The comment stream
Recent comments
- 1 of 20720
- ››
Editors choice
- 1 of 294
- ››
The news stream
Latest news
Most commented
- Record exodus to Australia in last year 70
- 'Don't sell SOE shares; Borrow from Kiwis' 37
- 'Councils should look at asset sales' 34
- 90 seconds at 9 am: No G8 deal 20
- NZ to borrow more if crisis worsens-Key 19
- Beware of the creeping taxman 19
- Thousands get lower rates; what now? 16
- Monday's Top 10 with NZ Mint 12
- Euro-mess won't change Key on Super 8
- Pastoral Dairy Investments cans public offer 7
Most viewed
Helping the over 10,000 uninsured quake victims will create a moral hazard
According to estimates provided by the Insurance Council of New Zealand, more than 10,000 properties damaged in the Christchurch earthquake could be without any insurance cover.
In previous major disasters the level of those without insurance cover has been as high as a third, but according to chief executive Chris Ryan, the numbers of uninsured properties is expected to be lower in Christchurch but it could still be around 10,000 properties which, along with their contents, are without any insurance cover.
To claim from the Earthquake Commission (EQC) on a residential property you must have house insurance with a private insurer. Likewise you must have contents insurance with a private insurer to have EQC contents cover.
Cover for land damage which is excluded by private insurers house policies is also only applicable through the EQC for those with a valid House insurance cover in place.
Therefore if you have no insurance cover on the house or contents then you have no cover at all from EQC.
This will raise issues around what level of support, if any, should be provided for people who have opted to take the risk of going without insurance cover on their home or it's contents.
Prime Minister John Key said the government faced a "moral dilemma" over what to do with the uninsured.
He said there would be assistance for people suffering hardship, but there would be some that are going to find it a very "distressing experience".
Related Topics
"For everybody else, we'll need to work our way through it."
Worse for companies
The situation in the commercial sector could be even more challenging.
Ryan said the valuations on many properties that were used as the basis of insurance could well be old and no longer a reflection of their current value and the true loss. Some of those old valuations were based on a building code that has been changed over time, and the additional costs to comply to the new code will add to a potential gap between the insurance cover and the cost of repairs.
Business interruption cover will play a vital role in providing a cash flow for companies impacted by the quake while they rebuild and re-establish themselves, for those businesses that have this type of cover. But it will still be very difficult for those businesses that were struggling before the earthquake, as the business interruption cover is only based on the trading history of the business.
In addition to the uninsured, there will also be a high level of under insurance. Ryan says that the true extent of that problem will not be known for sometime.
195 Comments
I honestly don't see how a
I honestly don't see how a helping hand can be extended to the uninsured. They took a conscious decision NOT to pay premiums and save money. Other people paid for insurance and now reap the 'reward'.
Surely the government cannot morally justify taking taxpayers money, some of which would come from those who HAVE paid insurance in CChurch, in order to subsidise those feckless enough to gamble on being uninsured?
What message would that send to those who DO take out insurance?
No, no, no.
Now that NZ has earthquake
Now that NZ has earthquake threats...more Kiwis are heading overseas....no wonder my garden in Auckland was all clay...........
The reason why so many people could not afford insurance was the low income they are getting versus the high costs of living so they are always out of pocket.....
Government must help them in this case..........
Auckland at risk from unseen threat
Could Auckland be next? Scientists say the Christchurch quake was a good reminder that all of New Zealand lay near a major intersection of tectonic plates.
The risk of a major tremor is unlikely above the Waikato. But the discovery of a "blind" or long-buried faultline near Darfield emphasised the existence of latent dangers deep in New Zealand's earth.
Associate Professor Phil Shane from the University of Auckland geology department said Wellington remained the city most at risk.
"The other side of the coin is that all of New Zealand is on a plate boundary, so most of New Zealand has experienced seismic activity in its history," he said.
"The Canterbury situation is a reminder that some of the older faults are buried. It leaves the door open to places even further north, like the Waikato, experiencing movement occasionally."
The closest faults to Auckland lay south of the city, near the Hunua Ranges. They were not believed to have moved, or ruptured the surface, in the past 1000 years.
Professor Shane said because many of the major cities were built on soft rock or sediment, a quake which occurred outside city centres could still be highly damaging.
Low-lying and coastal areas in Auckland, such as the waterfront, would be badly damaged by a large tremor, as the land could liquefy, shaking much of downtown's foundations.
The most likely region to experience a major quake in the North Island was the Bay of Plenty, he said.
"The reason why so many
"The reason why so many people could not afford insurance was the low income they are getting versus the high costs of living so they are always out of pocket..."
That is true, but it's a pity those people elected to buy all the nice big shiny things at the cost of having insurance.
Couldn't agree more! If you
Couldn't agree more! If you can afford the house and all its contents in the first place, surely there must be a couple of bucks left for the insurance. It's less than a coffee a day, but so important once you get into a situation like this. Why is it not compulsory to have insurance??
I Couldn't agree more. I
I Couldn't agree more. I don't feel I can afford to buy a house despite having decent salary and I must keep renting. Nobody comes to offer any help. I alss made an insurance claim recently, but insurance company refused to pay because my policy didn't cover it. Did I get help from government or anybody else - Not at all.
Correct me if I'm wrong...but
Correct me if I'm wrong...but don't banks force all mortgage holders to take out property insurance to protect their loan investment? So are all people without property insurance non mortgage holders?
The banks cannot force you to take out contents insurance but if you can afford nice things and not the insurance well.......
How does a bank 'force' you
How does a bank 'force' you to take out mortgage insurance after the moeny is advanced? Once you've got the mortgage, how do they make sure it's kept current or at all? What mortgage holders are 'supposed to do' and what they 'actually do' can be different things. I doubt if all mortgage holders are insured.
This is not Mortgage
This is not Mortgage insurance but the mortgage holder (bank) will insist that you hold insurance for the property.
The insurance company will advise the bank if the insurance lapses - that has been my experience so I'm surprised that the level of non insurance is as high as claimed.
Thanks Kiwidave.... I also
Thanks Kiwidave....
I also let property insurance lapse and my bank got very agressive.
Suppose any bailout for the home owners is really another bailout for the banks.
They could call back the
They could call back the loan...force a sale they after all hold the ownership papers.
From what I can determine your insurance company has to keep the bank etc informed if the insurance lapses (there is a legal term, I dont recall it) as in event of a loss the bank gets their money first to clear the mortgage. On your insurance documents the bank should be listed and your bank should be regulary checking your file to make sure there is an up to date note to that effect.
This is what Ive been told, indeed I had a substantial argument with NZI on just that matter some years back....I told their agent (ASB) my policy wasnt being re-newed as I was moving my banking and insurance away from them, but the agent (ASB) didnt tell NZI despite me telling ASB 2 or 3 times after I kept getting letters from NZI. NZI then rang me up and threatened to tell my new bank I had not had / did not have cover.....all this to get <$90 out of me, incredible....I had cover so told them to take a hike..then the threats started. In fact I had over-lapped a bit but it just wasnt worth arguing with for like <$20....
Anyway, if the outstanding amount is substantially less than the land value I dont see that insurance is "compulsory"....worst case the bank sells the land to get its money back which is in effect is indestructable...mind you that's just hastle....so I bet they will insist.
regards
I'd have a good look at some
I'd have a good look at some of that 'indestructable' land if I was a bank!
It would be unfair for
It would be unfair for insurered if uninsured also get the same covered from goverment.
Very sorry and all that but
Very sorry and all that but if you decide for whatever reason to have no insurance then you should get no payout
Surely "you got to be in it to win it". Insurance costs will rise inevitably as a result of the genuine policy paid claims just as night follows day but it adds insult to injury to give hand outs to those who didn't bother to insure.
The moral dilemma is why should those who took a chance be paid anything, at the expense of those who acted prudently? To pay out is the same as the next time I bet on a horse that comes last can I expect a hand out??
This govt covered leaky home
This govt covered leaky home owners & investors in dodgy finance companies so will no doubt fully fund the uninsured quake victims too!
The leaky homes debacle
The leaky homes debacle needed to be covered by the government, because it was their shonky outfit that brought in legislation which essentially resulted in poorly designed building systems which allowed water ingression, without means for water egression. Check out the facts about the BIA and how it was disbanded, and the new govt agency absolved of any dealings the previous one had had., thus dropping the cart of crap in the laps of the councils, architects and builders who were assured that these systems were good to go, and would last the distance.
