Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.


Filter this topic showing only the reply marked as answer View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | ... | 245 | 246 | 247 | 248 | 249 | 250 | 251 | 252 | 253 | 254 | 255 | 256 | 257 | 258 | 259 | 260 | 261 | 262 | 263 | 264 | 265 | ... | 268
517 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user


  # 2078311 24-Aug-2018 09:50
Send private message

networkn:

So, apparently you don't need insurance against Natural Disasters now? Labour offer to give $12M to Christchurch uninsured based on 2007 values. What's particularly galling, is that some of these people are apparently refusing it wanting 2018 value?


 



As noble and as compassionate as it might be, it sets a dangerous precedent for an area where the government had no obligation to pay.

Send the wrong message in the wrong direction. Unless state dependence is the mindset they are trying to cultivate...

14323 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Subscriber

  # 2078315 24-Aug-2018 09:55
One person supports this post
Send private message

rjt123:
networkn:

 

So, apparently you don't need insurance against Natural Disasters now? Labour offer to give $12M to Christchurch uninsured based on 2007 values. What's particularly galling, is that some of these people are apparently refusing it wanting 2018 value?

 

 

 

 

 



As noble and as compassionate as it might be, it sets a dangerous precedent for an area where the government had no obligation to pay.

Send the wrong message in the wrong direction. Unless state dependence is the mindset they are trying to cultivate...

 

 

 

We send Government aid overseas in times of disaster why not in NZ.





Mike
Retired IT Manager. 
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

There is no planet B

 

 


 
 
 
 


21438 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  # 2078319 24-Aug-2018 09:56
One person supports this post
Send private message

MikeB4:

 

 

 

 

 

We send Government aid overseas in times of disaster why not in NZ.

 

 

We did send aid in.


517 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user


  # 2078330 24-Aug-2018 10:10
Send private message

MikeB4:


We send Government aid overseas in times of disaster why not in NZ.



You might recall instances or images of emergency services rescuing people in Christchurch. U might recall the billions that the government has spent already on the Christchurch rebuild. In one sense this is a mere drop in the bucket. If a natural disaster causes your car to be submerged do u expect the government to pay you out because u were too tight to pay for full insurance?

8807 posts

Uber Geek


  # 2078336 24-Aug-2018 10:24
Send private message

The issue wasn't one of "insurance" so much as that the land was zoned by government legislation making it illegal to build on it, rendering the land more or less valueless.  Ultimately services (water/sewerage/power) would be removed, the homes would have been uninhabitable - not due to the quakes, but due to the government response to the quakes.

 

It's made out that this is an insurance "moral hazard" issue - when it really isn't - even if the affected people wouldn't have been in the position if they'd had insurance cover.

 

Ultimately government did plan to eventually "rehabilitate" and sell the land.  There was no compulsion to sell - but that would have probably come later.

 

IIRC the High Court made several rulings on this - rejecting the EQ Minister's position.  The Minister ignored those rulings and doubled-down on a not quite true argument.

 

 


14323 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Subscriber

  # 2078337 24-Aug-2018 10:27
Send private message

@rjt123 yes I do remember I had family and close friends badly affected by those events so yes I DO know what was done. Here is a tip for you NOT EVERONE can afford insurance. Twelve million is not going to break the bank FFS





Mike
Retired IT Manager. 
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

There is no planet B

 

 


21438 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  # 2078338 24-Aug-2018 10:29
Send private message

Fred99:

 

The issue wasn't one of "insurance" so much as that the land was zoned by government legislation making it illegal to build on it, rendering the land more or less valueless.  Ultimately services (water/sewerage/power) would be removed, the homes would have been uninhabitable - not due to the quakes, but due to the government response to the quakes.

 

It's made out that this is an insurance "moral hazard" issue - when it really isn't - even if the affected people wouldn't have been in the position if they'd had insurance cover.

 

Ultimately government did plan to eventually "rehabilitate" and sell the land.  There was no compulsion to sell - but that would have probably come later.

 

IIRC the High Court made several rulings on this - rejecting the EQ Minister's position.  The Minister ignored those rulings and doubled-down on a not quite true argument.

 

 

 

 

I am not following you here.

 

Are you saying that even if they were insured, the insurance wouldn't have paid out? If I am understanding you properly, the quakes damaged the land so badly it's uninhabitable so the Government made it so it couldn't be legally lived on?

