18

Labour punishes home owners again

by Whaleoil on November 2, 2011

Not content with whacking people with a capital gains tax, Labour has now released their EQC policy.

However it contains a a major blunder. It is hugely unfair to make people pay their EQC levies based on the rateable value of their properties, but to provide the same level of cover.

I know they hate the rich, but that’s crazy even for them. labour is jacking up taxes yet again.

It certainly won’t be helping David Parker’s party vote campaign in Epsom.

Tagged: • • • •

Related posts

  • Anonymous

    Not only is it applying a graduated levy for level cover (redistribute the wealth by stealth) it also contains a very glaring error.

    There are large numbers of properties that are zero-rated for rates. Churches, charities (including the Brian Tamaki nonsense) and marae spring to mind. So if there is a disaster, will they be covered – for free – by everyone else? Or will they have no cover?

    How this could have been missed by Labour is beyond me

    • Ghostwhowalksnz

      Wrong , they are still have a council valuation. Whether they pay rates to the council doesnt effect any levies that the government may impose through the council.

      What happens now is all  those with no insurance will have to cough up.

      AS we have found in Christchurch, the land value  , which isnt covered by fire insurance is still covered by EQC, so the land value should also be included in the premiums.

      AS well a landslide could wipe out a 0.5m value property, but if it didnt have a building , they didnt pay a cent to EQC, but would get the value of the land lost.

      • Anonymous

        Wrong yourself.

        From the EQC Guide publication (emphasis mine).

        Land. If your home is insured, EQCover also insures
        some of your land. This cover is limited and is restricted
        to land that is within your property boundary and
        comprises only:
        • the land under your home;
        • the land within 8 metres of your home;
        • the land of the main accessway (or under or
        supporting the main accessway) up to 60 metres
        from your home, but not the driveway or any
        artificial surfaces like concrete or asphalt that
        cover the accessway.

        So that person with a half million dollar section with no building, and no insurance, gets nothing. Even if they did have a building and insurance, the cover is limited to that land within 8m of the home, so the lifestyle block isn’t covered.

  • Dan

    You do realise under the current system, you pay EQC based on insurance cover – so it is virtually matched to your property’s value, in another way – and the amount you pay is capped, despite increasing amounts of cover the more valuable your property is?

    So at the moment, the rich can pay barely any more than a poor person, yet get significantly more cover through insurance?

  • Mort

    liarbore = FAIL

    the only possible outcome for EQC after the schemozle of Sept and Feb is to dissolve the damn thing. It has been used as a governmental slush fund for too long and like every other govt dept has displayed it’s ineptitude when it was needed most.
    The thing should be closed down and the risk carry handed back to the insurance companies and the insurance companies given more say in where and what type of housing/ building can be put on a site by way of whether they will insure it or not.

  • Anonymous

    Dan

    What? the levy is capped and the payout is capped. So if you live here you pay bugger all for bugger all cover but if you live here you pay the capped amount for only $100,000 cover with the rest coming from your insurer.

    The levy is in addition to your mainstream insurance premium so EQC does not provide extra cover for rich people.

    • Ghostwhowalksnz

      They also cover  the land around the house in ADDITION to the $100,000 for the building.
      Riddell Rd , a notorious  unstable area gets more return  for their  $69 per year than say a house on the flat in Otara

      • Anonymous

        As before; EQC covers some of the land. 

        You’ve also chosen an example to suit your argument. Land in a cheap area of Auckland still costs more than land in an expensive area of Mangakino. 

        You can’t legislate to that degree. Labour tries and screws it up every time

  • sthnjeff

    Tax by stealth pure and simple

  • Hollyfield

    As a tenant, I have earthquake cover through an EQC levy on my contents insurance.   Will I still have earthquake cover for my contents when the landowner pays for it through his rates?  If yes, will this cause rent increases?
    Since I live in the Mt Roskill electorate, if I remember tomorrow I’ll ring my local MP’s office and ask how this will affect tenants.

  • Mully

    Hang on – Labour are dead-set against any privatisation of any part of ACC, but they’ll privatise earthquake insurance?

    • Ghostwhowalksnz

      What part of the work privatise dont you understand,  Government and Council and EQC, where is the private in those 3 ?

  • Ghostwhowalksnz

    Whale, according to Bill English , NZ already has a capital gains tax !

    • Anonymous

      Depends if you are a trader or an investor. The line between the two is grey and a loophole people have tried to exploit and governments over the years have tried to crack down. The more truer capital gains tax would be the FDR which is calculated on an annual basis irrespective if the gains were realised or not.

      • Anonymous

        The FDR is a crock.

        I buy $10,000 worth of Aussie shares at $1 each. After 1 year the share price is $1.10. I pay tax on the 10% gain. The next year the shares fall to $1 again. No tax, but no refund or loss carried forward. The next year they go to $1.10 again. I pay tax on that 10% again. So in three years the net gain has been 10%, but the tax has been paid as if they had risen 20%.

        Its a crock.

  • Gazzaw

    I don’t know how anyone can make an assessment yet. TV One News reported that when Goff was asked about how much the levy would be he didn’t know & when asked how much cover it would offer that he didn’t know. Sounds like labour dreaming up something on the run again. We shouldnt worry though they’ll appoint an expert panel in due course.
     
    On another issue, when Goff was interviewed with Clayton I swear that I saw a DPS man right alongside. Was he really necessary?
     
     

    • sthnjeff

      Perhaps the DPS have had a tipoff that Plughead (or one of the others) is about to knife him in the back.

      • Eric

        I noticed the DPS guy is all the clip of Goff etc on TVNZ last night. In fact the guy made it hard not to notice. I thought they were supposed to be in “in the background” but this guy was the full Secret Service (very black glasses, ear plug and highly visible cable attached). Made me think it was deliberate, a sort of sweet revenge for labour attacking Key via the DPS. Actually they should keep Cosgrove out of the close shots with Goff. He looked like a Mafia bodyguard!