People who are uninsured run the gauntlet of these events happening, indeed they are probably breaking the terms of their mortgages also, in that there is genetrally an article present where people agree to protect the interests of the mortagee by having valid insurance. Unfortunately they lost, and the 2-3k they may have 'saved' by not taking out their last 5 -10 years of insurance is looking like a very silly cost saving indeed. Perhaps the uninsured could be offered at market terms rebuilding loans from the government, secured on a second mortgage basis against the property, with repayment implemented through a student loans type arrangement.
t
"The leaky homes debacle
"The leaky homes debacle needed to be covered by the government, because it was their...blah blah blah..."
Definitely not the fault of cheapskate purchasers who elected not to spend an extra couple of grand for treated timber.
No.
It's. All. The. Bluddy. Guvmint's. Fault.
So let's go all socialist and bail-out the cheapskate purchasers. Hell, the bluddy guvmint should add some on to cover lost capital gains.
you miss the point, the
you miss the point, the housing designers were told here are the new building standards, this is the what is required, we don't like the treated timber so much now so you can design houses without it. So being a govt organisation staffed with supposed professionals the architects/ draftsmen/ townplanners/ building inspectors/ builders and down stream contractors all thought the advice was reliable. As time wore on and the truth came out, we find the standards were far from reliable, indeed they were severely short of the mark to the point of being utterly broken. Once the changes had blown up in the face of the BIA and BRANZ, the govt dissolves BIA sets up DBH and has a very dodgy court decision used as a ruse to absolve itself from all legal responsibility.
The home owners were the ones who were ripped off by reliance on crap standards.
Not quite true, the building
Not quite true, the building standards were a cosy re-write by the supposed professionals, Govn didnt want a propery funded indepednant standards body so this was the result....yet more "self-regulation"....
House owners ripped, yes without doubt....
regards
You are totally wrong... You
You are totally wrong...
You dont need any more than H1 treated timbers with proper design allowing for the NZ environment...Things like eves, gables, sloping roofs, no internal drainage...no fancy / complex roof shapes
The old fashioned straight kiwiw home typical of the 1960s is probably about the cheapest to build and maintain, the reasons for the changes was,
a) for architects to try and justify their fees.
b) Use designs more suited for other climates.
c) use materials not suitable for NZ, stucco is a classic.
The Govn allowed these changes, it is the Govn and so called building professionals fault...
Cheapskate home buyers just didnt ask is this H3 wood...that is insane....also cutting H3 wood is a health hazard and more expensive for no gain the water should never get in. If it does the mildew will get into the jib and cause health issues even if the wood isnt rotting its un-healthy.....Ive yet to see anyone say use green jib as standard.........
regards
How is Joe Average with no
How is Joe Average with no idea about building supposed to demand H1.2- H3 timber when they have no idea what H1 timber means? People are taught to trust professionals, and indeed we pay those professionals good maney to give us advice that is supposed to enhance our lives. The problem arose because the framework that the professionals were basing their advice upon was broken. Who broke the framework? None other than the BIA and BRANZ, who fell for the BS of the greenies, CHH, Fletchers and the biggest liars in Australasian corporate history, James Hardie, and implemented new sub-standard building methodogies, which gave rise to the leaky house syndrome.
We fortunately have the advantage of hind-sight now and can state that anyone building to previously allowed standards would have rocks iin their head.
The pros said "You can pay
The pros said "You can pay this much, plus another grand or two for treated timber, or you can maximise your capital gains by using untreated timber, even though it never stops raining around here."
The pro's customers said "Oh! Oh! Save the money! Save the money! More CG! More CG! More lattes! More lattes!"
what should have set alarm
what should have set alarm bells ringing wa when someone starts saying something is cheaper and greener, more natural, sustainable even... those are the very catch phrases that will inevitably lead to a higher overall cost and much pain for the mug who buys into it
The leaky home owners didn't
The leaky home owners didn't make a conscious decision to build a leaky home. That's somewhat different.
The government is paying a
The government is paying a $350 a week subsidy per employee to small businesses who did not take out income protection insurance. Why should businesses owners who didn't take out insurance be being treated better than home owners who didn't ?
The trouble is, if the govt
The trouble is, if the govt doesn't do this, it's the employees that'll end up not getting paid (including possibly for work they already did before the earthquake) even though they didn't have anything to do with whether or not their employer took insurance or not in the first place. That'd hardly be right.
There will be many children
There will be many children who will suffer severely because their parents didn't take out home insurance. It wasn't the kids fault. Is that right?
I think the employees should be helped out not simply because it would be unfair, but because we see it would be too harmful to them and their families and we won't stand by and let that happen.Same for uninsured familes. We should say the current ECQ system is not what you have when you have a major disaster and a caring society, then step in and help the uninsured and then change the system.
"There will be many children
"There will be many children who will suffer severely because their parents didn't take out home insurance. It wasn't the kids fault. Is that right?" - No, which is why I think those shouldn't be left out in the cold either. See my other post below.
Yes but we do have a benefit
Yes but we do have a benefit system, that could be used instead. They could have some form of emergency benefit.
If people have a mortgage, often banks require that they take out income protection insurance.
Pepper, correction... you
Pepper, correction... you mean the private sector tax-payer (1.6 million of us) is paying out $350/wk.. but your right, businesses without insurance should not be treated any different IMO.
Yes there are idiots and
Yes there are idiots and morons but there are also those accidentally uninsured and the elderly who cannot remember what the hell went on yesterday....This situation exists while we have laws requiring those on bikes to wear approved helmets and those in vehicles to wear approved belts and blah blah blah...but when it comes to a law requiring property insurance in a country getting the shite shaken out of it on a regular basis or flooded regularly...not a friggin word in law. That is the stupidity of govt. That is what one bunch of daft buggers after the other has allowed to carry on and bloody on.
Enough of this stupidity Mr Key.....make the bloody property insurance a legal requirement to be notified to the councils and for the insurance companies to be part of the notifying system. If some bugger fails to pay..they should have an automatic $1000 slapped on their rates. Fail to pay that and we know what happens. Councils know of all the properties. They have the data systems. They have the capacity to be the control. For those who due to criminal activity have been refused cover, they shall pay the $1000 and that loot will go to the EQ fund from the Council. It's not rocket science. Get the dam thing sorted.....and don't give us an insurance working group.
bloody good idea.
bloody good idea.
So this is now Wolly/wally
So this is now Wolly/wally becoming Auntie Helen.Make another law eh Wolly.Nothing you say from now on will convince me that you`re not on the left of the Labour Party.
And no I don`t believe the government(taxpayer/us) should be fronting for those who choose not to insure themselves.Like Auntie H. it`s buying votes at our expense
Best work yet Wolly. We need
Best work yet Wolly.
We need compulsory Vehicle Insurance also. That will take the junk off our roads, reduce congestion, lower our carbon (although I don't give a hoot about that), reduce the number of boy racers and mean the next time some young prick side swipes me, I don't have to pay.
Unlike yourself Wolly, the
Unlike yourself Wolly, the rest of us don't need our lives controlled by government. If someone wants to take a calculated risk of not insuring, so be it. Government doesn't need to mandate this, and equally is need ned (should not) bail out those who chose not to ensure.
No bank will provide a
No bank will provide a mortgage without material damage insurance in place. As for vehicles, third party insurance should be compulsory. Why should some idiot be able to drive around and crash into someone and have no means of paying for the damage?? Its bullshit, it is ccompulsory in Australia and should be compulsory here. Its not socialist, its just protecting the public from idiots.
How does a bank know if you
How does a bank know if you have continuing insurance after the initial mortgage drawdown? Past experience tells me that policies list the lender as 'and intersted party' and they are sent renewal confirmations when they occur. These are attached to the applicable customer file. But we didn't go looking for those 'renewals' that didn't come in. Maybe things have changed?
Arrogance Chris....you have
Arrogance Chris....you have the govt holding your hand every day every which way and then some...all your fluff about property investment and checking out the rentals etc etc....where would you be without the govt laws that prop up and back up your business.
Yeah, if in doubt blame the
Yeah, if in doubt blame the government. They probably caused the eq anyway.
Can't blame the government
Can't blame the government for this on.That was A. Hubbard's ego crashing to earth.
...and while you're at it,
...and while you're at it, add the damn compulsory third party vehicle insurance! Will solve the problem with boy racers as well.