 

If insurance wouldn't pay out, then the Government should pay. If they would have been protected by insurance, then they should have been insured, and the Tax Payer shouldn't be responsible.

 

 


 
 
 
 


517 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user


  # 2078340 24-Aug-2018 10:30
Send private message

MikeB4:

@rjt123 yes I do remember I had family and close friends badly affected by those events so yes I DO know what was done. Here is a tip for you NOT EVERONE can afford insurance. Twelve million is not going to break the bank FFS



If u can afford a house u CAN afford insurance.

Please note, I wasn't moaning about the dollar value, I was merely pointing out why it sets a bad precedent, please feel free to address that point and why u think it's good for the government to set this precedent?

21438 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  # 2078341 24-Aug-2018 10:31
One person supports this post
Send private message

MikeB4:

 

@rjt123 yes I do remember I had family and close friends badly affected by those events so yes I DO know what was done. Here is a tip for you NOT EVERONE can afford insurance. Twelve million is not going to break the bank FFS

 

 

Right, which comes back to the argurment that if you can't afford insurance, you can't afford to own your own home. Not everyone can. Renting is a viable option so that people can live within their means.

 

As has already been said, it's not the number that's the problem, it's the decision from individuals to not insure their property, for whatever reason, and then expecting someone to bail you out.

 

 


517 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user


  # 2078343 24-Aug-2018 10:33
Send private message

Btw insurance is a legal obligation if u have a home loan, surely if your house is freehold then u can put a small fraction of your mortgage repayments towards insurance.

21438 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  # 2078344 24-Aug-2018 10:36
Send private message

Buying a house is a significant expense, but OWNING a house is also a significant expense. I make a reasonable living, and even my eyes are watering at the bills I am facing on a property that's only 12 years old. I do not understand how people on a reasonably smaller income could afford it.

 

It's one of the many reasons I don't really support KiwiBuild. Getting someone a cheap house, doesn't ensure they can afford to maintain it. There is a real possibility some of these areas will become slums, and this Government will need to bail them out as well. It's same reason I didn't support Banks loaning people 100% or more of their mortgage. When your margins for error are so small, it's a miserable existence.

 

 


8807 posts

Uber Geek


  # 2078347 24-Aug-2018 10:39
Send private message

networkn:

 

Fred99:

 

The issue wasn't one of "insurance" so much as that the land was zoned by government legislation making it illegal to build on it, rendering the land more or less valueless.  Ultimately services (water/sewerage/power) would be removed, the homes would have been uninhabitable - not due to the quakes, but due to the government response to the quakes.

 

It's made out that this is an insurance "moral hazard" issue - when it really isn't - even if the affected people wouldn't have been in the position if they'd had insurance cover.

 

Ultimately government did plan to eventually "rehabilitate" and sell the land.  There was no compulsion to sell - but that would have probably come later.

 

IIRC the High Court made several rulings on this - rejecting the EQ Minister's position.  The Minister ignored those rulings and doubled-down on a not quite true argument.

 

 

 

 

I am not following you here.

 

Are you saying that even if they were insured, the insurance wouldn't have paid out? If I am understanding you properly, the quakes damaged the land so badly it's uninhabitable so the Government made it so it couldn't be legally lived on?

 

If insurance wouldn't pay out, then the Government should pay. If they would have been protected by insurance, then they should have been insured, and the Tax Payer shouldn't be responsible.

 

 

 

 

In many cases the houses were perfectly habitable - in fact some people are still living in them 7 years later - government legislation and not the quakes directly rendered them (effectively) valueless. 

 

The other related cases were bare land.  The Minister also argued "moral hazard" in those cases - despite the fact that you can't insure bare land (thus don't have EQC cover).

 

There's a valid argument that EQC premiums could be collected some other way than through a levy on private insurance (paid with rates was one suggestion) - though I guess that wouldn't be favoured by the insurance industry.

 

 


8807 posts

Uber Geek


  # 2078352 24-Aug-2018 10:46
Send private message

networkn:

 

Buying a house is a significant expense, but OWNING a house is also a significant expense. I make a reasonable living, and even my eyes are watering at the bills I am facing on a property that's only 12 years old. I do not understand how people on a reasonably smaller income could afford it.

 

It's one of the many reasons I don't really support KiwiBuild. Getting someone a cheap house, doesn't ensure they can afford to maintain it. There is a real possibility some of these areas will become slums, and this Government will need to bail them out as well. It's same reason I didn't support Banks loaning people 100% or more of their mortgage. When your margins for error are so small, it's a miserable existence.

