Couldn't agree more Ben! As goes with everything, there is a risk, and if you don't take the precautions that are avaliable to protect yourself against it then you suffer the consequences.
I do also agree with the comment below regarding if you can't afford insurance then you should be renting as you can't afford all the aspects of home ownership and are putting yourselfs at too much risk
The self insured must be people who own their own homes, without mortgage debt, as the banks require lenders to insure. As such the self insured are fortunate to be debt free. The are asset rich or were!
If the Government is foolish enough to assist the self insured, then the Government should end up owning a share in the asset, with that share growing each year, until the current owner is no longer living in the house. Llike a reverse mortgage.
As a country the Government needs to stop the handouts and live within its reasonable means, not buy support all the time.
Its a hard one as you do feel for the people without any, my parents would be in this boat if it happened in Auckland . The thing is thou, this is due to my dads reluctance to pay for insurance vs his ability to pay sure they dont have plenty of free money, but could find it if they wanted to, but take the view after 30yrs of no problem, whats the chances. I dont think we should reward this really as in the end noone will bother.
I dont quite get the way it is, surely it would be far better for instead of EQC being collected through insurance, it should be collected via rates, then everyone would be covered and the increase in premiums by everyone having to pay would mean lower prices for all. You could still have topups after the 100k cutoff if you had normal insurance. But it would mean everyone had at least 100k to play with . That would be smarter surely.
Why should I have third party insurance? I have $120,000 in the bank and would mortgage myself if I crashed into a mercedes but the odds are slim. I could likely pay cash for your car?
I would have bigger worries (like injuries) than money in this case and I am a careful driver - why should I fund the reckless + insurance company overheads and profit.
EQC premiums should be funded through rates though and I would go further - the National government should cancel the leaky house bailout to help those on the mainland genuinely in need from no fault of their own. Rather than those with custard for brains who bought houses with no eaves.
I did say one of the greatest WWF superstars, not the only one. I don't want to take anything away from the likes of Hulk Hogan, André the Giant, etc etc, weren't the 80's a great time :)
How did they handle it in the big Australian bushfires a year or so back? I believe there were uninsured people then... There is a 'moral hazard' - if people start to believe they'll be bailed out anyway they'll stop buying insurance, and then the burden on the government, ie all of us taxpayers, will be even greater. Not a bad idea from earlier post-er about tying to rates or somesuch so everyone is covered. In Australia, moving to a fire service levy that isn't just on insured people...
The results are probably representative of the types of people who read this blog. Personally I believe EQC cover should be compulsory, i.e. paid as part of rates or similar. This would mean the govt would not have to make difficult decisions around helping the small but significant proportion of homeowners who do not have cover. Obviously as EQC only covers the first $100k and only for natural disasters this should not discourage people from getting further cover from the insurance industry. But we simply can't expect rational buyers to want to insure against a 1 in 16,000-year event.
My understanding is the portion we pay for EQC cover in our taxes ensures EQC covers up to $100k (and $20k contents) . The remainder of the claim if over $120k is covered by the insurance company.
My understandig is that the EQC funds comes from an added cost to insurance policies. It's not a Government fund as such. So if you don't have a current policy, you dont' get the EQC $100k etc.
I believe that house insurance should be compulsory for everyone. The law in NZ should be changed. In many other countries in the world it is compulsory to be insured.
My theory on what help should be given to uninsured victims of the earthquake is that they should be rehoused in state owned rental accommodation which could be as good in quality as anyone else in NZ but smaller in size than the 3 bedroom home with 2 bathrooms, laundry, kitchen, dining room, lounge, garden and garage that they purchased or rented without insurance. A few nice high rise state owned apartment blocks could do the trick but they will need to be built first.
However, the Bexley subdivision should be treated separately as there seems to be building permit issues in that case. Obviously nobody in Christchurch thought that area of land was safe to build on until 5 years ago and those houses should have never gone up.
The whole foreclosure issue in the USA in 2008 was based on people who couldn't afford to buy property getting loans too easily. If they can't afford insurance, they should downsize.
I think that there is a middle ground here. I don't believe those that are uninsured should get a free ride. However, i also don’t think sending them to the wolves, when this is such a large scale event, is such a great idea ether. These are 1 in 100 year type events that need to be dealt with in the same manner,
My solution is that if you didn’t have the means or were suffering form economic hardship at the time of the quake (i.e. you were made redundant, unemployed or underemployed) and were not current with your insurance do to financial strain then you should qualify for some form of economic compensation.