By your rekoning then..the
By your rekoning then..the Gov. Wage subsidy should stop because they didn't take out wage insurance?..Familys would be left in third world conditions shivering in condemed hovels.With people less unfortunate driving by looking at the smelly monkeys.
When you get something like this,its everyones problem till their is no more problem.Look at it like a test from God to see if we are worth the moniker " Human".
Brilliant. If we're going to
Brilliant. If we're going to have govt in our lives, it might as well mean something and prevent arguments of "who's liable" when these events happen.
This is such a practical solution that I couldn't imagine coming up with it.
Wally, the last thing we need
Wally, the last thing we need is more regulation from the state. If people don't take out insurance, or wear a seat belt, helmet, or whatever and something happens .. well that's just tough. Once burned twice shy.. But lets not advocate a continuance of the nanny state ..
>& investors in dodgy
>& investors in dodgy finance
actually it was the last Govt that set up the guarantee not this one, but thanks for your input.
Yes true and the
Yes true and the jiggery-pokery to further cover SCF in April this year was by who again.
Governments - much the same - just a different coloured rosette.
Strictly speaking the
Strictly speaking the uninsured chose to run the risk and therefore why should they get paid up...but then, investors (by definition wealthy or at least well-off) have been bailed out, as have been leaky home owners. So why are the uninsured victims of a natural disaster, although stupid, less deserving?
When a disaster occurs overseas, many people help voluntarily via donations even though I doubt those people were insured. So should we refuse to help fellow NZers who may have lost everything, not to mention the trauma suffered, and believe me the last few days have been traumatic for us down here, because they weren't insured? From the perspective of a community trying to help each other during a natural disaster it just doesn't feel right to me (for the record, we've always been insured, property and all, costing us over $200/month, and made sure all our insurances were up to date, appropriate and increased the amounts as we had our children to be sure we wouldn't become someone's liability).
I don't think it'll create a moral hazard to give a "hand-out" in this case. But I couldn't agree more with Wolly that insurance needs to be made compulsory, without spending 10s of Ks on a working group, and could they please include third-party car insurance while they're at it.
What a country. No one is a
What a country. No one is a loser here. Don't work, no worries the government will pay you. Have some kids and no income, no worries, Mr tax payer will see you right. Leaky home, failed finance company, earthquake......
Time to buy some gold. Inflation is on it's way.
Look, my husband and I pay a
Look, my husband and I pay a lot in insurance each month and if someone lost their place in a fire and had chosen not to insure I wouldn't want to bail them out. Same with failed finance companies. And I'd rather people got jobs instead of relying on hand outs. But you can't seriously be comparing a natural disaster with a poor investment choice or similar.
What's happened here is on another scale altogether and could happen pretty much anywhere in NZ. I admit I don't have a thick skin and I hate seeing people suffer, even when they do through their own stupidity. I feel pretty darn lucky right now, just felt another jolt actually, and I'd rather help those in need if I can than toughen up. Each to their own.
No, Elley. We all have seen
No, Elley. We all have seen the ads. on TV about the earthquake risks. We have all chosen whichever road we go down. We all live with which ever dircetion we have chosen. If we can't afford insurance, for whatever reason, then that's our choice. If we can't afford where we live, we should move. That's the way it is, or should be.
Personally I think that if
Personally I think that if you can't afford to insure it then you can't afford to buy it. But, and that's a big but, extraordinary events require extraordinary actions. I'd say the worst earthquake in 80 years qualifies as an extraordinary event. Far more so than the failure of yet another finance company (and bail out of its rich investors) or the leaky home issue (and bail out of their owners, many of whom bought such houses years after the leaky problem had been uncovered).
From your comment, I take it that you are fully prepared to be self-sufficient in case of an emergency, and not just in terms of insurance cover (we were, although haven't had to use emergency supplies... so far). As well as fully prepared to deal with the stress, possible loss of job and income, and upset children who start crying at the first noise and won't sleep unless you lie by them and hold them during yet another aftershock. The last thing these people need right now is to wonder if they'll have a roof over their head next week when things calm down (please please please, make these shakes stop).
Reading all these posts, I must say I'm starting to change my mind. If they truly reflect how little empathy Kiwis have for each other in a time of NEED then maybe I should feel the same and not want to help anyone either. Fat chance of that happening though, can't change who you are hey.
I agree. And hope those
I agree. And hope those shakes stop soon. (Major aftershock reported as I type. I feel sick)
The posts on this message board show how much New Zealand has changed.We used to be a country where people would d step in and help people others who are knocked down get back on their feet. And we did that no matter who they were. We'd work out who's fault it was after. No more.
I wish it was like that
I wish it was like that again! But I know that a good chunk of people do care.
Crap night again. Woken up at around 0:45 with a jolt, at 2am the just-turned-6yo ran into her 4yo sister's bedroom where I was sleeping when another big aftershock struck and at 4am the 3yo woke up screaming with another one. Only the baby keeps sleeping through the whole thing (thank goodness for that). We didn't feel the one that's just happened quite as much here, apparently 6.1, must be bad in Chch.
One day they'll probably see
One day they'll probably see it as a big adventure. Hang in there, Elley.
Elley did you just say a 6.1
Elley did you just say a 6.1 quake happened 20 minutes ago. Hopefully these quakes are coming to an end and that will be the last one. I saw some geologists comment somewhere that said there is usually a second quake 1 magnitude less than the first one in the following days so maybe that was it.
Thinking of all you brave people in Canterbury. Haven't had my eyes off the internet since Sept 4, at 6.26 am.
if it was the 6.1 that's good
if it was the 6.1 that's good not bad as it's the one they have been waiting on apparently .
Now the aftershocks can gradually subside.
I did but seems like it was
I did but seems like it was in fact 5.1, not 6.1 as initially reported. I heard about the around 6 that we're supposed to get and was hoping it was now out of the way, bummer! We apparently had 20 aftershocks overnight. No wonder I feel like the ground starts shaking every time I try to lie in bed. Maybe I'm not going loony after all lol.
Maybe they should have
Maybe they should have completely evacuated the city and surrounding regions for at least 10 days. Most NZers have family and friends elsewhere not far away.
Big one 5.1 felt like 6.
Big one 5.1 felt like 6. shallow, close, centred 10 se of central city. Different fault to previous. Power backon quicly but apparently out over most of city. Big jolt, much stronger than most rollers we've had. Gridlock in much of city, says ZB.
As a PAYE earner with a young
As a PAYE earner with a young family stuck renting, despite earning a decent wage by NZ standards, I can honestly say I can't afford to now bail-out those wealthy enough to own homes and business in Christchurch but foolish enough not to have insurance to protect their wealth.
I'm sorry but I'm already broke from bailing out those wealthy enough to have recently brought new homes that now leak and from also bailing out those wealthy enough to risk money investing in SCF.
Maybe some kind hearted property owners, business owners or investors might like to send me a cheque for a change instead?
No way, why should you? You
No way, why should you? You take out insurance to remove a personal risk. What message does this send to insured people?
Doh...for the same reason
Doh...for the same reason blockheads are made by law to protect their tiny brains with helmets...it's the taxpayer has to try to sort the mess out when they splatter their heads on the concrete. You might think you are a real wizz at saving the $500 the insurance would have cost..but I bet you would be first in line for a free govt handout after losing the house...wouldn't you!
Does that answer the "why should you" question for you....DC.?
I don't do free handouts,
I don't do free handouts, never have, not from the parents or the government. Worked hard for what I have and appreciate what I've got. The money for hand outs comes from the tax payer and I'm sure the tax payer would either pay less tax or get something back for it like a new train station close by... What we need is a turn around in this country removing the hand out mentality.
When, oh when will everyone
When, oh when will everyone realise the taxpayer gets the bill, not the government.
The government only borrows...to on spend. very very wastefully.
Nah, the bluddy guvmint can
Nah, the bluddy guvmint can magically print money into existence, so it doesn't cost us anything!
I wish reporters would
I wish reporters would substitute the word "government" with the word "Mum and dad taxpayer" when talking about government handouts, bailouts and spending.
It almost sounds like it is not our money (your taxes) they are talking about.
This again raises
This again raises the question of "moral hazard" that occurred with SCF
If the people who are uninsured are bailed out at the expense of either the taxpayer or those who are insured, a signal it sent to the wider populace, dont insure, you will be looked after
No No No No
No No No No No!!!!!!!
PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. Does anyone remember what that is?
