1% levy on insurance policies

Hitchens

It's only right to help the ordinary poor devils who are in that position. 1% is not going to hurt us much in any case.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/0318/603009-hayes-says-lack-of/

Diemos

I disagree completely, why should anyone else have to fund you because you bought property within a flood plain?

Steppenwolfe

Bollox to that. It's bad enough we have to pay a levy for Quinns gambling debts. If you want to live in a flood plain don't ask me to pay for it.

Sir Oxman

Anyone who bought or built on a flood plain deserves what they get.
Discuss.

robertxxx

Levy's on everything soon, enda and Co are making a dogs dinner

Hitchens

Lots of people didn't realize what a flood plain was and were gulled into buying, and don't forget the developers got planning permission for those builds.

Kaizersoze81

Why should we cover this? If people want to live in areas prone to flooding (and by doing so availing of much cheaper houses), then they should accept the consequences. Ordinary taxpayer bailing everyone out again. So sick of this country, nobody takes responsibility for their own actions.

woodoo

So gombeen politics bites using the arse again. Local gombeen politicians got land on flood plains zoned for housing, planners rubber stamped it and now the ordinary citizen has to pay a levy to clean the whole farce up. This lies squarely with the politicians and our planners imo.

steveone

Yep its limp wristed alright. The gov should stand on principal and ensure insurance companies cant pick and choose the cream. Id prefer to pay my insurance money to a state fund and kill off insurance companies.

Ace2007

It's what the government do, they think they can bully the big industries, Pension funds/Insurance companies, but they don't play ball, so what happens? - The government just introduce Levy's and the people of Ireland just get screwed over.

Pension levy was suppose to be for 4 years - What did Noonan do last Budget - increased it.

Insurance Levy - Insurance companies won't insure people, government introduces levies on everyone, I could live in an area that has no chance of flooding, but who cares I pay levy anyway.

Sir Oxman

Hitchens wrote: »

Lots of people didn't realize what a flood plain was and were gulled into buying, and don't forget the developers got planning permission for those builds.

This is the biggest purchase in most people's lives...come on, they ain't buyng a tin of beans ya know.

Sir Oxman

woodoo wrote: »

So gombeen politics bites using the arse again. Local gombeen politicians got land on flood plains zoned for housing, planners rubber stamped it and now the ordinary citizen has to pay a levy to clean the whole farce up. This lies squarely with the politicians and our planners imo.

And the buyers?

oldyouth

A few things. Firstly that brings the levy on insurance premiums to 6%, which is disgraceful. Secondly, insurance will start to extend their flood exclusion boundaries, knowing there is a compensation fund which will pick up losses they would previously have covered.

What's the story with people who never even attempted to get any kind of insurance, will they access to the fund?

Hitchens

Sir Oxman wrote: »

This is the biggest purchase in most people's lives...come on, they ain't buiyng a tin of beans ya know.

The unfortunates who bought the pyrite houses were'nt buying tins of beans either................but they bought in good faith.

Roger_007

Anyone know what it's proposed to do with the 1% levied on policies. It it just to be handed over to anyone whose house has been flooded to remedy any damage caused?
There is also the fact that these people do not have to pay any premium for flooding risk because the insurance companies will not cover them. So effectively they will be getting flood insurance for nothing while everyone else pays a levy to cover them.

There is something radically wrong here!

woodoo

Sir Oxman wrote: »

This is the biggest purchase in most people's lives...come on, they ain't buyng a tin of beans ya know.

Its a job for the planning department in any first world country.

Sir Oxman

Hitchens wrote: »

The unfortunates who bought the pyrite houses were'nt buy tins of beans either................but they bought in good faith.

There's good faith and not doing your homework on the biggest purchase of your life.
This is a financial albatross around your neck for 15/20/25/30/35/40/45 years.

Sir Oxman

woodoo wrote: »

Its a job for the planning department in any first world country.

Yes.
But this isn't a first world country in planning.
Buyer beware.

oldyouth

steveone wrote: »

Yep its limp wristed alright. The gov should stand on principal and ensure insurance companies cant pick and choose the cream. Id prefer to pay my insurance money to a state fund and kill off insurance companies.

You wouldn't be able to afford the contributions. Insurers need to keep lean to manage the claims incurred. The State, as we all know, is an inefficient machine. If would just increase contributions as costs rose. I would dread the prospect of dealing with a Govt Dept over a household claim

Diemos

Hitchens wrote: »

Lots of people didn't realize what a flood plain was and were gulled into buying, and don't forget the developers got planning permission for those builds.

