ICBC

[my5cents]

So just as many will make the point that taking dividends is "back door" taxation, cost dumping on crown corps is also "back door" taxation - unless other taxation is decreased (which doesn't happen in most cases).

That gets to the point in general, being that the 1990s BC NDP transformed ICBC from being a stand alone insurance company - as Dave Barrett had envisioned - into a government bureaucracy that provides insurance. That reality actually misleads folks in their view of ICBC as an insurer. You are NOT just paying for insurance, you are paying for a lot of things that an insurance company does not provide.

I'm not going to spend the day researching what the NDP set up initially or didn't. It was my impression that from day one the idea was an auto insurance company that would take care of all auto related concerns, and for me that's the way I like it.

The point you are either failing to see or refusing to do so, is that the these are all auto related tasks.

I guess the government could stop making any money on the sale (both retail and wholesale) of liquor, and raise taxes to make up the difference. Not take a cent for DL sales, allow ICBC to charge for collections, vehicle registration, etc. or have the government re-create those departments. Also get out of the Traffic Safety business. When the government traffic safety department needed stats for an initiative, charge the government for the stats. When the police need an emergency run of all blue vehicles with a plate ending in "24", charge them up the ying yang.

Where do you think that money will come from to pay ICBC ?

[hobbyguy]

So just as many will make the point that taking dividends is "back door" taxation, cost dumping on crown corps is also "back door" taxation - unless other taxation is decreased (which doesn't happen in most cases).

That gets to the point in general, being that the 1990s BC NDP transformed ICBC from being a stand alone insurance company - as Dave Barrett had envisioned - into a government bureaucracy that provides insurance. That reality actually misleads folks in their view of ICBC as an insurer. You are NOT just paying for insurance, you are paying for a lot of things that an insurance company does not provide.

I'm not going to spend the day researching what the NDP set up initially or didn't. It was my impression that from day one the idea was an auto insurance company that would take care of all auto related concerns, and for me that's the way I like it.

The point you are either failing to see or refusing to do so, is that the these are all auto related tasks.

I guess the government could stop making any money on the sale (both retail and wholesale) of liquor, and raise taxes to make up the difference. Not take a cent for DL sales, allow ICBC to charge for collections, vehicle registration, etc. or have the government re-create those departments. Also get out of the Traffic Safety business. When the government traffic safety department needed stats for an initiative, charge the government for the stats. When the police need an emergency run of all blue vehicles with a plate ending in "24", charge them up the ying yang.

Where do you think that money will come from to pay ICBC ?

In terms of that amalgamation of auto related duties, perhaps, in the interest of clarity, this ministry should be downsized then: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/governments/organizational-structure/ministries-organizations/ministries/transportation-and-infrastructure

After all, road maintenance, highway building, bridges, and even ferries are "auto related". Yes, I'm being a bit facetious there... but the point is the dividing line. Yes, there are efficiencies to be had. But Dave Barrett set ICBC up as strictly an insurance company for purposes of transparency and objective focus - and to avoid the game playing that goes on with ICBC.

Dave Barrett also limited ICBC to BC and auto insurance, thus limiting the synergies and efficiencies of further options. SGI, which also operates in 5 provinces, and offers casualty insurance on homes, farms and businesses.

So if you want to change the Barrett model - why not follow the SGI model and bring in profits from other activities and locales?

The way that the 1990s NDP morphed ICBC through cost dumping has left us with the worst of both worlds, instead of the best. And yes, the Liberals did not do enough to make ICBC more sustainable and functional in recent years, but I can sort of understand that because the peanut chucking BC NDP loves to use ICBC as a political football.

[my5cents]

As I say I don't know what was set up initially.

I do known ICBC sold property insurance in the ealy years.

[hobbyguy]

That gets to the point in general, being that the 1990s BC NDP transformed ICBC from being a stand alone insurance company - as Dave Barrett had envisioned - into a government bureaucracy that provides insurance. That reality actually misleads folks in their view of ICBC as an insurer. You are NOT just paying for insurance, you are paying for a lot of things that an insurance company does not provide.

The 1990’s NDP transforming ICBC into a bloated government bureaucracy must’ve been a good idea since the Libs did absolutely nothing from to change ICBC back to being a stand alone insurance company.

They did actually. Commercial transport, inspection and enforcement were pulled back from ICBC, and the capital reserves were laid out in proper accounting terms. Then they transferred oversight to the BCUC, but ICBC started making profit $$$ big time - and the lure of the lucre dragged the Liberals into some bad moves later on.