When did we become such a pathetic bunch of jellyfish who won't take responsibility for ourselves and our families; and think that when sh*& happens it can't be due to choices we have made - it must be someone elses fault and therefore the govt must sort it out.
It amazes me how many people "must have A" for example; the latest clothes, gadgets, TVs, flash cars, overseas holidays, a house (mortgage)... but they "cant afford B" for example; insurance.
If you choose not to insure your house, car, life, income, health etc then there may be consequences. Nobody thinks it is going to happen to them - fair enough; but if it does deal with the consequences of your choice - nobody owes you anything because you make a bad choice.
You don't have a god given right to have anything despite how easy it's been in the last decade to live on credit and delude yourself you can have it all.
Hang on a bit Friday...one
Hang on a bit Friday...one day soon you will be an old fart with no memory and it will be you who forgets to do your zipper up and pay the insurance bill that managed to arrive buried in with the shite they stuff in the letter boxes...how many would you say are in that mess now...they can't even remember who the hell they were insured with....
NO! Uninsured people have
NO! Uninsured people have taken (hopefully) an educated concious decision not to pay up. Agree with previous comments "the govt" is us, all the mugs who have acted responsibily and looked after themselves. When the uninsured can conjure up a credible argument why their fellow citizens should pay twice then they may have a case. Good luck to them.
We already have the absurd position of only those who insure paying a fire levy while all the rest enjoy the same level of service. If every property owner paid the levy it would be at least a third lower for the responsible mugs. This also would have been easily fixed by making the fire levy a rates related levy collected by councils.
Sorry, hard luck but then answer is NO NO NO.
Robbie...go sit in the corner
Robbie...go sit in the corner with Slow Friday....
are you a preschool teacher
are you a preschool teacher Wolly? honestly, telling someone to sit in the corner for having an argued and valid opinion that differs from your own... I'll bet you also file with glee RMA objections.
He's very childish. Next
He's very childish.
Next he'll be bashing socialists!
We should all be bashing commies who think it's okay to bail out greedy cheap-arse leaky house owners, and finance company depositors and investors.
No way should they be paid,
No way should they be paid, otherwise why bother getting insurance at all in the first place?
It definitely raises awkward comparisons to SFC bailouts though, personally I think those people are way less deserving.
Mark...you know where to
Mark...you know where to go...Slow Friday and Robbie are waiting....and no talking.
Well said.
Well said.
Unfortunately Wolly
Unfortunately Wolly represents a form of teacher who excels at producing good factory employees who are afraid to think, can't debate, and are motivated entirely by external stimuli. Wolly would like to be the teacher who tightly controls the classroom environment and sees their primary role as enforcing classroom discipline rather than stimulating learning. Hopefully you're a dying breed Wolly.
I think the govt could
I think the govt could consider giving interest free loans to the uninsured. This would be a big help to them as compared to getting nothing.
If the govt gives them a payout similar to the one that are insured it would send a wrong message to the public.
Why interest free? If they
Why interest free? If they are given a loan it should be at least at the cost of the government's borrowing. An interest free loan is still a hand-out.
That's a great idea, like the
That's a great idea, like the interest free loans Clark and Cullen gave to the students and the present government now is able to collect only 53 cents in the dollar back... let's all go to hell in a hand cart.
Hey Bill, interested to know
Hey Bill, interested to know if you were part of the older generation who benefited from a free education? It's always interesting to reality test people's biases.
Question for those who
Question for those who know:
If a tenanted property damaged and inhabital; and the tenant has a fixed term lease with say 8 months to run is their landlord :
-obliged to find the tenant alternative accomodation?
-obliged cover any difference in cost between the tenants current rent and what-ever the alternatice accomodation costs?
Ta!
Sorry. Don't know. But that's
Sorry. Don't know. But that's what the risks, and liabilities, are when you have an investment property.
Bring on the Big Kahuna. What
Bring on the Big Kahuna. What you do with it is up to you. End of story. Have kids without a partner; don't work; go to uni; don't insure~ it's up to you, but that's it. No more. And tax ' the rest of us' at 20% to pay for 'all of us'.
So is it better to stop
So is it better to stop paying house insurance and use the money to invest in finance companies?
If anything goes wrong you are covered by the the taxpayer's money so why bother about insurance.
No, no. Don't do either. Put
No, no. Don't do either. Put you money into a trust, hide it, and claim whatever you 'are allowed to' as a benefit as 'you' have no means of support. Hey! They'll even part-pay for your mortgage if you have one.
Why are we just considering
Why are we just considering bailing out people in ChCh who have lost money due to lack of insurance? Why not bailout any NZer that ever loses any money anytime? How awesome would that be? No risk or personal responsibility for anyone. Don't worry too much about all the debt we are already in and all the extra debt we'll have to borrow to pay for this plan, our kids can do without and work extra hours to pay-off the foreign bankers later right?
I disagree with the
I disagree with the government paying out for uninsured people. Have unwillingly paid insurance for 40 years - shouldn't have bothered!! If you can't afford to have insurance you should not own propery. Why should all the people who can't afford to own now subsidise unresponsible people. Perhaps they could be loaned money against the value of the new home and it be repaid after their death - why should someone inherit property paid for by the taxpayer.
Where is all the taxpayer paying out going to end! First SFC now this.
Sympathy to all Cantabrians who have been throught this
No insurance cover for your
No insurance cover for your biggest overpriced NZ shed that fell over? WELL TOUGH! Welcome to life full of risk, I'm sick to death of all you pathetic kiwis out there that still need a baby sitter at age 40! I'll be buggered if i will continue to pay for you lot while I take nothing. Just keep going the way your going assholes and watch how many of us 'productive' people leave these shore's in droves so you can continue to steal from each other via government bribes and handouts
Please do leave, the sooner
Please do leave, the sooner the better. Just reading this made me burst in tears, and our place isn't even damaged. I must be exhausted and stressed out.
Elley that is most likely to
Elley that is most likely to be the case.....and the tears are a good thing...think of them as valves .....and keep talking it out...can anyone come help you with the children..?
You need to remember that your stress exhaustion and tears are for very rational reasons and so don't bottle it up ...carry it but do complain about the load.....ask for help if you think your not coping...as a new strength is often found in being humbled.
good luck again...wish you and yours well.
Thanks :) Feeling slightly
Thanks :) Feeling slightly better after a big cry last night. Family's not an option and we do have several good friends but they are either in Chch or too far away. Those in Chch are just as freaked out and exhausted as we are (all with young kids too) but we're in touch by txt and phone everyday which is good. At least my husband (and I) work from home mostly and he's the kind of person who stays calm in most circumstances so it's comforting to have him here. It's tough now but we'll get through it.
I live in Oamaru and have a
I live in Oamaru and have a spare room if you need to get out for a while.
Pepper I think your kind
Pepper I think your kind offer was for Elley but tagged to my post...just pick her up at another point and pass the message. Cheers
GET A GRIP! Welcome to NZ, a
GET A GRIP! Welcome to NZ, a country riddled with faults & volcanoes. You can go back to France if you like? where the only thing that shakes the ground are nuclear tests!
This kind of ridiculous emotional response from people like you who can't deal with reality is just typical of those who live here who look for someone else ALWAYS to pick up the peices and the "bill" while we are at it. How ironic that it takes an earthquake to return chch house prices to where they belong and with a little luck so too the rest of the overpriced country. Everyone wide awake now? The dream is over. Nature rules OK
If you do leave, Justice,
If you do leave, Justice, that will be one of the good things to emerge from this disaster. Especially if you never return.
Yeah, run away from home, and
Yeah, run away from home, and then they'll all be sorry. Then you could try holding your breath until you turn blue.
(No subject)
If all property was owned by
If all property was owned by the government then it wouldn't be a problem - simple!
dirty communist twaddle, go
dirty communist twaddle, go live in zimbabwe if you want to live in that regime
Yes! Filthy commies! Now
Yes!
Filthy commies!
Now let's go give taxpayer's dollars to greedy corner-cutting leaky house-owning property investors.
And to depositors and investors in finance companies.
That's not at all a commie-socialist thing to do.
The uninsured homeowners in
The uninsured homeowners in my view need to be treated equally, that is, if your $400,000 house is wrecked you get the same assistance as the person whose $150,000 house (assuming the people's other circumstances are identical) is also kaput. However the assistance must only be of a humanitarian nature, otherwise the moral hazard comes into play.
