily save $450 month, plus gas and maintenance. As you mentioned, public transportation will be only a fraction of this amount, so you might end up saving around $400 monthly. If you decide to keep the car, the amount that you will spent monthly is easily a payment for a brand-new car. What if, God forbid, for any kind of reason, you get a traffic ticket that can increase your insurance premium? What if the engine stops working, and you will need to spent thousands of dollars fixing the car? With this, and all of the other expenses pilled up, you might be unable to afford all this at some point. If you decide to sell the car, the money that you will save monthly can be put in a savings account (or in any other sort of ""safe"" investment instrument). In this way, if your situation changes where you need a car again, you will be able to easily afford a new car. Regarding your need to visit your friends on the suburbs every other weekend, I think you can just talk with them, and meet on places where public transportation is available, or ask them to pick you up in the nearest station to the suburbs.  In conclusion, based on what you said, I do not think the ""little"" convenience that you get in owning the car outweighs the big savings that you get monthly, if you decide to sell the car." So you will be saving $450 + price of commuting gas - cost of transportation + cost of commuting maintenance - the cost of recreational car rentals if decide to go without a car.  For some people that cost is not enough to forego the convenience of owning a car. One factor you have not alluded too is your current financial goals.  Are you attempting to live a spartan lifestyle in order to dramatically change your net worth?  Give up the car.   There really is more then the math you are presenting so the decision is very much based upon your behavior and your goals in life.  It is very likely that owning the car will be more expensive, but it will also be less convenient.  Is that cost great enough to forego the convenience?  Only you can decide. "I've lived this decision, and from my ""anecdata"": do #3 I have been car-free since 2011 in a large United States city.  I was one month into a new job on a rail line out in the suburbs, and facing a $3000 bill to pass state inspection (the brakes plus the emissions system).  I live downtown.  I use a combination of transit, a carshare service, and 1-2 day rentals from full service car rental businesses (who have desks at several downtown hotels walking distance from my house).  I have not had a car insurance policy since 2011; the carshare includes this and I pay $15 per day for SLI from full service rentals.   I routinely ask insurance salesmen to run a quote for a ""named non-owner"" policy, and would pull the trigger if the premium cost was $300/6 months, to replace the $15/day SLI.  It's always quoted higher.   In general, our trips have a marginal cost of $40-100.  Sure, this can be somewhat discouraging.  But we do it for shopping at a warehouse club, visiting parents and friends in the suburbs.  Not every weekend, but pretty close.   But with use of the various services ~1/weekend, it's come out to $2600 per year.  I was in at least $3200 per year operating the car and often more, so there is room for unexpected trips or the occasional taxi ride in cash flow, not to mention the capital cost: I ground the blue book value of the car from $19000 down to $3600 in 11 years.   Summary:  Pull the trigger, do it :D" I'm guessing Toronto? Sell the car! Use public transit. Save a ton of money.  You can always rent a car for the day or weekend (or use a service like Uber) when necessary at a fraction of the cost of car ownership, and feel good about it!
While this question is old and I generally agree with the answers given I think there's another angle that needs a little illuminating: insurance. If you go with an 84 month loan your car will likely be worth less than the amount owed for substantially all of the entire 84 month loan period; this will be exacerbated if you put zero down and include the taxes and fees in the amount borrowed.  Your lender will require you to carry full comprehensive/collision/liability coverage likely with a low maximum deductible.  While the car is underwater it will probably also be a good idea to carry gap insurance because the last thing you want to do is write a check to your lender to shore up the loan to value deficit if the thing is totaled.  These long term car loans (I've seen as high as 96 months) are a bear when it comes to depreciation and related insurance costs. There is more to this decision than the interest calculation.   Obviously, if you had the cash at the front of this decision presumably you'll have the cash later to pay off the loan at your convenience.  But while the loan is outstanding there are costs beyond interest to consider. "My wife and I have been car-free since 2011.  We spent about $3500 on car shares and rentals last year (I went through it recently to flag trips that were medical transportation and unreimbursed work related for taxes).  This compares favorably with the last year of car ownership.  