Jacinda Ardern - our new PM

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › Jacinda Ardern - our new PM

1 | ... | 250 | 251 | 252 | 253 | 254 | 255 | 256 | 257 | 258 | 259 | 260 | ... | 268

517 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#2078311 24-Aug-2018 09:50

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...

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#2078315 24-Aug-2018 09:55

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.

networkn

Networkn
32150 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2078319 24-Aug-2018 09:56

MikeB4:

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

We did send aid in.

rjt123

517 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#2078330 24-Aug-2018 10:10

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?

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2078336 24-Aug-2018 10:24

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.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#2078337 24-Aug-2018 10:27

@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

networkn

Networkn
32150 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2078338 24-Aug-2018 10:29

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.

rjt123

517 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#2078340 24-Aug-2018 10:30

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?

networkn

Networkn
32150 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2078341 24-Aug-2018 10:31

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.

rjt123

517 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#2078343 24-Aug-2018 10:33

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.

networkn

Networkn
32150 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2078344 24-Aug-2018 10:36

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.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2078347 24-Aug-2018 10:39

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.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2078352 24-Aug-2018 10:46

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.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2078365 24-Aug-2018 11:02

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.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#2078367 24-Aug-2018 11:04

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.

1 | ... | 250 | 251 | 252 | 253 | 254 | 255 | 256 | 257 | 258 | 259 | 260 | ... | 268