Bloggers need to consider what happens when some one's uninsured house burns down, whatever assistance the government provides the owner and their family is of a humanitarian nature. It does not pay to rebuild their home, otherwise no one would bother to insure their house and EQC would have no funds.
Insurance ultimately is a form of saving for a "rainy day". The scale of this event is the only difference. If my neighbour is uninsured, I will not let him freeze or get ill for lack of shelter, but that does not mean I should bankroll him back into his former lifestyle. Their are countless references in the Bible to support my position. "Love thy neighbour" does not mean you indulge their foolishness.
Part of my insurance premium
Part of my insurance premium is the EQC levvy - it doesn't come from anywhere else.
You don't insure - you don't pay EQC levvy.
You don't insure - you take a hit.
Lend rather than give the uninsured some of my tax dollars - no worries.
What if there's another, and another, and another earthquake - country goes bankrupt giving bailouts?
Just how much does adequate
Just how much does adequate insurance cover - fire, earthquake, theft - cost for an average house?
The price of a big flatscreen TV over its lifetime of 5 years maybe?
on average for a 300-400k
on average for a 300-400k home the insurance premium will be about $450pa. 10 takeaway dinners for a family of 5 to protect the largest purchase most people will ever make, there really is no excuse.
mort --you are spot on
mort --you are spot on although $500 p/a might be a tad light--even at $500 --this is $1.36per day--to protect +shelter the family---cheap as chips
our australian house + contents policy is currently at $1300.00 p/a--$3.56 p/day which is direct debited monthy from a specific bank a/c--it,s cheaper than a nasty carton of beer per week.the price of premiums will skyrocket after this lot settles down---australian premiums increased by about 25% after the 2009 bush fires
Well, given it was a Labour
Well, given it was a Labour government introduced neoliberal reforms...why wouldn't a National/ACT/Maori coalition introduce socialist society?!
It's all very well to say
It's all very well to say that people should take responsibility for themselves, etc., etc,. etc. But a great many don't.
People who don't save for their retirements may find themselves a few years from now in an analogous situation to those with damaged houses and no insurance - broke. Making both of these things compulsory (as well as helmets for riding bicycles and car seatbelts, thanks wolly) is the only way to make sure people don't end up in such messes.
To all the 'individualists'
To all the 'individualists' here, a question:
How are you going to cope when real accounting (not GDP - note the Nat Radio comments this morning) takes in natural capital?
That would include the red ink (Canty) and the reduction of resources.
The gaussian approach applies there - you start from no flow, you end with no flow, and you peak in the middle somewhere.
http://www.hubbertpeak.com/bartlett/hubbert.htm
Note that doubling the 'known reserves' hardly changes the time-line.
From the peak on, fiscal systems based on growth don't work, and that will include insurance, as it will be continually out-run down the back of the curve. (more losses than wealth-creation available)
From peak on, community, friends and pitching-in will be the order of the day, and I sense some of you will find yourselves somewhat undercapitalised in that regard.
wah? Then end is nigh... all
wah?
Then end is nigh... all repent...
Your comment adds nothing to this discussion.
Good luck with the
Good luck with the therapy.
Actually PDK, in a post peak
Actually PDK, in a post peak world I would imagine the feckless (such as those who avoid paying insurance) would have a very short half life indeed. After all, in effect they are attempting to free load off the rest of 'society'. In a resource constrained situation the barriers to being a member of 'society' will be very high - there wont be much room for baggage such as those who wont take the minimum precautions others which others regard as obligatory.
AndyH - Makes for an
AndyH - Makes for an interesting think about 'valuations' and 'assets'.
If you didn't have insurance
If you didn't have insurance wouldn't you be mortgage free? I can't imagine banks lending to people with no house insurance.
Or is there yet again some crazy finance companies that lend without insurance?
10 seconds after you've got
10 seconds after you've got the mortgage, you can cancel the policy and get a premium refund. Realistically, the first year after the mortgage, and as long as it's not due for roll-over, you can let the policy lapse ( no premium of $1000, say, to pay) and what is the bank going to do? They don't know.
oh ok, crazy, I couldn't
oh ok, crazy, I couldn't sleep at night without decent house insurance.
It gets a bit murkier with the businesses not having business interuption cover, I suppose it wouldn't be an insurance requirement, and you might not expect to need it.
that would be fraudulent
that would be fraudulent activity. But once again you bring about the gauntlet of risk. Insurance is about paying someone else to minimise your risk profile, if you neglect or refuse to partake in buying risk minimisation then you MUST be the sole proprietor of the effects of that decision. Why should others who are more prudent be punished because I decided to run the gauntlet, and fradulently declare to the bank that its all right mate i paid a premium, and then cancel the policy. In my experience that doesn't work anyway, because in the few times I have been late paying my insurance premium, I have had the bank ring me to tell me that the insurance payments are late, and that I better sort it, or they may have cause to call in the loan, despite the mortgage payments being upto 6 months in advance.
Because houses are considered
Because houses are considered investments now, if the government did bail them out it would be like SCF. Its blatantly wrong though, what the government will do is socialise the losses from bad decisions that other people have made, this will encourage bad decisions across the board, and will eventually bankrupt the country. DO NOT BAIL THEM OUT.
BUGGER! Anyone who is stupid
BUGGER!
Anyone who is stupid enough NOT to have a warm jacket ready for a cold snap in the South Island you'd call an idiot right?!
Well.... SNAP!
If anyone is so damn selfish to not consider the welfare of their loved ones by not taking out insurance... today they're exposed for what they really are. Selfish Buggers!
It's so unfortunate that their kids will wear the brunt of their selfish irresponsibilities... At least their kids won't be so dumb after living through the hell they're now living through... after asking you "Why didn't we have insurance?" They'll be taking note and promising themselves...
"THAT'S NOT FAIR... WHEN I GROW UP I WILL NEVER EVER TREAT MY KIDS LIKE THIS"
"I will be responsible"
If we give anyone any money... I'd channel it to the needs of the kids not their dumb parents.
BAILOUT THE KIDS!
From the responses I'd gauge
From the responses I'd gauge an excess of emotion on the subject.......there is and will be time to step back and view the matter in another light as the dust settles......
There are logical reasons for wanting to see the uninsured safely housed and stability for the benefit of their children.....at the same time the insured will have feelings of being taken advantage of by the uninsured.
If this was a case of your uninsured neighbours house burning down and setting light to yours in the process... the feeling would be justifiable.
This is a case of wholesale destruction.. with the ground beneath the buildings being the responsible culprit not fault by the occupier and so time should be taken to weigh and balance outcomes that will ultimately benefit the community as a ........whole.
I do still take exception to Key who keeps baby kissing and pandering....true to his opportunistic form...but then I ...am a cynic.
What happens to the banks
What happens to the banks that have lent the mortgages to the uninsured properties? If their houses are demolished and people have to move into rental accommodation then will Christchurch end up in a situation like in the US where people just walk away if they cant afford to pay their mortgages? Are the banks doomed or are they covered by mortgage insurance?
The banks will have default
The banks will have default insurance. Those insurance companies that pay out the banks will come after the defaulting house owners. It's not like the States. There, in some instances, your house debt doesn't 'follow you' if you default. Here, a debt is a debt until it's discharged by either payment or bankruptcy.
You can bet the banks have
You can bet the banks have insurance on their 'assets'...
The argument of cant afford
The argument of cant afford is BS..if you cant afford you are then making a conscious decision to take the risk, and if the proverbial hits the fan, so be it..its their choice. If they cant afford insurance on the home /contents they are living beyond their means..over leveraged, to many lattes...insurance is part of responsible ownership, just like rates and mortgage repayments.
The same applies to running a business.
I was made redundant, the wife 12 months before started a degree.
We gave up smoking, going out, even put a veggie garden in....
AND paid our insurance...cars, house contents, medical.
yep many a time the subject came up in our budgets, espec the medical....but did not cancel any expect 1 car went to 3rd party only.
Would not argue with that
Would not argue with that Steps....it's all in the timing of the debate I have a problem with...right now in this emotionally charged atmosphere thought for the safety and well being of citizens and their ....children should be the order of the day.
I think perhaps Bernard himself has been a little opportunistic on this matter.
As I said let's have this conversation on another day in a more settled environment.
Bernard.........check your knee you may have a tic.
"....this emotionally charged
"....this emotionally charged atmosphere thought for the safety and well being of citizens and their ....children should be the order of the day...."
