STATE FIRE INSURANCE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLII, Issue 12817, 17 March 1905, Page 7

STATE FIRE INSURANCE.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —The report made by the chief officer of the - fire brigade calls especial attention, to the losses made by fire .insurance companies in New Zealand, and at the same time to the initiation of the so-called State Fire Insurance, which in reality is that of a London Association called Lloyd's. This association has not subscribed one penny towards the establishment of this Stat© insurance, but is to have nine-tenths of profit. It would bo interesting to know at whose expense tho host of managers and agents are now assembled in Wellington, for what purpose I cannot imagine, possibly for the usual Ministerial banquet or picnic. At all ' events it's at somebody's expense, certainly not at Lloyd's. Another question arises, Who is to pay or advance the necessary money for losses, which of necessity must occur. And in addition there is a positive loss to the Government of income tax, formerly paid by insurance companiesno profit, no income tax. It appears to me as a taxpayer that the New Zealand Government in wilfulness have not given proper consideration to a matter in which the taxpayers are so much interested, of which I am one.—l am, etc., Taxpayer.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —'' One of the People" seems delighted fit the thought that shareholders in insurance companies have had some of their capital destroyed, or " their wings somewhat clipped." It would, in my humble opinion, be no more unjust for the Stat© to clip the wings of butchers, bakers, lawyers, land' agents, newspapers, train companies, or gas companies by State opposition than it is to clip the wings of insurance shareholders. But if the State is going in for Socialism, let it " go the whole hog," and if it goes so far we shall then all bo on a dond level. How delightful! All aristocrats! People do not seem to realise that the State lias no more right to, regulate the price of fire insurance than of bread, meat, milk, advertising, doctors, lawyers, land agents fees, 'People are not compelled to insure their houses and furniture unless they want the priceless peace of mind which results from knowing that their house and furniture arc insured, and their whole life's savings will not be lost, and themselves utterly ruined, if they be burned out of house and home. — am, etc., P. G. IiWIN'GTON.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —" Shareholder's" letter in your issue to-day has not convinced mo that Mr. Seddon's statement at Dargaville that £60,000 per annum was saved to the people by tho establishment of the State Insurance Department was untrue or misleading. As compared with the people the holders of shares, such of them as arc colonial, are in an insignificant minority and the rate-cut-ting thsy themselves have initiated is partly responsible for the depreciation in value of their bits of paper. I reckon they will find it to be a most foolish policy; they surely cannot think to either nobble or smash up tho Government office now that if lias oonmenood business. As to the loss of £240,000 it might, lie purely imaginary, composed of the stuff that dreams are made of, and it ie not unreasonable to think tho Premier would prefer saving the pockets of the people to those of dealers in stocks and shares. The capitalised value of £60,000, payable or receivable annually, runs into millions of pounds. If a problematical £240,000 can be proved to be the larger amount, then and then only was Mr. Seddon wrong.— am. etc., E.S. I'arnell, March 9, 1905.