If you didn’t have insurance, full stop, the government will offer you a single, one time, tax free, relocation and resettlement stipend. The stipend will be very small as to encourage people to get insurance but just large enough to help get them through 3 months of basic food, clothing, and shelter. The stipend will not cover contents and is only given to a single address, so no double dipping. And you only allocated this stipend once in your life and only in times of extreme natural disaster. If I had to guess the minimum stipend to cover a family of (4) for 3 months it would be: $10,000, $4500 to cover rent, $3000 to cover food, and the rest for clothing. If you have no kids then fine your stipend will last longer…if you have more then (2) kids then tough luck and learn to budget.
BTW $10,000 times 10,000 families is only $100,000,000. That sounds like a lot but its only 5% of the estimate needed to rebuild the area.
Flip we pick up the bill for people who refuse to take responsibility for anything these days.... that's why we're turning into a nation of irresponsible cry baby poofters!
I'm working hard to make a future for my own kids and that's hard enough however... EVERY WEEK I PAY FOR OTHER PEOPLES RECKLESS IRRESPONSIBILITY!
- no condom too bad state pays for the kids and covers the lifestyles of solo mums
- crap finance companies!!!! Who cares Govt will pay up(Compliments of everyone in NZ who didn't take speculative risks IDIOTS. That 1.5 Billion woulda been BETTER spent on Christchurch right now!
- Too lazy to work - oh well the state will pay me.
- NO INSURANCE... Please help me out I was stupid enough not to think of the welfare of my family.
When I grew up I was taught.... take responsibility for yourself... now I'm grown all I hear is. ANYONE, EVERYONE DESERVES A PAYOUT, HANDOUT, BAILOUT REGARDLESS OF HOW IRRESPONSIBLE THEY'VE BEEN!
ACT HOWEVER YOU LIKE THERE ARE NEVER ANY REAL CONSEQUENCES!
OK Rant over... the exception is that this is a major natural disaster... I think they deserve basic assistance to help them through the initial months of re-establishing their lives, after that I bet they'll never live so irresponsible again.... especially if their kids are watching, asking.... "Why didn't we have insurance?"
I find it hard to believe that in a society where far too many persons over eat that some of that money spent on food cannot be put aside for vital insurances. I also suspect that most persons/families etc that do not have home and contents insurance have spent income on non essentials or even luxuries.
As someone who is older than the baby boomers I have seen good times and some very hard times; however, no matter how bad times had become, insuring my home was always a top priority. I therefore deeply resent having to support those who do not make the same efforts.
Christchurch has deflected attention away from their 'free tax money for mates!' SCF bail-out, and the Samoan earthquake/tsunami diverted attention away from the scandalous accommodation allowance rort of Double Dipton (The Minister of Finance who at the time was telling struggling NZ to tighten its belt due to tough times...).
Me thinks the government need to send the RIGHT message here or else it could hit the fan big time.Personal Responsibility !!!
I'm (WE are) paying for guys and girls to have (SEX) and the resulting kids and then supporting them long term.
I'm Paying for career dole buglers
Stuffed if I want to pay for people who can't take care of their families livelihoods etc with a common sense thing like insurance...where does it end?
Insurance should be compulsory. So, in this case yes paid them out, but only when they sign up for insurance as long as they are in business or/ and owner of a house.
But on the other hand western societies should have fairer social, economic systems. To be fair for half the population insurance isn’t affordable - a dilemma for societies.
If you find gold or oil below you property the crown owns this,so therefor if the ground below your building moves or opens up the crown should take responsabilty for at least some of the damage.
32 Comments
Means testing maybe? If you
Means testing maybe? If you had the means to buy insurance and didn't, well ...
Spot on, Ben!
Spot on, Ben!
Couldn't agree more Ben! As
Couldn't agree more Ben! As goes with everything, there is a risk, and if you don't take the precautions that are avaliable to protect yourself against it then you suffer the consequences.
I do also agree with the comment below regarding if you can't afford insurance then you should be renting as you can't afford all the aspects of home ownership and are putting yourselfs at too much risk
Self insured is the term not
Self insured is the term not Uninsured.
The self insured must be people who own their own homes, without mortgage debt, as the banks require lenders to insure. As such the self insured are fortunate to be debt free. The are asset rich or were!
If the Government is foolish enough to assist the self insured, then the Government should end up owning a share in the asset, with that share growing each year, until the current owner is no longer living in the house. Llike a reverse mortgage.
As a country the Government needs to stop the handouts and live within its reasonable means, not buy support all the time.
Compensate them fully only if
Compensate them fully only if they backpay their insurance at current rates for the length of time they have owned the premises, plus 50% penalty.