Yeah , but that doesn't have anything to do with being uninsured....insured or not doesn't differentiate between the immediate helping out, finding permanent accomodation....like rental accommodation and bonds etc.
If they are insured for finding/ paying for accomodation, fine, The insurer pays back the tax payer....If not, I have no problems with that...Its the long term home replacement etc I object to
Yep its a bit of a compromise and thats how things should work.
You are correct there
You are correct there Steps....but a place and time for consecutive bad news is really what I'm on about.
Let them deal with the here and now....the's plenty of time to remind people of their unfulfilled obligations.
as I pointed out in other posts.....not arguing policy just timing.
Look , we must admit that
Look , we must admit that most Kiwi's are pretty stupid and don't do the right thing. They even voted a labour government in three times on the trot. I am a UK Thatcherite who has to admit that some times you have to do important things for all to help the stupid. Insurance is one of these. The simple way is to add a percentage to the rates and maybe petrol for cars. I hate saying we need government but in this case we have to swallow our conservative pride.
I don't beleive the
I don't beleive the uninisured should be compensated 100% on rebuilding houses if required. Maybe the Government can structure a reduced interest loan, and other help, but NOT full replacement. It is called RESPONSIBILITY and PRIORITIES. For the average family in NZ, we pay tens of thousands of $ over a lifetime to insure our cars, houses, contents etc.... It is a CHOICE. Why should non insurers be fully compensated, when insurers have paid premiums for many years (and being morally responsible)? What is the incentive to have insurance?
It is about priorities, basic insurance (house, contents and car), is important (as we know). It is usually not about "i can't afford it" (this is purely an excuse). You have to set aside money for this, even if it means you have to go without the latest TV, /car/sky TV/gadget/takeaways. I can't really afford insurance, but somehow i do it, it is non negotiable you go without other things.
I'm currently priced out of
I'm currently priced out of the NZ housing market. Can I get a reduced rate loan subsidised by taxpayers to please?
I agree. I'm a student
I agree. I'm a student studying with small children and renting. We can't properly balance the bills each month, despite being extremely frugal with our money. However we always pay for house + contents as well as 3rd party for our car. This means that we have to pay $50 a week at times for our food bills and haven't bought new clothes for ourselves or our kids for 4 years. Our only luxury if you could call it that is our internet connection, which is actually a necessity for study.
The SCF Bailout and now this means that responsible people like my family loses out, while those who take conscious risks are rewarded. Why should I continue to act responsibly with these signals from the government?
(continued) Same goes for
(continued)
Same goes for car insurance. Have you ever been hit by a non insured driver? It is incredibly stressful, time consuming and financially hard to take someone to court, then get the money out of them.. Is this fair? No. Make some form of insurance compulsary for EVERYONE. Then we all take responsibilty for ourselves.
And no, I am not heartless, i do feel for everyone in Cantebury, and hope everyone can get back to normal ASAP.
Why do you have to take the
Why do you have to take the un-insured to court? I thought your insurance company would?
Even if you make it compulsory aka say the UK, ppl still dont have it....
regards
Just in case it gets lost in
Just in case it gets lost in the Thread....
I think perhaps Bernard himself has been a little opportunistic on this matter.
As I said let's have this conversation on another day in a more settled environment.
Bernard.........check your knee you may have a tic.
Not really Christov - the
Not really Christov - the NZHerald is running an editorial on the very same subject. It deserves (and is getting) attention.
Fortunately, judging by the voting patterns on Bernard's poll, it looks as though the majority are against a taxpayer bail-out of the uninsured.
I do not argue it's
I do not argue it's discussion Andy....just the timing
As to the N.Z. Herald I would expect no less as they are in the business of opportunism.
The vitriol with which some bloggers have responded ..... can and will be viewed as callous and untimely.
For what it's worth ...All my insurances are paid up....as you never need it till you need it.
I would add Andy this is off the back of being gut kicked by the SFC debacle.
It would be good if Air
It would be good if Air NZ/councils got together to offer time away from Christchurch for these poor families. I am sure there are many people all over NZ willing to put people up for a week or so.
By Fran O in The
By Fran O in The Herald:
Quake puts new light on bailout
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10671797&ref=rss
"What we have ended up with is very untidy: the Government has paid out "in the know" bond investors and foreign preferential shareholders who did not qualify for the guarantee.
Forget about moral hazard - the smart money now knows that the Key Government can be "gamed".
It appears we the taxpayer have been gamed.
How and why did that happen?
How will realisation of it impact government's decision on this issue?
Spotted Les.........Why the
Spotted Les.........Why the hell bugger off to a Euro jaunt... there's photo opportunities he could not have dreamed of....
As to his actions ...one could sometimes be forgiven for thinking the Lad a paradox.
Make no mistake...that's one well shoaled shark and opportunity is abound.
I haven't read the precious
I haven't read the precious posts so may have already been suggested
Help the families out get them a loan for the damage and get them to pay it back + interest over time
Regards
Elley "Reading all these
Elley
"Reading all these posts, I must say I'm starting to change my mind. If they truly reflect how little empathy Kiwis have for each other in a time of NEED then maybe I should feel the same and not want to help anyone either. Fat chance of that happening though, can't change who you are...."
I have full compassion for the struggles emotional and physical (I.E food and accommodation) people in ChCh will be facing.
But like you I spend allot of money every month on insurance. It’s a choice I make not to take a chance on someone’s "goodwill" should the worst happen.
I do feel for the children, but having four children myself I generally don't protect them from consequences of their decisions children (based on a scale for the age of course) …they just don’t learn if you keep bailing them out… Perhaps some of these children in the uninsured homes will make a decision in the future to insure their property because of this. Of course it can happen the other way as well… they bailed out the people in ChCh back in 2010 what the heck I’ll not insure myself and rely on the “goodwill” of others or the government to bail me out...its worked before.
Having said all this I have a vacant property in a holiday area in north Auckland and I will be making it available for the next couple of months to ChCh families who need a break...I would encourage other to do likewise if they are in a position to...and yes I'm just another uncaring greedy PI.
Regards
I understand what you say and
I understand what you say and I am not suggesting the uninsured should be fully bailed out, castle rebuilt at no cost and playstation and plasma TV replaced. You're right that it wouldn't be fair on us who do pay and have always paid insurance. But we also can't just leave them out in the cold despite their bad decision. They must be provided a roof over their head and basic stuff at least so they can keep going and put their life back together, especially if they've lost their income too. People here are sleep-deprived and on edge and the last thing they need to worry about is whether they'll be sleeping on the streets next week.
There's also the issue of last week's full bailout of SCF, where even investors that did not qualify for the guarantee will get all their money back. How can the govt exercise two different sets of values depending on, I'm not even sure what, maybe their own interest?
Making a house available to those who've lost theirs is probably the best thing you can do for them at present so thanks for this.
Elley I wish you all the best
Elley I wish you all the best for you, your friends and family. I also wish there were more people like you in this country. This dog eat dog attitude is not sustainable for a healthy society. We are only as strong as our weakest point.
I agree that we should help
I agree that we should help anyone homeless and unable to afford rental accomodation or food. i.e. basic needs met. However uninsured people do not NEED their house replaced or even partially replaced at taxpayer expense. That is life. They gambled and lost.
There are lots of people who for one reason or another, often through bad luck have to rent rather than own. Those who had uninsured homes should now fall in to this category. I do feel sorry for their loss but as a taxpayer I don't feel responsible for it.
Will we see the "vulture
Will we see the "vulture speculators/investors" buying uninsured Christchurch properties in the hope that there would be a bailout coming in the future?
Whoever buys after the fact
Whoever buys after the fact is not covered by anything.
Says who? People who bought
Says who? People who bought SCF bonds on the secondary market were bailed out.
You guys don’t miss an
You guys don’t miss an opportunity for a dig do you.
You guys are an investors in destructive negative thought, which usually is followed my negative action(s) ….
I dear say that the uninsured
I dear say that the uninsured are lining up outside insurance brokers all over the country. I have insurance, costs me $6000 a year, love not to pay it,agree with the moral hazard bit, can see the other side too, Think it needs some time to settle,even with insurance you always lose just not as much. Im inclined towards the let the cards lie where they fall approach. Then we all know where we stand next time.
if the government bails out
if the government bails out the uninsured what is the point of insuring
Exactly..... Here I am
Exactly.....
Here I am paying fully comp on my stuff, and now its expected I pay for other loses because they didnt? how the hell is that fair?
