We all know men and women are different when it comes to money. Studies have found that women tend to be less self-assured and thus more considered and conservative in making financial decisions. That carries through to buying a new car, as the infographic below from Kelley Blue Book shows.
Recent surveys have found that Americans are increasingly skipping repeat visits to dealers’ lots — and in some cases even bypassing test drives — in favor of online research. Even so, the KBB study of about 40,000 U.S. adults found that women are more interested in features and safety while men are more likely to focus on styling and pursue a specific brand and model. KBB also found that, “while men are more likely to view their cars as tied to their image and accomplishments, women are more likely to see them simply as a way to get from point A to point B.” As a result, men want more trucks and luxury sedans while women are more likely to go for non-luxury Asian brands of SUVs and sedans.
Here are some other differences in how the car-buying process plays out:
The U.S. Treasury has approved the final group of opportunity zones, which offer tax incentives for investments made in low-income areas. The zones were created by the tax law signed in December.
Bill Lucia of Route Fifty has some details: “Treasury says that nearly 35 million people live in the designated zones and that census tracts in the zones have an average poverty rate of about 32 percent based on figures from 2011 to 2015, compared to a rate of 17 percent for the average U.S. census tract.”
Click here to explore the dynamic map of the zones on the U.S. Treasury website.
Axios breaks down how monthly premiums on benchmark Affordable Care Act policies have risen state by state since 2014. The average increase: $481.
A new analysis by the Urban Institute finds that if the Affordable Care Act were eliminated entirely, the number of uninsured would rise by 17.1 million — or 50 percent — in 2019. The study also found that federal spending would be reduced by almost $147 billion next year if the ACA were fully repealed.
Mick Mulvaney has been running the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau since last November, and by all accounts the South Carolina conservative is none too happy with the agency charged with protecting citizens from fraud in the financial industry. The Hill recently wrote up “five ways Mulvaney is cracking down on his own agency,” and they include dropping cases against payday lenders, dismissing three advisory boards and an effort to rebrand the operation as the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection — a move critics say is intended to deemphasize the consumer part of the agency’s mission.
Mulvaney recently scored a small victory on the last point, changing the sign in the agency’s building to the new initials. “The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau does not exist,” Mulvaney told Congress in April, and now he’s proven the point, at least when it comes to the sign in his lobby (h/t to Vox and thanks to Alan Zibel of Public Citizen for the photo, via Twitter).