Why Do We Pay for TAC, if We Have Car Insurance?

smart78 on 24/06/2019 - 10:10
Last edited 24/06/2019 - 10:21 by 1 other user

Hi Everyone,

I have one question which bothers me every time I pay for Vehicle Registration Renewal.

Why do we pay for TAC, if we have Car Insurance?

Isn't Insurance company is liable for "The TAC pays for medical treatment, rehabilitation services, disability services, income assistance, travel and household support services to help you get your life back on track after a transport accident."

I personally feel all the rules with Insurance Company is more benefiting the company not the Consumer, another example is Health Insurance.

Not sure, if anybody else feels the same way.

Automotive

Comments

  • Skramit on 24/06/2019 - 10:19
    +12

    Why do we pay for TAC, if we have Car Insurance ?

    Not an expert in this area but car insurance covers you for your vehicle and other vehicles involved, not your personal injuries. So if you need rehab after a car accident, TAC can assist with this and other parties injuries.

    Another example would be if you hit a pedestrian and they need surgery/rehab for broken limbs, the TAC insurance helps cover the pedestrian. Not everyone involved in an accident has appropriate insurance.

  • o53djz7qTPY4der on 24/06/2019 - 10:21

    TAC is designed to protect those who are injured by those who are uninsured (see previous thread where guy drove into the path of a truck and tried to blame the truck). The protection extends to those who aren't driving and injured by a driver, e.g pedestrians.

    Comprehensive insurance isn't compulsory, unfortunately.

  • altomic on 24/06/2019 - 10:25
    +3

    TAC "insurance" is a tax which pays for injuries occurred in motor vehicle related accidents.

    think of it a "motorist medicare"

  • rambutann on 24/06/2019 - 10:38
    +3

    A) Nobody is forcing somebody to have health insurance - we are fortunate enough to have Medicare, if you chose to have Health Insurance you are doing so because you want better treatment than what is offered under Medicare, theres a market for everything.

    B) As mentioned, TAC covers all medical expenses associated with vehicle incidents. This rate fluctuates depending on where you live, the type of vehicle you drive, etc.
    It's an extremely reasonable thing to pay - if this didn't exist then everyone would pay more in medicare, even if they didn't own a vehicle.

    • smart78 on 24/06/2019 - 11:11

      I am not against Health Insurance, all it bothers me is that it doesn't cover full amount, like in other countries.

      • MITM on 24/06/2019 - 15:01

        If PHC fully covered everything, I'd be at hospital all the time just to change a plaster. Mind you the premiums would be through the roof.

    • SelfMade on 21/11/2019 - 23:51

      Disagree with A. You are essentially forced to have it if you are in a 'high' income bracket. The government slugs you the Medicare levy surcharge otherwise. Health insurance in Australia is quite unfairly implemented. If you are young, healthy and earning a good income you essential pay for the poor, obese and elderly as you would hardly need to use the health insurance. It is a forced form of socialism.

      Instead it should be risk based like it is in Germany. If you are healthy, your health insurance should be less.

      • CMH on 22/11/2019 - 00:37
        +1

        The reason it's "forced" on the high income bracket is because noone buys it otherwise.

        Health insurance is such poor value in Australia as our public system is actually very good. Yes, there's waiting lists for electives, which means you get to pay (either private health or personal funds) to jump the queue.

        Life threatening stuff you won't get better treatment outside the public system. So the only thing they can offer you is private rooms… if available.

        This is very generalised of course, and I'm sure private health might be great value for a certain section of the population. However clearly it's not a large enough population and so the government had to step in and "force" high-income-earners to buy what's essentially a healthcare luxury-pack.

  • outlander on 24/06/2019 - 10:55
    +6

    Tac=injury to people
    Car insurance=damage to car

    It pisses me off too. TAC covers such a wide range of things that a lot of people scam it. Plus, you know all those ads, that tell you how you're an idiot and a bastard and a bunch of other stuff if you drink/take drugs? Yeah, that all gets paid for by TAC money. Pointless multimillion dollar advertising campaigns, all paid for by you.

    • jimbobaus on 24/06/2019 - 12:03
      -1

      pointless in your opinion…they have been proven effective though.

      • outlander on 24/06/2019 - 16:18
        +3

        So the stats say. I mean, they say that as long as the situation is improving. If its not improving (like the last year or two) then its drug use/alcohol/hoon behavior/video games/solar coronal discharge etc etc .. seemingly anything -except- the fault of the TAC.

    • Mattmattmatt on 25/06/2019 - 10:25
      +1

      I always found the TAC sponsorship of sporting teams to be a strange use of public funds. (Except for when they sponsored my team, of course.)

      • Indiana1501 on 25/06/2019 - 11:45
        +1

        Agreed. TAC should not sponsor any team. I don't want my registration funds going to pay for some team I don't support.
        Don't get me started on the exorbitant salaries!

  • Ocker on 24/06/2019 - 11:02
    -6

    The Victorian TAC is just another slush fund for the government to raid and spend on other items. The Andrews government has just raided TAC for $2billion to help balance the budget.

  • smart78 on 24/06/2019 - 11:10
    -2

    Car Insurance also has public liability cover for some millions, I think pedestrian should be covered by that.

    • Skramit on 24/06/2019 - 11:38

      No, as I understand it, public liability insurance meaning if you drive your car through a shop window, the shop building is covered. Not the 15 patrons in the shop you nearly killed.

    • outlander on 24/06/2019 - 16:21

      The only reason it can be millions for the amount you pay, is because of the TAC. Remove the TAC, and it would go down to like 50K, with a ton of exclusions.

    • davidem on 25/06/2019 - 08:28

      Totally agree. Double billing for exact same coverage.
      Each insurance policy you buy has a $20M Public Liability cover.