I had reached a point I started needing $200+ repairs every couple of months and the straw that broke the camels back was a (dealer mechanic estimate but still) $3000 estimate to pass emissions inspection.   Over 11 years the value went from $24000 to $3600, so it depreciated about 2k per year.   I was easily spending $40 per week on gasoline on my last commute.   I now use transit with the IRS commuter benefit so I do have a base after tax transportation expense of 1200 per year.  We use weekend rentals about 2x per month (and do use a warehouse club)  She uses rentals for her job about 12 times per year, and the medical transportation came in an intense burst.   Access: Our nearest carshare pod is 0.22 miles (3 blocks); there are two hotels with full service rental car desks about half a mile from our house and every brand at the Amtrak station a mile away.  There are concrete benefits to density, take every advantage. Insurance: I always take the rental company SLI daily insurance for $15 per day.  Certain no annual fee credit cards automatically include CDW.  Every time an insurance agent cold calls me, I ask for a quote for a ""named non owner"" policy, I'd probably take it if the premium was  $300 or less per 6 months.   Tips and tricks: a carshare minivan or truck rate is probably higher than a carshare car, but compared to a full service rental, may be much lower . The best value I spend no time in my life looking for a parking spot, and spend ""this hour"" tapping away on SE on a train instead of driving." "One way to look at insurance is that it replaces an unpredictable expenses with a predictable fees. That is, you pay a set monthly amount (""premium"") instead of the sudden costs associated with a collision or other covered event. Insurance works as a business, which means they intend to make a substantial profit for providing that service. They put a lot of effort in to measuring probabilities, and carefully set the premiums to get make a steady profit*. The odds are in their favor. You have to ask yourself: if X happened tomorrow, how would I feel about the financial impact? Also, how much will it cost me to buy insurance to cover X? If you have a lot of savings, plenty of available credit, a bright financial future, and you take the bus to work anyway, then totaling your car may not be a big deal, money wise. Skip the insurance. If you have no savings, plenty of debt, little prospects for that improving, and you depend on your car to get to work just so you can pay what you already owe, then totaling your car would probably be a big problem for you. Stick with insurance. There is a middle ground. You can adjust your deductible. Raise it as high as you can comfortably handle. You cover the small stuff out of pocket, and save the insurance for the big ticket items. *Insurance companies also invest the money they take as premiums, until they pay out a claim. That's not relevant to this discussion, though." You may not have considered this, and it will depend on your local laws, but if someone causes you damage, you can sue them for the damages. In your case, two drivers forced you to be involved in an accident, which made your premiums go up, which is a real damage for which they might be responsible. You're trading a fixed liability for an unknown liability. When I graduated from college, I bought a nice used car. Two days later, a deer came out of nowhere, and I hit it going 70 mph on a highway. The damage? $4,500. If I didn't have comprehensive insurance, that would have been a real hit to me financially. For me, I'd rather just pay the modest cost for the comprehensive. The smaller and more quantifiable and consistent risks will probably result (obviously in addition to smaller premiums) in a smaller spread in favor of the insurance company since there is a lot more leverage for companies like Tesla to negotiate with to drive down prices. It may reduce costs for Geico but it sure as hell will reduce profits too. "Discussions around expected values and risk premiums are very useful, but there's another thing to consider: cash flow. Some individuals have high value assets that are vital to them, such as  transportation or housing.  The cost of replacing these assets is prohibitive to them: their cashflow means that their rate of saving is too low to accrue a fund large enough to cover the asset's loss. However, their cashflow is such that they can afford insurance. While it may be true that, over time, they would be ""better off"" saving that money in an asset replacement fund, until that fund reaches a certain level, they are unprotected. Thus, it's not just about being risk averse; there are some very pragmatic reasons why individuals with low disposable income might elect to pay for insurance when they would be financially better off without it." Welcome to Money.SE. It appears there's public transportation to get you to work? And the area by your house is walkable? i.e. you and your wife can get groceries and other needs by walking. If it will take 5 years to pay the loans even without a car, how long if you get one? Will you even be able to afford the payments?  