[just popping in]

And a questionnaire for you to "chime in" on.

https://www.castanet.net/edition/news-s ... htm#222777

[Bpeep]

https://www.castanet.net/news/BC/222921 ... CBC-losses

What a bunch of hocus pocus. And John Q. Public is just stupid enough to swallow it all.
If the prov govt didn't use icbc as their unlimited piggy bank for all those years, icbc would be flush and insurance rates could be much less.

[hobbyguy]

https://www.castanet.net/news/BC/222921/What-s-driving-ICBC-losses

What a bunch of hocus pocus. And John Q. Public is just stupid enough to swallow it all.
If the prov govt didn't use icbc as their unlimited piggy bank for all those years, icbc would be flush and insurance rates could be much less.

There is some truth to what you say, but distracted driving (coupled with expensive to repair newer vehicles [patented special parts etc.] is the largest single cost change generator for all auto insurance companies. The costs from distracted driving far exceed the "dividends paid" and the "cost dumping" by the previous two stripes of government.

The reality is a mix of both, but you can not ignore the fact that distracted driving is a major factor:

http://time.com/money/4706657/auto-insurance-rates-distracted-driving-smartphones/

A realistic view says that distracted driving is likely to be about a 20% increase factor in ICBC rates....

[Bpeep]

You should make yourself aware of the billions of dollars that were funneled into gen rev coffers.
For years.

[Urban Cowboy]

You should make yourself aware of the billions of dollars that were funneled into gen rev coffers.
For years.

You should make yourself aware that had that money from ICBC not gone into general revenue, you would have been subjected to higher tax rates instead, since the money to pay for services has to come from somewhere.

They opted to take ICBC dividends and use them for a good cause. When that began there was no epidemic of distracted driving crashes and associated injury claims, plus car parts were still somewhat normally priced.

Now the auto manufacturers have identified a new way to extort money from us, and we have an epidemic of morons who insist on texting while driving, and expenses have gone through the roof. This can only be addressed by raising rates and finding other ways to punish those responsible for the majority of this issue.

Though not a huge fan of creative accounting, at the end of the day we were spared paying higher taxes, but you are complaining about not getting lower ICBC rates. Use public transit then you won't have to pay ICBC a dime.

Seems a bit like a want your cake and eat it too situation.

[Bpeep]

Actually, you get me wrong.
I'm not complaining about icbc rates. Not at all.
I care less what icbc insurance costs, as well as gasoline.
And yes, I drive, numerous vehicles.
But a few hun a year or a few cents a liter doesnt affect me an iota.
I just marvel at what some call good cause, but I call wanton waste.
The bc govts have been a disaster for many years. It's been so long that the populace are now lulled into complacency and they can't be convinced of the nightmare going on.
Imo it's like that with most govt and their citizens across the western world.

Lemmings.
Cliff.

[Urban Cowboy]

If I misunderstood my apologies.

I haven't had an issue with ICBC dividends going toward paying some of our services, but now that things have changed with skyrocketing costs, for sure things need to be reassessed. I just hope the majority of increases, hits those who are responsible for these costs, rather than simply nailing everyone across the board, because in that scenario I'm subsidizing some other jerks poor driving habits.

[hobbyguy]

You should make yourself aware of the billions of dollars that were funneled into gen rev coffers.
For years.

Actually, the total figure paid out by ICBC to government general revenues is $1.23 billion - not quite enough to cover this year's losses. So while that is part of the problem, it is not all that significant.

[Bpeep]

Imo I don't think every driver should be forced to pay for the mess.
Aggressive enforcement of distracted driving could likely eradicate a huge amount of the deficit, and the bonus would ultimatly be decreased claims as a result.
I fail to understand why there's so little visible traffic enforcement in bc .

[Glacier]

And a questionnaire for you to "chime in" on.

https://www.castanet.net/edition/news-s ... htm#222777

"This engagement is now closed."

[Urban Cowboy]

Imo I don't think every driver should be forced to pay for the mess.
Aggressive enforcement of distracted driving could likely eradicate a huge amount of the deficit, and the bonus would ultimatly be decreased claims as a result.
I fail to understand why there's so little visible traffic enforcement in bc .

I don't get that either. I see the same handful of officers conducting a blitz here and there now and then, but not anywhere near the level of enforcement, I was accustomed to seeing in other areas I've lived in my life.

Part of the reason these claim costs are so high is these morons who insist on playing with their phones while driving, often are the same ones involved in head on crashes, due to a lack of center divider barriers on many roads. Once upon a time if you were in a head on crash you were practically guaranteed to be a goner, so pay for the funeral and done deal. Now with all the improvements in modern vehicles, such as design and air bags, far more people are surviving these types of crashes, but still sustain serious injuries, ones that often continue for life so suddenly this becomes a huge burden for insurance to bear.