Insurance Business forum is the place for positive industry interaction and welcomes your professional and informed opinion.

Anti-Fire Levy removal website launched

Notify me of new replies via email
Insurance Business | 09 Oct 2012, 12:03 AM Agree 0
Featuring a video of a man depicting a greedy, money-grabbing insurer, a new website from the Fire Brigade Employees' Union has been launched to campaign against the removal of the fire levy in NSW.
  • Dean McCauley | 09 Oct 2012, 11:19 AM Agree 0
    Perhaps a defamation case brought by representatives of the NSW insurance industry against Fire Brigade Employees' Union may well be in order? You always hear about propaganda and misinformation of different sorts but after being in this industry for almost 20 years it's frightening to see how blatant in this case these lies are. It never ceases to amaze me how people never seem to let the facts get in the way of their agenda!!
  • Luke Chrzanowski | 09 Oct 2012, 12:03 PM Agree 0
    I sincerely hope a defamation case is raised against this website and the Fire Brigade Employees Union. Some of the comments on there are absolutely disgusting and I hope our industry representatives don't just ignore it!
  • The Elephant In The Room | 09 Oct 2012, 12:30 PM Agree 0
    @McCauley: so, you disagree with them, can't figure out a comeback better than "trust us, it'll all work out" and your solution is to try to squash your critics with a lawsuit? Is it any wonder the public are suspicious of you people?
  • Dean McCauley | 09 Oct 2012, 04:07 PM Agree 0
    @The Elephant - Mate it is not a matter about trusting us. The FSL is not and never has been a revenue source for insurance companies. It is and always has been until now the mechanism for collecting a NSW state based tax. Insurance companies collect the tax and pass it on to the NSW govt. All the govt has done has changed the mechanism, to a more fairer system where everyone that owns property pays and not just those with insurance. Whilst I have no idea what goes on inside the NSW government one would expect that with a bigger base to draw the tax from that the amount paid in the rates for the FSL would be less (on an individual basis) than is currently being collected by insurance companies on behalf of the NSW govt, but I guess you will have to quiz the govt on that one. And yes, when someone tells blatant lies about another person or entity, in a legal sense a defamation case is correct remedy. I suggest you actually minimise your ignorance of the subject before you start posting such dolt comments.
  • The Elephant In The Room | 10 Oct 2012, 04:52 PM Agree 0
    @McCauley: I still find your analysis completely disingenuous - the GST is a fixed percentage on the price I pay on stuff, and whatever you might think about that as a model, at least its transparent. The FSL line item on my premium invoice is an insurance industry invention and bears little or no relationship to the size of the tax levied by the NSW government. Conversely, take away the FSL, and there is absolutely nothing to force the industry to drop the premiums by the full amount of the new tax that insurers are no longer paying. Any difference is pure profit for the insurance industry.

    The bottom line is - many, many people, including I imagine, myself, who are currently contributing indirectly via their premiums will pay more in toto across their premiums and the new tax. How this is "fairer" is anyone's guess.

    I leave it to the reader to determine whether your view is "ignorance" on your part, or "misinformation". And thanks for the ad hominems at the end, they add nothing to your argument.
  • Dean McCauley | 10 Oct 2012, 07:28 PM Agree 0
    @The Elephant - Mate, I live in state that doesn't charge an FSL and hasn't done so for a very long time. Do your research on the other states that have dropped the FSL and at the time that it was dropped premiums went down. These are simple facts. I suggest you read and My understanding with the FSL in NSW unlike the GST is that the govt gave each insurer a quota each year of how much they needed to collect. It would appear evident to me that there is more propensity for the system to be rorted in its current form as opposed to the one now proposed, but I guess you can't see that. And, in the end if someone defamed you, would you not seek legal remedy?
Post a reply