Its a hard one as you do feel
Its a hard one as you do feel for the people without any, my parents would be in this boat if it happened in Auckland . The thing is thou, this is due to my dads reluctance to pay for insurance vs his ability to pay sure they dont have plenty of free money, but could find it if they wanted to, but take the view after 30yrs of no problem, whats the chances. I dont think we should reward this really as in the end noone will bother.
I dont quite get the way it is, surely it would be far better for instead of EQC being collected through insurance, it should be collected via rates, then everyone would be covered and the increase in premiums by everyone having to pay would mean lower prices for all. You could still have topups after the 100k cutoff if you had normal insurance. But it would mean everyone had at least 100k to play with . That would be smarter surely.
Agree totally. 1) EQC
Agree totally.
1) EQC Premiums should be collected via Rates.
2) Third Party car insurance must be obtained and paid in full before a car can be registered.
Is this not logical?
Why should I have third party
Why should I have third party insurance? I have $120,000 in the bank and would mortgage myself if I crashed into a mercedes but the odds are slim. I could likely pay cash for your car?
I would have bigger worries (like injuries) than money in this case and I am a careful driver - why should I fund the reckless + insurance company overheads and profit.
EQC premiums should be funded through rates though and I would go further - the National government should cancel the leaky house bailout to help those on the mainland genuinely in need from no fault of their own. Rather than those with custard for brains who bought houses with no eaves.
To paraphase one of the
To paraphase one of the greatest WWF (WWE) superstars of all time - Stone Cold Steve Austin, "Give me a Hell NO!!!!"
Martync, Serisouls!?!?
Martync,
Serisouls!?!? Everyone knows the gretest WWF superstar of all-time is the legendary Hunk Hogan...Come on!
I did say one of the greatest
I did say one of the greatest WWF superstars, not the only one. I don't want to take anything away from the likes of Hulk Hogan, André the Giant, etc etc, weren't the 80's a great time :)
How did they handle it in the
How did they handle it in the big Australian bushfires a year or so back? I believe there were uninsured people then... There is a 'moral hazard' - if people start to believe they'll be bailed out anyway they'll stop buying insurance, and then the burden on the government, ie all of us taxpayers, will be even greater. Not a bad idea from earlier post-er about tying to rates or somesuch so everyone is covered. In Australia, moving to a fire service levy that isn't just on insured people...
The taxpayer should not be
The taxpayer should not be paying out for people who are uninsured. Perhaps loans against the property in some instances.
These people should be renting like others who can't afford to buy or who have lost jobs or businesses.
We seem to be rewarding people for being unresponsible - us poor taxpayers! The government doesn't have any money
The results are probably
The results are probably representative of the types of people who read this blog. Personally I believe EQC cover should be compulsory, i.e. paid as part of rates or similar. This would mean the govt would not have to make difficult decisions around helping the small but significant proportion of homeowners who do not have cover. Obviously as EQC only covers the first $100k and only for natural disasters this should not discourage people from getting further cover from the insurance industry. But we simply can't expect rational buyers to want to insure against a 1 in 16,000-year event.
I thought EQC cover was
I thought EQC cover was covered by my taxes - am I wrong?
My understanding is the
My understanding is the portion we pay for EQC cover in our taxes ensures EQC covers up to $100k (and $20k contents) . The remainder of the claim if over $120k is covered by the insurance company.
My understandig is that the
My understandig is that the EQC funds comes from an added cost to insurance policies. It's not a Government fund as such. So if you don't have a current policy, you dont' get the EQC $100k etc.
EQC cover is levied from your
EQC cover is levied from your private insurance premium. It does not come from taxes.
Therefore, if you don't pay for private insurance cover, you don't pay the EQC levy, so you ain't covered.
I believe that house
I believe that house insurance should be compulsory for everyone. The law in NZ should be changed. In many other countries in the world it is compulsory to be insured.
My theory on what help should be given to uninsured victims of the earthquake is that they should be rehoused in state owned rental accommodation which could be as good in quality as anyone else in NZ but smaller in size than the 3 bedroom home with 2 bathrooms, laundry, kitchen, dining room, lounge, garden and garage that they purchased or rented without insurance. A few nice high rise state owned apartment blocks could do the trick but they will need to be built first.
However, the Bexley subdivision should be treated separately as there seems to be building permit issues in that case. Obviously nobody in Christchurch thought that area of land was safe to build on until 5 years ago and those houses should have never gone up.
The whole foreclosure issue in the USA in 2008 was based on people who couldn't afford to buy property getting loans too easily. If they can't afford insurance, they should downsize.