There's not enough detail here except to say that all purchases aside from true needs have a cost/reward to consider. Whatever the car's total cost is, will it add that much pleasure to your life? People in cities with great transportation save quite a bit on the expenses a car brings.  Personal anecdote - Mom lives in a city. She never drives out of the city. Ever. Between insurance, maintenance, and gas, even with low miles, she spends $3000/yr. Once per week, she drives 1500 ft (.3mi) each way to the grocery store. Once every month or 2 to a mall 6 miles away. She can walk and groceries delivered for free. In the end, she spends $250/mo for the feeling of freedom. I get that. When I am 70+, as she is, I will gladly pay car service the $20 to drive me around.  You are young, and need to sit with your partner (your wife is your partner in the business of running the family finances, or so I hope) and decide if the benefit is worth the cost. How does she take the kids to a doctor? How do you go out to dinner? "If you can afford to replace your car, it is more cost effective, on average and over time, not to carry comprehensive and collision insurance. The insurance companies do make a profit, after all. However, you may be able to worry less (""What if someone steals my car if I park here?"") with the insurance, and you have the knowledge the you won't have to spend your own money on a new car if something happens to this one, which may help with financial planning." "I think the key to this question is your last sentence, because it's applicable to everyone, high net-worth or not: How would one determine whether they are better off without insurance? In general, insurance is a net good when the coverage would prevent a 'catastrophic' event. If a catastrophic event doesn't happen, oh well, you wasted money on insurance. If it does happen, you just saved yourself from bankruptcy. These are two separate outcomes, so taking the 'average' cost of a catastrophic event (and weighing that against the more expensive insurance premiums) is not practical. This is a way of reducing risk, not of maximizing returns. Let the insurance company take the risk - they benefit from having a pool of people paying premiums, and you benefit because your own life has less financial risk. Now for something like cheap home electronics, insurance is a bad idea. This is because you now have a 'pool' of potential risks, and your own life experience could be close to the 'average' expected result. Meaning you'll pay more for insurance than you would just replacing broken things. This answer is another good resource on the topic. So to your question, at what point in terms of net-worth does someone's house become equivalent to you and your toaster? Remember that if you have home fire insurance, you are protecting the value of your house, because that loss would be catastrophic to you. But a high net-worth individual would also likely find the loss of their house catastrophic. Unless they are billionaires with multiple 10M+ mansions, then it is quite likely that regardless of wealth, a significant portion of their worth is tied up in their home. Even 10% of your net worth would be a substantial amount.  As an example, would someone worth $1M have only a 100k home? Would someone worth $10M have only a $1M Home? Depends on where they live, and how extravagantly. Similarly, if you were worth $10M, you might not need extra insurance on your Toyota Camry, but you might want it if you drive a $1M Ferrari! Not to mention that things like auto insurance may cover you for liability, which could extend beyond the value of your car, into medical and disability costs for anyone in an accident. In fact, being high net-worth may make you more vulnerable to lawsuits, making this insurance even more important. In addition, high net-worth individuals have insurance that you or I have no need of. Things like kidnapping insurance; business operation insurance, life insurance used to secure bank loans.  So yes, even high net-worth individuals may fear catastrophic events, and if they have so much money - why wouldn't they pay to reduce that risk? Insurance provides a service to them the same as to everyone else, it's just that the items they consider too 'cheap' too insure are more expensive than a toaster. Edit to counter concerns in some other answers, which say that insurance is ""always a bad idea"": Imagine you are in a kafka-esque episode of ""Let's Make a Deal"". Monty Hall shows you two parallel universes, each with 100 doors. You must choose your universe, then choose a door. The first universe is where you bought insurance, and behind every door is a penalty of $200. The second universe is where you didn't buy insurance, and behind 99 doors is nothing, with one random door containing a penalty of $10,000. On average, playing the game 99,999 times, you will come out ahead 2:1 by not buying insurance. But you play the game only maybe 3 times in your life. So which universe do you choose?  