Why is there this nostalgic view that people were forced into buying? I don't remember banks or estate agents with guns to peoples heads.

Buying a house is (for most people) the biggest outlay you're likely to make in your lifetime. Saying you did not realise were you were buying just isn't good enough, is it?

Don't get me wrong, planning permission should never have been granted in those areas but a large portion of the blame must go to the purchasers of said properties.

Masala

Just another tax on us..... starting out at 1% and I suppose rising every year.

Then the Government will raid it like the pensions without telling anyone.

woodoo

Sir Oxman wrote: »

Yes.
But this isn't a first world country in planning.
Buyer beware.

You have been all over the buyer. That is part of the reason our politicians and authorities get away with murder we all turn on each other instead. An ordinary punter is not an engineer and doesn't know how to assess an area for flooding issues.

Hitchens

Diemos wrote: »

Why is there this nostalgic view that people were forced into buying? I don't remember banks or estate agents with guns to peoples heads.

Remember the mantras of the time aimed at young people, "get your foot on the ladder now or you never will", and the estate agent one "would make a lovely starter home" .......and so on!

steveone

woodoo wrote: »

Its a job for the planning department in any first world country.

Ideally yes youre correct but insurance policies are a statement of what they wont pay for. It gets bigger year on year

Sir Oxman

woodoo wrote: »

You have been all over the buyer. That is part of the reason our politicians and authorities get away with murder we all turn on each other instead. An ordinary punter is not an engineer and doesn't know how to assess an area for flooding issues.

Bull****.
This is the largest outlay of money the punter will ever make.
Blindly queueing up for days on end, buying unseen like a fcking thick gombeen doesn't attract my sympathy.
At all.

Do your homework when splashing out '000's of euro.

I was/am fully aware of the corruption and backhanders and sleeveenish carry on of all public bodies in this kip.
Anyone who wasn't deserves to pay, not me again.

woodoo

Sir Oxman wrote: »

Bull****.
This is the largest outlay of money the punter will ever make.
Blindly queueing up for days on end, buying unseen like a fcking thick gombeen doesn't attract my sympathy.
At all.

Do your homework when splashing out '000's of euro.

I was/am fully aware of the corruption and backhanders and sleeveenish carry on of all public bodies in this kip.
Anyone who wasn't deserves to pay, not me again.

If everyone was like you the politicians would have this country in an even worse state. It was people like you turning on their fellow Irish man during the famine too. Not saying boo about the British authorities or landlord class.

No Pants

Hitchens wrote: »

The unfortunates who bought the pyrite houses were'nt buying tins of beans either................but they bought in good faith.

Even better, they were told they had insurance and paid for it. Remember Homebond?

Joe Exotic

Much as i don't like another levy on.... well anything

what some people posting don't seem/want to realize is either way we are paying for it all this is changing is where the money comes from.

Two realistic options
1. out of the main tax pot(thus those taxes increase)
2. some form of special Levy i.e another tax

So if we are paying for it either way then maybe it is a better idea to put in a contingency fund specifically for it rather than taking it from the pot.

Now it could be argued that we shouldn't have to pay for it, and that anyone whose house has been flooded and thus can't get flood insurance again are on their own.

I wouldn't agree with that point but maybe many taxpayers would.

Ace2007

murphk wrote: »

Much as i don't like another levy on.... well anything

what some people posting don't seem/want to realize is either way we are paying for it all this is changing is where the money comes from.

Two realistic options
1. out of the main tax pot(thus those taxes increase)
2. some form of special Levy i.e another tax

So if we are paying for it either way then maybe it is a better idea to put in a contingency fund specifically for it rather than taking it from the pot.

Now it could be argued that we shouldn't have to pay for it, and that anyone whose house has been flooded and thus can't get flood insurance again are on their own.

I wouldn't agree with that point but maybe many taxpayers would.

The point as already raised is that if you introduce this levy and fund, what is stopping insurance companies, pulling the flood cover altogether in 10 years time? then what - increase levies?

hfallada

When people on the news have a house than is about 6 feet under water and are talking about how it wasnt as bad as last years flood. You are thinking why do you continue to live in a flood plain. If you look at field of famine houses. You will find none on low land near rivers but a ton on high hills. Even people with no knowledge of building in the 1840s had more sense than architects now

Pumpkinseeds

My insurance goes up every year, why the Hell should I pay even more for someone else's house? The government will hit us with a 1% levy and then the insurance companies will whack on an additonal hike too. Let the government take care of it, starting with the departments that authorised building on flood planes.

tayto lover

What about a 1% levy to help people who are struggling to pay existing levies?

