Adam over at Inquiring Mind suggests Transport Minister Joyce has made a bad decision re putting 3rd party insurance on hold.
I say otherwise. I will make my own decisions as to what property I will insure.
My old dunger is not one of those I wish to waste premiums on, although I am compulsorily covered through ACC via punitive taxes for loss of life or limb. If I hit someone? So what? Sue me!
Showing posts with label insurance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label insurance. Show all posts
Sunday, June 07, 2009
Sunday, April 13, 2008
3rd Party Tax coming soon
Imported MP Duynhoven must be getting a large pension and kickbacks from the insurance industry. He keeps trotting out his 3rd party tax will cure all driving ills every time he gets near a microphone.
There is no need for another tax on motorists. I make the decision to drive without insurance in my old dunger and drive accordingly. So what if a flash motor dings me - their problem, I will sue or write it off. If I ding them, their insurance will pay. After all that is why they pay the expensive premium, to cover a risk. If the cost is too high for insurance companies, supply and demand will raise the premiums. Their problem.
What next, compulsory insurance on my house? Compulsory public liability insurance in case the postie gets savaged by my mongrel at the letterbox?
Take your unwanted tax and stick it.
Been here before. Here also.
There is no need for another tax on motorists. I make the decision to drive without insurance in my old dunger and drive accordingly. So what if a flash motor dings me - their problem, I will sue or write it off. If I ding them, their insurance will pay. After all that is why they pay the expensive premium, to cover a risk. If the cost is too high for insurance companies, supply and demand will raise the premiums. Their problem.
What next, compulsory insurance on my house? Compulsory public liability insurance in case the postie gets savaged by my mongrel at the letterbox?
Take your unwanted tax and stick it.
Been here before. Here also.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Another bloody tax!
The minister involved with this piece of madness has been flogging this horse for years. I do not see why I should pay to insure my cars against me hitting other nutters on the road, just because other countries do. I take the risk currently, many years behind the wheel without a ticket speaks for itself.
Why should I be taxed to cover someone else's risk? If nutters want to buy a Flash Harry car, let them pay for the risk. This exercise is yet just another rapacious tax on my lifestyle.
I suppose the poor unwashed masses will claim yet another benefit to run their cars and ACC will not adjust their ever increasing tax rake to reflect the lowering of the risk, should this madness eventuate. I was under the impression that a massive part of the rego fee carries sort of third party risk - will this tax supercede that? I will bet that insurance companies will not drop their premiums one cent to show any decrease in risk.
Next tax we will have compulsory house and medical insurances. For what? Will the tax intake ever stop or reduce?
This government has lost the plot with their loony climate change policies being a massive tax grab on millenial cyclic occurrences, now they are looking for another something else to distract the masses.
A very big NO to compulsory insurance in any shape or form.
Why should I be taxed to cover someone else's risk? If nutters want to buy a Flash Harry car, let them pay for the risk. This exercise is yet just another rapacious tax on my lifestyle.
I suppose the poor unwashed masses will claim yet another benefit to run their cars and ACC will not adjust their ever increasing tax rake to reflect the lowering of the risk, should this madness eventuate. I was under the impression that a massive part of the rego fee carries sort of third party risk - will this tax supercede that? I will bet that insurance companies will not drop their premiums one cent to show any decrease in risk.
Next tax we will have compulsory house and medical insurances. For what? Will the tax intake ever stop or reduce?
This government has lost the plot with their loony climate change policies being a massive tax grab on millenial cyclic occurrences, now they are looking for another something else to distract the masses.
A very big NO to compulsory insurance in any shape or form.
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Another tax coming our way!
Harry Dunhoyven, Minister of Transport, has been got at yet again by the self promoting Insurance Council through the gang of 20 on the so-called Mayoral Taskforce. The Insurance Council has for years been pushing the third party insurance wheelbarrow at every opportunity to raise their members revenues past the already obscene premiums.
I feel extremely strongly there is no need to acquire such insurance - we are already medically well covered under no-fault ACC and pay handsomely for such cover in our motoring registration tax. If Harry is suggesting that I need to pay an extra premium to cover some other nutters flash car, in the event of me crashing into him, then that is a chance I will take, just like I can take my chances with or without house and contents insurance. I suppose compulsory house and contents insurance will be next thing on the social engineering agenda, so that if a recently paroled thug burns my house to the ground I might be covered - will he have insurance???
Those with the modern cars can make a personal decision to cover their flashy vehicles by whatever manner of insurance they may require, without forcing their costs on me. If I drive recklessly, an accident caused by me could render me liable, but I take my chances in court on that score.
The gang of 20 are supposedly looking to stop boy racers. Now if large numbers of youth can effectively tell each other where the action is, why cannot the Police do the same covertly or otherwise and take more of these racers off the road. Media seem readily able to film the action, but Police do nothing about collaring the players.
Reportedly, so far about 2000 vehicles have been removed from the road - a very small proportion of all vehicles. Should all drivers are to be penalised for the actions of a few with compulsory insurance? I say no. Just another tax if it is ever implemented.
The other hoary old myth about drunk driving getting worse is well documented as Lindsay Mitchell blogs - the numbers do not stack up at 2.9 / 100,000 drivers, down from prevoiusly high levels of 8.5 20 years earlier. There will always be some nutter who wraps himself around a power pole. Sure there might be well publicised media over specific incidents, but will banning drinking in all public places stop drink driving?
The gang of 20 should focus on more relevant and pressing issues, like how to reduce the rampant bureaucracy in their fiefdoms. The Police have the legal tools to arrest, confiscate cars and jail boy racers - they need using forthwith!
I feel extremely strongly there is no need to acquire such insurance - we are already medically well covered under no-fault ACC and pay handsomely for such cover in our motoring registration tax. If Harry is suggesting that I need to pay an extra premium to cover some other nutters flash car, in the event of me crashing into him, then that is a chance I will take, just like I can take my chances with or without house and contents insurance. I suppose compulsory house and contents insurance will be next thing on the social engineering agenda, so that if a recently paroled thug burns my house to the ground I might be covered - will he have insurance???
Those with the modern cars can make a personal decision to cover their flashy vehicles by whatever manner of insurance they may require, without forcing their costs on me. If I drive recklessly, an accident caused by me could render me liable, but I take my chances in court on that score.
The gang of 20 are supposedly looking to stop boy racers. Now if large numbers of youth can effectively tell each other where the action is, why cannot the Police do the same covertly or otherwise and take more of these racers off the road. Media seem readily able to film the action, but Police do nothing about collaring the players.
Reportedly, so far about 2000 vehicles have been removed from the road - a very small proportion of all vehicles. Should all drivers are to be penalised for the actions of a few with compulsory insurance? I say no. Just another tax if it is ever implemented.
The other hoary old myth about drunk driving getting worse is well documented as Lindsay Mitchell blogs - the numbers do not stack up at 2.9 / 100,000 drivers, down from prevoiusly high levels of 8.5 20 years earlier. There will always be some nutter who wraps himself around a power pole. Sure there might be well publicised media over specific incidents, but will banning drinking in all public places stop drink driving?
The gang of 20 should focus on more relevant and pressing issues, like how to reduce the rampant bureaucracy in their fiefdoms. The Police have the legal tools to arrest, confiscate cars and jail boy racers - they need using forthwith!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