I think that there is a
I think that there is a middle ground here. I don't believe those that are uninsured should get a free ride. However, i also don’t think sending them to the wolves, when this is such a large scale event, is such a great idea ether. These are 1 in 100 year type events that need to be dealt with in the same manner,
My solution is that if you didn’t have the means or were suffering form economic hardship at the time of the quake (i.e. you were made redundant, unemployed or underemployed) and were not current with your insurance do to financial strain then you should qualify for some form of economic compensation.
If you didn’t have insurance, full stop, the government will offer you a single, one time, tax free, relocation and resettlement stipend. The stipend will be very small as to encourage people to get insurance but just large enough to help get them through 3 months of basic food, clothing, and shelter. The stipend will not cover contents and is only given to a single address, so no double dipping. And you only allocated this stipend once in your life and only in times of extreme natural disaster. If I had to guess the minimum stipend to cover a family of (4) for 3 months it would be: $10,000, $4500 to cover rent, $3000 to cover food, and the rest for clothing. If you have no kids then fine your stipend will last longer…if you have more then (2) kids then tough luck and learn to budget.
BTW $10,000 times 10,000 families is only $100,000,000. That sounds like a lot but its only 5% of the estimate needed to rebuild the area.
Flip we pick up the bill for
Flip we pick up the bill for people who refuse to take responsibility for anything these days.... that's why we're turning into a nation of irresponsible cry baby poofters!
I'm working hard to make a future for my own kids and that's hard enough however... EVERY WEEK I PAY FOR OTHER PEOPLES RECKLESS IRRESPONSIBILITY!
- no condom too bad state pays for the kids and covers the lifestyles of solo mums
- crap finance companies!!!! Who cares Govt will pay up(Compliments of everyone in NZ who didn't take speculative risks IDIOTS. That 1.5 Billion woulda been BETTER spent on Christchurch right now!
- Too lazy to work - oh well the state will pay me.
- NO INSURANCE... Please help me out I was stupid enough not to think of the welfare of my family.
When I grew up I was taught.... take responsibility for yourself... now I'm grown all I hear is. ANYONE, EVERYONE DESERVES A PAYOUT, HANDOUT, BAILOUT REGARDLESS OF HOW IRRESPONSIBLE THEY'VE BEEN!
ACT HOWEVER YOU LIKE THERE ARE NEVER ANY REAL CONSEQUENCES!
OK Rant over... the exception is that this is a major natural disaster... I think they deserve basic assistance to help them through the initial months of re-establishing their lives, after that I bet they'll never live so irresponsible again.... especially if their kids are watching, asking.... "Why didn't we have insurance?"
Selfish Buggers.
Excellent RANT ! Well said ,
Excellent RANT ! Well said , buddy .
NZ = Land of No Personal Responsibility = Nanny State = may as well have kept Helen Clark & Michael Cullen
Two words: PERSONAL
Two words: PERSONAL RESPONSIBILTY
I find it hard to believe
I find it hard to believe that in a society where far too many persons over eat that some of that money spent on food cannot be put aside for vital insurances. I also suspect that most persons/families etc that do not have home and contents insurance have spent income on non essentials or even luxuries.
As someone who is older than the baby boomers I have seen good times and some very hard times; however, no matter how bad times had become, insuring my home was always a top priority. I therefore deeply resent having to support those who do not make the same efforts.
All this has taken our minds
All this has taken our minds off Hubbard and student debt - now we have three biggies into our pockets. Oh dear
The Nats keep getting lucky
The Nats keep getting lucky with earthquakes.
Christchurch has deflected attention away from their 'free tax money for mates!' SCF bail-out, and the Samoan earthquake/tsunami diverted attention away from the scandalous accommodation allowance rort of Double Dipton (The Minister of Finance who at the time was telling struggling NZ to tighten its belt due to tough times...).
Haha to true mate!!
Haha to true mate!!
Me thinks the government need
Me thinks the government need to send the RIGHT message here or else it could hit the fan big time.Personal Responsibility !!!
I'm (WE are) paying for guys and girls to have (SEX) and the resulting kids and then supporting them long term.
I'm Paying for career dole buglers
Stuffed if I want to pay for people who can't take care of their families livelihoods etc with a common sense thing like insurance...where does it end?
Where do we draw the line with compassion ?
Insurance should be
Insurance should be compulsory. So, in this case yes paid them out, but only when they sign up for insurance as long as they are in business or/ and owner of a house.
But on the other hand western societies should have fairer social, economic systems. To be fair for half the population insurance isn’t affordable - a dilemma for societies.
If you find gold or oil below
If you find gold or oil below you property the crown owns this,so therefor if the ground below your building moves or opens up the crown should take responsabilty for at least some of the damage.