What at an individual level is the difference between an un-insured's house burning down as a single incident and a whole lot falling down at once from an earthquake? None really....
Where is the self-responsibility? those ppl took a risk knowing full well they could suffer a loss...
regards
Well I think that about does
Well I think that about does it for this thread Bernard....what's next!
everything costs more these
everything costs more these days. although the rent we receive has edged slightly higher over the years, it seems not a month goes by without some letter from some company letting me know I will be paying more for their services
this year my insurance was so high i had to break it down into smaller payments, rather than paying for the whole year in one hit. it has been a stressful time paying these costs, and to a degree, have gone without some things to cover rising costs
So in a nutshell, I have gone bananas trying to justify these expenses, as they are necessary and the cashflow has been tight
I will help people in every way possible, but if there is a bail out to extent that the uninsured end up with better places than before and at no cost to themselves personally, I know I will have a harder time justifying if the necessary costs I pay for insurance are necessary if they are not necessary
We need to help people out - even if it is educating them on what is necessary. We need to lend a hand, not give a hand. We need to lift people out of despair, but at the same time not gift them the penthouse suite at the Ritz to keep forever.
I declare as kiwis we need to look after each other, especially in times of need, however those that were uninsured need to take a bit of the crunch themselves, and that way the rest of society will be more willing to take up the slack...
God help us - we need it...
If someone can afford to buy
If someone can afford to buy a house they can afford to insure it. In fact, house insurance should be compulsory, in my view.
And if you can afford to own a house, you can afford to insure your contents.
Contents are a different matter for those who rent. If they are uninsured for their contents, perhaps a fund for hardship should be used - to at least contribute to their loss. But certainly not to cover everything - or close to everything. Perhaps a contribution toward what might be considered essentials - bedding, basic furniture, kitchen essentials etc.
All very messy of course, but the goal should be compassion without insulating people from the consequences of our choices.
Contents insurance is even
Contents insurance is even more important for renters. If a renter accidentally burns down their landlords house the landlords insurance company will come after the renter unless they have contents insurance.
What about insurance after
What about insurance after the disaster? It's easy to say that people should be insured and if not tough luck but I'll give you an example and see if you still think that...
My parents, elderly couple in their 80's not rich by any stretch of the imagination, a pension as sole income—the small rural township they lived in flooded in 2004 (last flood was 60 yrs prior). Their property wasn't flooded and they made no claims on anything from the flooding.
Now 2010 comes around—six years later—and the insurance company has now put the prices up for people living in their area.
As an example of the increase... they have an older Camry that is just a run around and with a book value of $3500. To insure that it at the address they live at will cost them $3200 for a year. For third party, fire & theft it's $3000. I kid you not.
They've been insured with State for over 30 years and can no longer afford to insure said car or their contents at such extortionate rates—no one could or would.
How is Chch going to fare when insurance prices catch up. It'll be much, much worse than it is now.
People bleat on about compulsory insurance but under these conditions via the private sector it's not going to happen.
It is the house owners
It is the house owners decision to take out insurance for their belongings. We have insurance for House, contents, cars, Life and income protection. It comes at a cost, as we cannot afford a flat screen TV, a new carpet, new cars (our cars are 20 years old and we had owned them for 5 years) or to redecorate our house that we work hard to pay for. We take out the insurance for the reason it is intended if something should go wrong - car crash, fire, redundancy, flood, earthquake, etc. so that we can look after our children.
It cannot be allowed to happen that the people that choose not to have insurance get paid out anyhow. I do feel sorry for these people, but, it is a choice of priorities. If you choose not to insure you possesions, then you are risking (that in the event of a loss) you will get nothing, otherwise, why should I cut back on my spending on my to insure my things, if the ones that choose not to still get paid out anyhow?
It would give no incentive for prudent people to plan for the future or act responsibly.
zimbabwe or nz. Dictationship
zimbabwe or nz. Dictationship or Capilist. mugabe or key its getting hard to tell the difference
Well first of all, the
Well first of all, the government needs to make sure that the uninsured do not receive a benefit that rewards their decision not to be insured. Anything other than that would be morally wrong wrt to the insured. Secondly, whatever the government does decided to do for the uninsured, it should come at the cheapest cost to the taxpayer. Again that is only fair. The burden of the failure to be insured should first fall upon the uninsured themselves, not the insured and not the taxpayer.
However for the greater good of society something will have to be done to fix these people's damaged properties. I don't know what the Govt. will do, but I would favour an approach like making low interest government loans available though the Housing Corp. up to 100% (subject to a means and asset test) of the cost of the repairs (and not more than the est. value of the property once it is repaired) that is paid back to the Housing Corp. like any other mortgage over a 25-35 year period. The loan gets repaid early if the house is sold. Defaulters can be subject to a mortgagee sale.
But it will be very interesting to see what they do come up with. I only hope tht it will be1. fair to everybody, 2. imaginative and 3. easy to administer. But I won't hold my breath!
But how will the Government
But how will the Government (Taxpayer) afford this cost? we will have to Pay: Leaky homes, Higher Council rates, more ACC levy, increased GST, SCG bailout, and we are getting a Tax CUT next month, whilst the Government is borrowing Millions every week to prop it all up. There are only approx 1.6million taxpayers here - the sums just do not add up.
Life hasn't been easy on me,
Life hasn't been easy on me, can I please get a lower rate tax payer subsidised loan too? That would only be fair. Thanks.
If that's all you've got to
If that's all you've got to maon about, then the answer is no, you can't.
Can all the people here who
Can all the people here who said that the homeowners who took the risk of not insuring (and their families) should pay the price please, if they are at all overweight, smoke, or don't exercise for at least thirty minutes a day refuse to unfairly burden the rest of us by using the public health system when they get, say, type 2 diabetes.
That is one of the poorest
That is one of the poorest strawman arguements I have heard in a long time.
In case you dont know what that is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
NO bailout for
NO bailout for uninsured!!!!!
Simple, doing anything else removes a sense of self responsibility that we are all to bear.
Dammit, such a simple question and within a few posts the first suggestions of COMPULSION appear. What is wrong with such people!
Self responsibility means your are free to fuck-up and bear the consequences. The concept is also known as your life that you are supposed to be living. Up's, down's, cockups and successes.
And no health care bailouts
And no health care bailouts for the irresponsible! So you won't use up public health dollars if you not being fully responsible with your health? You overweight? Regular exercise? How's your blood sugar? Regular check ups?
If there's to be no health
If there's to be no health bailouts for fatties, can they then opt out of paying that portion of their taxes that goes towards paying for our hospitals and doctors? That's only fair, right?
Yup. And when a car smashes
Yup. And when a car smashes into them they have the satisfaction of telling the ambulance officers that they sure don't want any of that government help, and neither do those kids in the back seat.
That's an accident. That's
That's an accident. That's what ACC is for.
No matter how broke I am I
No matter how broke I am I will always have insurance. There is no excuse not too. To say your too poor is a load of crap. I see to many people drinking and smoking and then saying they can't afford the basics.
Yes. Absolutely everyone who
Yes. Absolutely everyone who is underpaid spends all their income on cigarettes and alcohol. They do not feed their families, or pay their rent. They spend every cent on smokes and booze. All of it. And everyone. Not just a minority.
you forgot gambling - but
you forgot gambling - but then again having no insurance covers that...
Couldn't this just be the
Couldn't this just be the wakeup call that the country needs?
We've all read the newspaper articles about a family's house being destroyed by fire ("We've lost everything and we didn't have insurance...") and we all know of people who have been hit by an uninsured driver and are stuck with bill.
Isn't it time that banks perceive the necessity of close interaction with insurance companies to ensure that they're automatically notified when a mortgage-related insurance policy is cancelled? Or that insurance is automatically priced into a mortgage?
Isn't it time to make liabilty insurance compulsory for vehicles and to link it to the registration/WoF process?
Isn't THIS the time to send a clear message that Nanny State isn't there to socialise the consequences of personal decisions?
The simple answer is no. If
The simple answer is no. If you did not have insurance for whatever the reasons, then that is just too bad. Personally there are too many precendents that have been set which continue to remove responsibility and consequence from the individual.
Of course there will be innocent sufferers (kids) etc, and while I feel awful for situtaitons such as this, I am sick of being the safety net for people this NZ who do not or cannot make the correct decisions.
Yes I know that wages are low, costs hight etc, but if you have a house, then you insure it, this is a no brainer surely. If you choose not to you take that risk on board, and should that risk materialise then you wear it!!!