  • MeesusEff on 24/06/2019 - 11:22

    Ive wondered, if you got into an accident (self/others fault), who pays for the medical expenses if you dont have health insurance? I've always assumed that car insurance covers it lol /failatadulting

    • Skramit on 24/06/2019 - 11:44

      Don't feel bad. Most people don't understand the TAC because they or somebody they know never has to go through a TAC claim which is a GOOD THING :)

      (Even though we all pay for it)

    • bdl on 24/06/2019 - 11:55
      +4

      TAC in VIC (Green slip in NSW).

      I found out that TAC even covers you if you have an accident interstate, as long as your vehicle has VIC plates.

      I had a not-at fault accident a few months ago and TAC covered all my recovery health-related costs. Was great.

  • smart78 on 24/06/2019 - 11:59

    I think I got the reply.
    However still feel that we pay a huge amount for Car Insurance, which should cover for all living & non-living expense in case of an accident.

    The word "Insurance" is not fulling it's meaning here…

    • k-rokfm on 24/06/2019 - 12:01
      +2

      If they removed TAC and included it in insurance - then your insurance premiums would skyrocket … Not to mention, the forced nature of TAC ensures that people will be covered in the event of an accident. If it was part of your comprehensive insurance then it would be 'optional', which would the end up with people not being able to get medical cover, as people arnt insured, cant afford it etc etc etc

    • SBOB on 24/06/2019 - 13:29
      +5

      Youve seen the number of posts on here about uninsured drivers right?

      Now assume one of those hit you and you had medical expenses and rehab costs to cover.
      Still think it should just be part of car insurance ?

      I think compulsory tac/greenslip should include third party property also and make it a compulsory minimum level of cover for all vehicles.

    • lgacb08 on 03/07/2019 - 20:03

      All states and territories in Australia operate a scheme like TAC and universal scheme like TAC cost the least, you haven't been to NSW, try look up the annual compulsory cost of vehicle ownership over there and you'll see the difference.

  • smart78 on 24/06/2019 - 11:59

    And will pay for my Registration renewal with some less botheration..

  • bongom on 24/06/2019 - 13:11

    The TAC can help with income support if you're unable to return to work after a motor vehicle accident.
    http://www.tac.vic.gov.au/about-the-tac/faq

  • geech on 24/06/2019 - 14:01

    It's the same reason you pay for home and contents insurance AND car insurance. They cover different things.

    The cost of your car insurance premium is based on the insurer not having to pay for third party medical costs as they work on the basis that it is covered by a separate policy.

    • CMH on 24/06/2019 - 21:42

      This is exactly it.

      It may be called "comprehensive" but it DOES NOT COVER the person. Nowhere on the PDS mentions anything about covering any injuries. At least not my insurer.

      This is because it's covered in the TAC (Vic).

      And like others mentioned, if this part were to be removed from your rego, then it just gets added on by your insurer, probably more than you'd have paid otherwise.

      Not a scam, just very misunderstood.

  • donbot on 24/06/2019 - 15:25
    +2

    Hopefully you never do, but when you see first hand the financial and medical support from TAC to a family member/friend, you'll never whinge about paying the TAC component of rego ever again. One is still off work 20months later, and the other never returned to work in the same capacity.

    Not to say that TAC have been perfect - in many ways they are painful to deal with and nit pick the smallest things - but the end result is pretty phenomenal compared to the alternative.

  • [Deactivated] on 24/06/2019 - 15:46
    +3

    It still amuses me how people don't understand that buying insurance and paying for TAC isn't a double dip "scam".

    Please do us a favour. Now that you know that TAC and TPP are not the same thing, kindly educate others.

  • magic8ballgag on 25/06/2019 - 08:03

    It's literally on the home page of their website:

    How can we help you?
    If you’ve been injured in a transport accident, we can help you get back on track.

  • Euphemistic on 25/06/2019 - 12:14

    Isn't Insurance company is liable for "The TAC pays for medical treatment, rehabilitation services, disability services, income assistance, travel and household support services to help you get your life back on track after a transport accident."

    No. If there was no TAC insurance, then your premium would increase by more than the TAC amount, and if you were hit by another broke driver without insurance where would you get compensation from?

  • kale chips suck on 25/06/2019 - 13:08

    Tac premium should be removed from vehicle reg and added to licence cost.

    Good drivers should pay less, bad drivers more. Where you live shouldn't factor into it.

    Generally, the TAC return in the order of half a billion dollars a year to the Vic Gov general revenue. That makes it a tax under another guise.

  • Hirolol on 26/06/2019 - 06:01

    It’s good that it’s compulsory.
    They should make third party insurance compulsory too

  • Ken1977 on 30/06/2019 - 14:30
    +1

    I would like to know why we pay TAC on every registration. If I have several personal vehicles I am only driving one at a time. So why do I have to pay TAC fees several times.

    • CMH on 01/07/2019 - 05:37

      Why would you need to pay road tax multiple times? You're only using the road once each time right?

    • kale chips suck on 01/07/2019 - 09:16

      I have asked them that. Their response was, effectively, since I have multiple cars on the road (in spite of it being so expensive to pay all that reg, etc) I'm obviously rich. And since I'm obviously rich it's fair and reasonable that I should pay multiple times because if I didn't then people who aren't rich and only have one car would have to pay more and that wouldn't be fair to them.

      I'm not making this up.

  • Ken1977 on 30/06/2019 - 14:38

    Also worth noting TAC is no fault medical coverage. You can be drunk, unlicensed, unregistered, on drugs, evading police, and you will be still covered by TAC. It's only about where the funding comes from, if it's not in a car then it's covered under Medicare.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join