Maybe if McDonalds were to base prices for meals on credit ratings, poor people would have to pay more for fast food and they would be so fat from eating so much.... nah, just as crazy.

Now I know it's not correct to price anything that seems regressive, but as I said before -- if a business can demonstrate that a particular class of customer is less profitable or costs more to serve -- why is it sometimes okay (i.e. auto insurance) and sometimes not? Seems to me that the cost of collections *is* a legitimate extra cost.

To be honest, I don't think it's a good idea to do what TXU wanted to do. But I also don't think it's a good idea to charge an unmarried man much more for auto insurance despite long-term identical driving records. I just want some consistency, and it rankles me when people pick and choose when they think it's acceptable for a business to surcharge particular groups that cost more to serve.