This catastrophe has opened
This catastrophe has opened my eyes to the necessity of Loss of Profits insurance in all small and medium sized enterprises. After many years in business I have grown to think of it as waste of money. No more!
Are we becoming another
Are we becoming another pacific island nation. Poverty is next on agenda!
Snap, my thoughts
Snap, my thoughts exactly.
How exactly are we affording to bailout leaky homeowners, SCF investors and pay Earthquake expenses?
Lucky incomes in NZ are so high aye? ummmm woops.
Ooooh well we'll just sell off some more of our childrens futures to foreigners won't we?
Maybe we can top up their
Maybe we can top up their student loans with extra debt?
Actually ECQ is sitting on a
Actually ECQ is sitting on a ton of money.
This must now raise the
This must now raise the obvious question .. how many uninsured properties are there in the whole of NZ?
A lot it would seem.
Every local council must know how many rate-able properties exist in their area. Every insurance company must know how many property insurance policies they carry. How many Insurance company are there? If you added up the total number of insured properties versus the number of rated properties, what difference would you have?
If the government were to
If the government were to "bail out" all those who are uninsured, up to full value, to re-instate their properties, it would send the obvious message to those who ARE insured .. NEXT time dont renew your insurance policy .. because you now know the government will bail you out.
NZ as a country went broke
NZ as a country went broke some time back. I'm interested where most people (not those these boards) feel that the cash comes from to pay for the bail outs, leaky homes, welfare payments, student loan interest write off's etc. It does not come out of thin air that's for sure. It's being borrowed from abroad, although there is no clear explantion of from where, and at what rate of interest.
What is very clear is that the public debt is ballooning yet again, and those who have children should be very concerned about the fact that their future, not to mention children they might have is now being used, as it has historically for politically expedient reasons, and as a result is being sold off.
Austerity anyone.... I suggest start with our bloated govt 121 politicians. Why on earth do we need so many more per capita to run such a small country.
I'd just like to point a few
I'd just like to point a few things out that i feel is missing from the debate, that seems to cause some tension.
I'm one of those who consider there should be no bailout of the uninsured. Of course they should be helped and shelterd, but not completely bailed out. But this is beside the point.
My point is that this is not a view based on cruelty. It is simply because by being prudent, I have over and over again witnessed careless people being rewarded on the behalf of the likes of me. This has resulted in many of us not being able to afford buying a house etc, or basically just in a worse financial position. Every time someone is being bailed out, the prudent pay for it. What I'm trying to say is; *it's the political system we have in place that is causing these reactions and behaviour*. Surely everyone here on this forum wants the best for everyone, so long as this doesn't mean they will come out worse. Our current system won't allow us to care for the next person, because that means putting ourselves in a worse position. A position that we might not be able to get out of, ever. This is what's causing the "dog eat dog" mentality, not that all kiwis suddenly turned "mean". I think if we had a fair society people would be more keen to help the next guy out, rather than worrying about what negative implications this would cause us.
I would'nt worry about it to
I would'nt worry about it to much folks because this is whats going to happen ....
The Govt will bail the uninsured this time ( well us really ) but make no mistake only this time and after this mess is fixed up don't be suprised to see compulsory insurance on any asset made LAW.
ie no insurance no help.
We will become a land without chimnleys (well brick ones anyway) on your house because the insurance Co's are already drawing up plans for u now if u have one.
Another example would be compulsory 3 party on a car etc etc... all made LAW.
So and i hate the saying But at the End Of The Day if you can"t afford the insurance you can't afford to own it.
Anyway thats my 2 cents worth Have a Great day.
A quick reminder to all not
A quick reminder to all not to make any abusive, defamatory or racist comments on the site.
I have removed a few from this thread.
Please register so you can comment after we turn off unregistered comments from this Sunday September 12.
A reminder to all that we are moving to registered comments from this Sunday. We welcome any registered commenters. We don't welcome commenters making abusive, defamatory or racist comments. They'll be deleted. We want to have good clean fun that makes us smile and think rather than swear, huff and puff, and feel slightly unclean.
We also need to be sensitive towards our many readers and commenters in Christchurch. They're doing it very tough right now.
Our thoughts go out to you all, including Chris_J, Elley, Ruru the real, John Walley, Mark Hubbard and many others (even The Man) I might have missed.
Registered commenters can edit their comments and more easily include links out. We won't be spamming people. The box to register is in the right hand column.
Here's more detail. http://www.interest.co.nz/opinion/heres-why-wed-you-register-be-commente...
We welcome any suggestions for other changes too to improve the quality (and quantity) of the debate here.
cheers
Bernard
The Govt can't afford to
The Govt can't afford to bail-out the non-insured. It will be that simple.
Those that didn't insure have just been gambling - no different to going to Sky City and expecting the Govt to finance the eventual losses.
Christchurch earthquake:
Christchurch earthquake: Farmers up in arms
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10672376&ref=rss
"The Government came under pressure last night from farmers unhappy that earthquake damage to their farms is not covered by insurance."
I wonder how this will pan out?
Farmers will be come the nats
Farmers will be come the nats no. 1 priority to shut up the squawking!!!
'Hey Double Dipton I have some cracks in my paddock over there stop helping those useless townies whos house has fallen down and their kids have no place to sleep come and give me compensation for the cracks in my paddock!!!'
Why? who are the farmers
Why? who are the farmers going to vote for? Labour?
regards
Steven - I doubt they will be
Steven - I doubt they will be voting for Cactus Kate:
http://asianinvasion2006.blogspot.com/2010/09/shock-horror-farmers-whinging.html#links
Apart from the uninsured home
Apart from the uninsured home owners there would be hundreds of uninsured car owners and those without contents insurance . Would there be a bailout package for them too?
Taxpayer funded LCD TV's,
Taxpayer funded LCD TV's, music system .... . Bailout is the buzzword
Of course....if we can bail
Of course....if we can bail out fat cat banksters bonuses why not the odd TV or SUV?
regards
In NZ you know it always
In NZ you know it always appears to be the middle class of worker that provides a lot of the tax that really does lately seem to be being spent fairly lightheartedly. I mean the type of person who never has had a benefit has no property trust set up for tax shelter either.
I mean the type of person who day in day out just goes off to work each day and probably always will do. I mean the type of person who earns for example $65,000. and pays $14,000 in tax. It must be disheartening for them surely!
If the Government is turning to morality for assistance in making these upcoming controversial decisions it should be on fairly safe ground because what I have learnt about morality there is no absolute right or wrong.
I don't wish to appear cruel either but I must either be a bit strange or have been on the wrong track completely all of this time but I thought that if I didn't pay my insurance premium then my item whatever it was wasn't protected and I never expected that anyone would be nice enough to bail me out.
No what ever happens I think the people will show when the time comes to vote again whether they have approved or disapproved. This appears afterall to be all we can do.
In NZ you know it always
In NZ you know it always appears to be the middle class of worker that provides a lot of the tax that really does lately seem to be being spent fairly lightheartedly. I mean the type of person who never has had a benefit has no property trust set up for tax shelter either.
I mean the type of person who day in day out just goes off to work each day and probably always will do. I mean the type of person who earns for example $65,000. and pays $14,000 in tax. It must be disheartening for them surely!
If the Government is turning to morality for assistance in making these upcoming controversial decisions it should be on fairly safe ground because what I have learnt about morality there is no absolute right or wrong.
I don't wish to appear cruel either but I must either be a bit strange or have been on the wrong track completely all of this time but I thought that if I didn't pay my insurance premium then my item whatever it was wasn't protected and I never expected that anyone would be nice enough to bail me out.
No what ever happens I think the people will show when the time comes to vote again whether they have approved or disapproved. This appears afterall to be all we can do.
In the same way that if you
In the same way that if you opt out of being a contributer to the country and use welfare as a way of life, someone else is picking up the tab. Guess what, that would be the middle class again, what an amazing system NZ has. The very rich are able to utilize the very kind loopholes to their benefit, the welfare recipients who also get to vote are able to have their life paid for, and the middle NZ who are stressed mentally, financially, and under contrant pressure seem to accept that there is nothing they can do to ensure accountability of the hard earned tax money, by way they govt wastes it. Sadly the people have the power to enforce accountability, but lack of any social cohesion (thanks to govt policies) means that this is not likely to happen. Hence those who can, leave. Downward spiral is all that results, with NZ slipping further into being a wasteland...