brizzle

Ok, so it's mandatory to buy car insurance from ICBC (gvt monopoly) at extortionate rates. They make huge profits and the BC gvt siphons approx $800m from them. Talk about a sly tax. Why don't people demand that gvt monoplies should be revenue neutral? If they want to make a profit, open the market up to competition. It's nothing short of extortion.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-col...c-surplus.html

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-col...increases.html

Not mentioned in this story, is the fact that BC Hydro is paying the BC gvt approx $250m extra, hence the reason for a proportion of the increases.

Seriously, is anyone awake in this province? Do they not see or care what is going on? Can't rely on the media to kick up a stink, because they are utterly useless. Taxes are one thing, but sneaky back door taxation of this kind really gets my goat !!

iaink

Just how much do you pay in BC for insurance?

Ive ten plus claim free years in free market (Add 20% profit margin) Ontario and I still pay $1000 a car.

I pay ontario hydro about $60 a month for delivery of electricity (largely regardless of what I use), and $10 or more for "debt retirement" and regulatory charges ...IE to pay the government back the money that I as a tax payer have already paid to take ownership of the utility in the first place, and for regulation of a free energy market that I have no access to as a consumer!

BC doesnt seem that much different to me...

R I C H

With a similar driving history, $1k for insurance is about the same as here Iain.

I don't think it's a great deal different to other provinces either.

macadian

It is what it is....something I had accepted before moving over here....it's pretty expensive by UK standards to be sure....but as I say, it is what it is.

brizzle

Basic insurance is a minimum $7-800 and upwards. Your free market insurance is probably charging that because of regulatory expense or simply because they can and wouldn't it be in their interest to maintain high rates amongst private insurers? I see no reason why car insurance for example should be 3 times as expensive here compared to say UK or NZ (from personal experience). It'll be interesting to see what happens with mobile rates, now that they have entered the 21st century and are allowing foreign competition?

Maybe I should change the title to 'provincial gvts - robbing gits'. It's a disgrace that they impose monopolies like this, then charge what they like and use it as their own personal piggy bank.

dbd33

That's likely due to the litigious climate here though why it's ten times more expensive in Canada than in the US mystifies me.

iaink

But even without the monopoly in Ontario we get screwed.

Its not whether its a monopoly or not thats the problem in my opinion, a well run efficient monopoly run in the best interests of its clientelle is not a problem for me, theoretically you loose the profit margin and benefit from economies of scale. In effect the people of the province are the shareholders and beneficiaries of any money it makes...you either pay the premiums, or you pay more tax to fill the shortfall anyway dont you as the government is going to spend the same amount regardless? My understanding is its only the basics that you HAVE to get from the BC provincial insurance monopoly, the add ons you can shop around the free market?

With a free market system any profit they make gets syphoned off never to be seen again (Unless you happen to be a shareholder) Private companies exist to make a profit in addition to their operating costs.

Having said all that its a mystery to me why insurance costs are so much higher here than say the US, which has the same potential for climate related accidents and probably higher medical and legal costs.

brizzle

My beef isn't with the cost (this time). What irks me, is the syphoning of funds, that should be used to provide a cheaper service. Most people have no choice in having to pay whatever they ask for pretty much mandatory items (car insurance, electricity), when gvt monopolies such as this should be revenue neutral.

iaink

I agree that revenue neutral should be the goal, and the challenge with privatised or state run enterprises always seems to be how do you ensure that they are run in the most efficient "profitable" way. If they overperform then I guess a surplus is inevitable...better than making a loss I suspect.

Ultimately though you either fund stuff through paying insurance or hydro "profit" or they raise the taxes to cover it anyway. You sort of have a point, but on the other hand the government has to pay for services one way or the other and the alternative to me is less palatable and thats to sell off "the family silver" for a short term cash injection and then leave future generations shafted as they end up paying for the same services in private hands with added profit margin on top, plus potentially higher taxes to fill the void left by the loss of that surplus revenue into private shareholders pockets.

Oink

More importantly get rid of government involvement in selling booze.

iaink

Why? I like that there is a real effort here to keep booze out of the hands of minors. If my license to operate my local liquour monopoly was going to be threatened by selling to kids you can bet I'd be making sure I checked ID' too!

I am not a fan of cheap booze in general anyway, I dont think there is any benefit to society, and I dont drink enough that the additional cost (if there is one) affects me all that much...

Oink

Government control of consumer goods artificially inflates prices.

iaink

Control though is the operative word. I am prepared to pay a little more in order to make life a little harder for kids to get hold of booze.

geo4

Take the bucking fus FFS!!

ExKiwilass

[QUOTE=iaink;8397080]
Ultimately though you either fund stuff through paying insurance or hydro "profit" or they raise the taxes to cover it anyway. You sort of have a point, but on the other hand the government has to pay for services one way or the other and the alternative to me is less palatable and thats to sell off "the family silver" for a short term cash injection and then leave future generations shafted as they end up paying for the same services in private hands with added profit margin on top, plus potentially higher taxes to fill the void left by the loss of that surplus revenue into private shareholders pockets.[/QUOTE]

I kinda agree with this.

Seriously, no one HAS to have a car. If you can't afford one, don't drive one. The people who have to deal with suburban rat runners screaming through their neighbourhoods, because god forbid they not get where they need to go would be glad to see less drivers. If ICBC helps with that, than GO ICBC!!!