Now, you might say ""pfft - I can cover the cost of a 10k penalty if it happens"". But this is exactly the point - insurance (unless already required by law) is a net good when it covers catastrophic losses. If you are wealthy enough to cover a particular loss, you typically shouldn't buy that insurance. That's why no one should insure their toaster. This is not a question of ""average returns"", it is a question of ""risk reduction""." "As others have pointed out, it's all about a fixed, small cost versus the potential of a large cost. If you have insurance, you know you will pay a fixed amount per month. There is a 100% probability that you will have to pay this premium. If you don't have insurance, there is a large chance that you will have no cost in any given month, and a small chance that you will have a large cost. Like my home-owners insurance costs me about $50 per month. If I didn't have insurance and my house burned down, I would be out something like $100,000. What's the chance that my house will burn down this month? Very small. But I'd rather pay $50 and not have to worry about it. On the other hand, I just bought a filing cabinet for $160 and the store offered me an ""extended warranty"" for something like $20 a year. What's the probability that some accident will happen that damages my filing cabinet? Pretty small. Even if it did, I think I could handle shelling out $160. I can imagine my stomach in knots and lying awake at nights worrying about the possibility of losing $100,000 or finding myself homeless. I can't imagine lying awake at nights worrying about losing $160 or being force to stuff my files under the bed. I'll take my chances. When I was young and had even less money than I have now, I bought cars that cost me a thousand dollars or. Even poor as I was, I knew that if the car was totaled I could dig up the cash to buy another. It wasn't worth paying the insurance premium. These days I'm driving a car that cost me $6,000. I have collision and comprehensive insurance, but I think it's debatable. I bought the car with cash to begin with, and if I had to I could scrape up the cash to replace it. Especially considering that my last payment for my daughter's college tuition is due next month and then that expense is gone. :-)" Not really. You just pay the other side of payroll taxes your employer typically pays. That's 7.65% more on your net. Not that much, all things considered.  Plus, on part time Uber driving, the depreciation deduction on a car should exceed true depreciation costs. Putting 10K more miles on a car each year does not result in that much extra depreciation.  2010 Honda Civic DX Sedan 4D with 100K miles is worth $4,500 in Good condition, according to KBB.  With 130K miles, it's worth $3,900.  That's a difference of $600, or $0.02 per mile.  You'll have more oil changes, brake replacements, gas, and other operating costs. But depreciation is small potatoes compared to the $0.535 in deductions per mile.  Edit: If you would own a car regardless of whether or not you drive for Uber, Uber isn't a bad deal. It's a bad deal if you have to buy a car just to drive for Uber. It's all about the marginal cost of a mile. I think your math is fine, and also consider insurance costs and the convenience factor of each scenario. Moving a car frequently to avoid parking tickets will become tedious. I'd rather spend an hour renting a car 20 times in a year rather than have to spend 15 minutes moving a car every three days. And if there's no other easy parking, that 15 minutes can take a lot longer. Plus it'll get dirty sitting there, could get vandalized. Yuck. For only 20 days/year, I don't see how owning a car is worth the hassle. I recommend using a credit card that comes with free car rental insurance. "You have several issues at work. If in the next few years you have a leak in the roof that causes another insurance claim, they may decide not to cover it because they already paid you to replace the roof, and it is your fault that it wasn't. That might also mean they don't pay you for the stuff that is damaged because of the ""new"" leak. If you minimize the claim that may make it less likely that they will drop you in the future, or increase you rate next year. But if you don't return the excess funds they will evaluate you on the larger claim size. Of course if they are sending the money directly to the repair company they will only pay the bill up to a maximum amount. Usually the issue has been that the repair company wants to do a larger repair. The dispute resolves around some aspect of the building code. I had a car repair that had to be increased because the roof damage was within x inches of the windshield, so the windshield had to be replaced. The insurance company eventually agreed but it slowed down the process for a couple of days because they wanted to measure it. It is possible that the insurance company has rules related to the age of the roof and the amount of damage that triggers a total replacement." Watch pawn stars. Whatever someone offers offer 1/3 or less then go up from there. At least that's how to get the number. The rest is having the tact to make someone believe what you are offering is a good deal as that gentlemen clearly demonstrated.