AlliF

No need to resort to asterisks mate - not an unsurance agent by any chance are you?
No, I would not insure them - for the simple reason i am not an insurance company.

But you are missing my point entirely. Of course they absolutely have the right not to insure people for flood - what I dont believe they have the right to do is to rip people off by taking their money whilst making them believe they are covered when they are not. It should be made entirely clear whether you are covered or not up front before you pay a fortune in premiums.

Deancm_MKII

Why would anybody donate now when the govt. is forcing them to donate?

spalen

It was pretty clear when I went back and looked at my policy ( I live on top of a hill so didnt before ) it said clearly and it was one of the 6 thingsthey highlighted as a major point alongside such material matters as items not covered away from the house. It said explicitly - Flood is rain , Not covered for water rising from rivers or waterways. It could not have been any clearer unless they had rung me and told me as a one-off call.

If I lived in a flood zone next to a river I think I'd have checked that ahead of that event and when I purchased. I dont think I read the PDS for my policy - but I Was told to many many times by the insurance company , that makes me stupid yes, and it'd be my fault if i wasnt covered, I bought something without fully checking it did what I wanted ( I did of course check it did the MAIN things I wanted).

I dont think its fair to slate the insurance companies so much - its people misfortune at buying the wrong product. Yeah - thats crap too - but its not the big bad insurers stealing peoples money.

I keep hearing on the radio from insurance companies saying 'dont worry - we'll take care' I think Suncorp and another CEO were on their own adverts.

bcworld

Consumers are required to read the PDS...perhaps some of them don't bother?

Just as an example, I went to the AAMI website, for the insurance policy there was a link:

•What we cover - insured events

And under 'No' it says:

Damage or loss caused by flood.

Then there is a definition of what is meant by flood. But even if that definition is too complicated, or you don't read any further, surely those first six words are clear enough.

How else do you think it should be made 'entirely clear' if people don't read their policy docs?

fish.01

They have been mentioned.

Gillard said payments to other states would be made through existing relief and recovery arrangements.

Vested interests are pushing this line playing politics.

I've only met one (riverfront million+ property owner) but he was wiped out by the flood...barely hanging on financially. Not sure if he is representative but it would be administratively impossible to determine this without costing us a fortune.

True.

That's true. But a lot of those probably didn't give anyway. They now have their excuse. Listen to the ones who shout loudest that they are no longer giving. That'll be them Will be a shame for genuine people who can't see the different purposes of the money.

hevs

I never said rich, however on 1/2 that salary the benefits do not go anywhere NEAR covering the shortfall for someone who is earning over that (and neither should they) However nearly halving our salary (due to unexpected circumstances) I would not be anywhere NEAR to whinging if we earn over $100K and didnt get a few hundred buck a month in hand outs... bring on the $100K anyday....if we, and a lot of others, earn anywhere near that i'm sure we'd survive handing out $5 a week

EDIT to say...I am NOT whinging about being skint btw....just to those who think that cos we have a low income people get millions in hand outs and hearing people whinge when they cant "manage" on double what MANY have to live on.......

Wol

In which case insurance premiums reflect this.

It's all very well and good coming over all flumsy and wibbly about compensation, but the hard reality is that there are many parts of the world where building in defiance of nature is a huge risk. It is crass to do so and then expect others to pick up the inevitable bills.

If a government develops areas with a high risk of flood, earthquake etc it should do so with regard to the consequences and budget for them with contingency funds.

What is going to happen, in the good old Australian way - and you can see the mindset already - is that they will rebuild in much the same way. Let's hope they get it all finished before the next major flood.

Vegemite Kids

See, I knew this would happen. You've got your "excuse" now

The govt are not forcing people to donate.

The govt is rasing an emergency tax to repair damaged infrastructure. Big difference! None of the money raised by the levy will go directly to the people affected. Thats why donations are still needed. Gifts to the people to help them get back on their feet.


(Oh and before you or anyone has a go at me about being left wing pinko Govt supporter, I voted Liberal at the last election and have done most of my life - you can blame me for Howard / Abbott. You cant blame me for Rudd / Gillard )

jad n rich

It would be really interesting to see what ends up in the pocket of a person on 100k salary package, super is usually in that amount, so minus 9 and about 25+ tax, plus medicare/and medicare penalty for not having private health insurance .

Then a person on 50k who pays no tax and gets benefits on top.

I bet in reality the person on 100k is not that much better off, especially if one took into account health care cards etc, child care rebates etc.

I did see these figures in the john howard years when he was knocked for giving a tax cut to some in this income bracket, think it was 48% at the time Interesting reading and made me wonder at the time why on earth people doing the long hours/stressful jobs to earn that sort of money bothered.

Vegemite Kids

Well said Hevs. If the ones whinging on $100k+ feel hard done by cos they dont get their handouts and they have to pay $5 per week, why dont they give up the $100k salaries and get a lower paying job so they do qualify and dont have to pay. Bet they wont though. They'll just continue to go 'Woe is me.'

AlliF

As i said, I'm not talking about those companies that don't insure for floods and say so -they are within their rights, fair enough. You take that policy you take your chances.
I am talking about the companies that bury the fact that there are different definitions of floods and where they cover one but not the other. There are quite a few out there - even some of the insurance bodies themselves have admitted that the definitions are not always entirely clear.

IvanM

Tax is never fair unless you benefit. The proposed levy is for one year. Windsor and Katter want a permanent fund as I reckon the Nationals do if they were not in coalition. Abbott is just being contrarian which is sad in the face of what has happened.

The charity donations are to help individuals recover. Personally I am donating to Autism charities in the areas.

Deancm_MKII

I don't need an excuse.

What is a flood levy if it is not a compulsory/forced donation? Do we get a choice?

They've only got themselves to blame for living/building in flood prone areas. Caveat emptor. They should accept responsibility for their own decisions instead of expecting the public to bail them out.

If the average self-employed person's business goes under and they 'hit the wall' financially, do they expect the govt or the people to bail them out? No. Does the govt. start a levy for them? No. They chose to start a business and made bad business decisions and thus reap the consequences.

Same with the floods. They chose to live there in full knowledge the areas are prone to floods. Their decision and they need to accept responsibility for their own actions.

This is the biggest problem with society today. The lack of acceptance of responsibility; always expecting someone else to bail them out.

I wasn't.

IvanM

Is there a choice? I am in that boat with a single income family. There is still a lot of middle class welfare at 100k family income.

Deancm_MKII

That's socialism in action for you.