TOMP

House insurance in Ireland is a scam....
much higher average prices than UK
if you make a claim you get crucified in following years
they do everything to avoid paying out
if you are loyal to the same company you get screwed by higher premiums

steveone

Oldyouth-Yes i absolutely agree about the state being untrustworthy at the min-especially with this ever increasing water rates nonsense but when it all hits the fan the state picks up the tab anyway. It galls me to read my policies. Sure we pay a levy like this on our motor policies

Sir Oxman

woodoo wrote: »

If everyone was like you the politicians would have this country in an even worse state. It was people like you turning on their fellow Irish man during the famine too. Not saying boo about the British authorities or landlord class.

Oh Christ.

Joe Exotic

Ace2007 wrote: »

The point as already raised is that if you introduce this levy and fund, what is stopping insurance companies, pulling the flood cover altogether in 10 years time? then what - increase levies?

Thats a fair point i suppose, would need some thought in how to prevent it .

my point though was that if we are paying for flood damage to uninsured houses anyway is it not better to have a fund for that specifically, we all know the madness that ensues when money is coming directly from central funds.

People tend to care less on how its spent and i think its wasted a lot more easily than if you have a specific fund.

maryishere

Steppenwolfe wrote: »

Bollox to that. It's bad enough we have to pay a levy for Quinns gambling debts. If you want to live in a flood plain don't ask me to pay for it.

+1.
developments built in boom times on flood plains should not be covered.

the planning officials should pay for it out of their pay and pensions

Hitchens

We shouldn't forget that some of the flooding happened in areas which had never flooded before.

maryishere

why should people who were prudent in building or buying property not likely to flood subsidise those greedy developers and buyers who bought on flood plains, which generations of people knew flood from time to time? And covering them with tarmac and concrete and buildings, so that there is even less soakage than before, and expecting the water that flows to those to go where?
All these levies and stealth taxes add up.

LostInLM

Hitchens wrote: »

We shouldn't forget that some of the flooding happened in areas which had never flooded before.

Like where? Example please.

Ace2007

Hitchens wrote: »

We shouldn't forget that some of the flooding happened in areas which had never flooded before.

Should we introduce a levy/tax for the famers who are affected every time we have adverse weather?

tayto lover

Ace2007 wrote: »

Should we introduce a levy/tax for the famers who are affected every time we have adverse weather?

Or for golf clubs that have to close in the bad weather, publicans who are not making enough money, hotels which had to close etc etc etc.
There's no end to this once it starts

maryishere

Ace2007 wrote: »

Should we introduce a levy/tax for the famers who are affected every time we have adverse weather?

or if a few fishermen buy a poor design of trawler and cannot get insurance against flooding / sinking, should we get all other fishermen to subsidise them?

woodoo

The government are resorting to levies far too often. It needs to be nipped in the bud. Levyland.

Are we running out of land that we need to build houses in flood plains?

Let fcking Cork go under water and rebuild the lost streets somewhere away from flood areas.

P_1

Hitchens wrote: »

We shouldn't forget that some of the flooding happened in areas which had never flooded before.

Generally what tends to happen when you concrete over a lot of natural floodplain is that the water tends to find a new floodplain and you get places flooding that never flooded before.

Galwayguy35

No I don't agree with this at all, I pay my own house insurance and it's not my fault houses are built on flood plains and they can't get insurance.

It's a terrible thing to have ones house full of water but I don't see why the rest of us should have to carry the cost of this.

And hearing Big Phil saying we should do it is kinda annoying as well.

shruikan2553

woodoo wrote: »

If everyone was like you the politicians would have this country in an even worse state. It was people like you turning on their fellow Irish man during the famine too. Not saying boo about the British authorities or landlord class.

If you are unsure about something when buying a house get a professional, if you decide not to to save yourself a few hundred and then find out theres a problem I dont see why anyone else should have to pay insurance for them. Insurance tends to be everyone pays an amount and then can get money when something goes wrong, not everyone else pays an amount and then you take some when it suits you.

Jester252

Balls to that. Why should they get free home insurance for a house that was build on a flood plain. It's not like they didn't know about it before buying/building.

awec

Hitchens wrote: »

We shouldn't forget that some of the flooding happened in areas which had never flooded before.

These people would be covered by their insurance, no? Most people with insurance will be covered for flood damage.

Is this not targeted at the people who couldn't get flood insurance because their house was in an area where flooding was deemed a high risk?

blackwhite

Hitchens wrote: »

We shouldn't forget that some of the flooding happened in areas which had never flooded before.

And they would have been able to get flood insurance, if they had chosen to do so.