 

 

 

 

That applies (IMO) to just about every cookie-cutter subdivision in the country.

 

Exacerbating that is just about everything in the house and what it's made from was created either with a "planned obsolescence" mentality, or to meet statutory requirements but no more.  Despite that - NZ houses are crazy expensive to build.


8807 posts

Uber Geek


  # 2078365 24-Aug-2018 11:02
Send private message

networkn:

 

Fred99:

 

networkn:

 

Buying a house is a significant expense, but OWNING a house is also a significant expense. I make a reasonable living, and even my eyes are watering at the bills I am facing on a property that's only 12 years old. I do not understand how people on a reasonably smaller income could afford it.

 

It's one of the many reasons I don't really support KiwiBuild. Getting someone a cheap house, doesn't ensure they can afford to maintain it. There is a real possibility some of these areas will become slums, and this Government will need to bail them out as well. It's same reason I didn't support Banks loaning people 100% or more of their mortgage. When your margins for error are so small, it's a miserable existence.

 

 

 

 

That applies (IMO) to just about every cookie-cutter subdivision in the country.

 

Exacerbating that is just about everything in the house and what it's made from was created either with a "planned obsolescence" mentality, or to meet statutory requirements but no more.

 

 

What?

 

 

 

 

Materials have to meet a minimum standard for expected durability in the conditions.  IIRC that's 15 years for roofing materials for example.  If it's rooted in 20 years, you need to reroof.  If you'd paid a little bit more originally, for a heavier grade of steel and better coatings etc, that roof may last twice as long despite costing only maybe 20% more.  False economy - but of course people flick off houses quickly - you're probably not going to recover that extra 20% you paid when you build a house, buyers don't really notice or don't care - so long as it looks okay when they buy it.

 

 

 

Edit: LOL - I replied to the smile of a Cheshire cat, apparently.


14323 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Subscriber

  # 2078367 24-Aug-2018 11:04
Send private message

rjt123: Btw insurance is a legal obligation if u have a home loan, surely if your house is freehold then u can put a small fraction of your mortgage repayments towards insurance.

 

 

 

yeah and circumstances never change and crap never happens does it.





Mike
Retired IT Manager. 
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

There is no planet B

 

 


1 | ... | 245 | 246 | 247 | 248 | 249 | 250 | 251 | 252 | 253 | 254 | 255 | 256 | 257 | 258 | 259 | 260 | 261 | 262 | 263 | 264 | 265 | ... | 268
Filter this topic showing only the reply marked as answer View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic



Twitter and LinkedIn »



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:





News »

Chorus to launch Hyperfibre service
Posted 18-Nov-2019 15:00


Microsoft launches first Experience Center worldwide for Asia Pacific in Singapore
Posted 13-Nov-2019 13:08


Disney+ comes to LG Smart TVs
Posted 13-Nov-2019 12:55


Spark launches new wireless broadband "Unplan Metro"
Posted 11-Nov-2019 08:19


Malwarebytes overhauls flagship product with new UI, faster engine and lighter footprint
Posted 6-Nov-2019 11:48


CarbonClick launches into Digital Marketplaces
Posted 6-Nov-2019 11:42


Kordia offers Microsoft Azure Peering Service
Posted 6-Nov-2019 11:41


Spark 5G live on Auckland Harbour for Emirates Team New Zealand
Posted 4-Nov-2019 17:30


BNZ and Vodafone partner to boost NZ Tech for SME
Posted 31-Oct-2019 17:14


Nokia 7.2 available in New Zealand
Posted 31-Oct-2019 16:24


2talk launches Microsoft Teams Direct Routing product
Posted 29-Oct-2019 10:35


New Breast Cancer Foundation app puts power in Kiwi women's hands
Posted 25-Oct-2019 16:13


OPPO Reno2 Series lands, alongside hybrid noise-cancelling Wireless Headphones
Posted 24-Oct-2019 15:32


Waikato Data Scientists awarded $13 million from the Government
Posted 24-Oct-2019 15:27


D-Link launches Wave 2 Unified Access Points
Posted 24-Oct-2019 15:07



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.


Support Geekzone »

Our community of supporters help make Geekzone possible. Click the button below to join them.

Support Geezone on PressPatron



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.