What are you fighting for?

[R6_kid]

From reading all the 'spam' posts that have come up about the proposed ACC levy increase it would seem that many people are simply opposed to paying more for their ACC levy, whether that be $50 more or $500 more.

I think what people need to understand is that an increase maybe justified (given that the books don't balance) and that it would be better if we are seen as campaigning for a fairer amount, rather than just out and out bitching/complaining that 'we don't/can't pay upto $750+ a year for ACC levy on our rego'.

The majority of people who have taken proper action regarding the increase, such as looking at the statistics and doing some research into what we 'actually' cost etc, are already on the right path. :2thumbsup

One thought that did cross my mind is how many dangerous/reckless riders are going to be priced out of riding by the increase? In my eyes the riders who are not doing anything 'wrong' (sensible riders) are most likely able to afford the increase although they may have more trouble justifying the expense to their better half! I know a number of people that pay more in speeding tickets in a 12 month period than the proposed increase will be!

[firefighter]

Me personally?

Well the levy needs to be raised, fair enough. $200 across the board is a more plateable and reasonable ask, however what they are asking is absolutely astonishing.

It's hardly reasonable to expect people to cough up an extra $500 a year on top of what they already pay and just declaring the rise out of the blue.

ACC finding it's a gazillion dollars in deficeit "all of a sudden" then screaming out and a sudden raise in levys by $500 has pretty much gone and created an anti ACC monster. They deserve any protest action they have to put up with and I personally think someone should be held responsible for not catching this out earlier.....

It's like a child standing in front of it's parents, shitting themselves and then asking if they can go to the toilet.

[James Deuce]

You need to understand that the founding principle of ACC is a no fault system and even the chap who proposed and implemented ACC never accepted or agreed that motorcyclists needed to or should be singled out.

By far the most dangerous activities undertaken in NZ are DIY/Gardening, cooking, and bathing. They cost $610 million a year. A levy on home and contents insurance would do more to address the perceived loss that ACC makes. It isn't making a loss. It can afford us. ACC more than breaks even, largely thanks to the efforts of its investment arm. ACC are not losing money. At present even the Police are making statistics up. In the Herald article today that Squiggles was quoted in, we've gone from 16 times more likey (1600%) to 18 times (1800%) more likely to have an accident by distance travelled. Which is it?

Car passengers cost more to fix than motorcyclists. You're arguing from the a perception that is both faulty and insulting to the vast majority of motorcyclists, who aren't the fuckwits you assume them to be.

[Katman]

Personally I think we should be fighting for a fairer system. In that regard those who currently pay no ACC levy (i.e off-road bikes) should be charged a comparable levy and those who are currently paying and repeatedly claiming from ACC should be the ones to carry the burden of any increases.

[Squiggles]

In the Herald article today that Squiggles was quoted in, we've gone from 16 times more likey (1600%) to 18 times (1800%) more likely to have an accident by distance travelled. Which is it?


18 is the MoT claim in the 2008 factsheet... if Ixion is right about either claim though, they're based on a survey of 300ish riders back in 97/98... hardly relevant today given the increase in bikes and % decrease in accidents. Perhaps it should have been "Motorcycles were, in 1998, approximately 16 times more likely to be involved in an accident than car drivers for an equivalent distance travelled, based on a survey of 3xx riders" :lol:

I expect an increase, but a reasonable one and one based on good, transparent data. The cross-subsidisation argument can fuckoff, the majority accommodates the minority these days, and we're simply the easiest minority to have a go at without legislative changes.

[R6_kid]

Perhaps it should have been "Motorcycles were, in 1998, approximately 16/18 times more likely to be involved in an accident than car drivers for an equivalent distance travelled, based on a survey of 3xx riders" :lol:

That is how they teach you to present 'findings' in stage one statistics at University.

[danielle]

I personally am really farked of with the motorcyle levy increase, but am also worried with the cuts to survivor victims of sexual abuse etc


Its all bullshit

[Squiggles]

That is how they teach you to present 'findings' in stage one statistics at University.

And its alot clearer for that... given ACC couldnt tell the reporter where they came up with 16x it really shouldn't have ever been mentioned.

[Ixion]

18 is the MoT claim in the 2008 factsheet... if Ixion is right about either claim though, they're based on a survey of 300ish riders back in 97/98... hardly relevant today given the increase in bikes and % decrease in accidents. Perhaps it should have been "Motorcycles were, in 1998, approximately 16 times more likely to be involved in an accident than car drivers for an equivalent distance travelled, based on a survey of 3xx riders" :lol:

I expect an increase, but a reasonable one and one based on good, transparent data. The cross-subsidisation argument can fuckoff, the majority accommodates the minority these days, and we're simply the easiest minority to have a go at without legislative changes.

Bloody hell. The 300 odd bikes included those that weren't in use!

They asked "what vehicles does your household have". Then added up the distance travelled in each (even if zero). Totalled all the responses, and divided that distance by the number of crashes a year!

That's why the average usage for bikes worked out at 44 hours per year!

Oh, and this was based on only two days of the week!. Given that bikes get more use at weekends, ...

Moreover, the distance travelled is irrelevant. On that basis skateboards are fiendish dangerous, think of the injuries per kilometre travelled by them

If someone is looking at how dangerous something is, what they want to know is "If I ride around on one of those things, how likely am I to have a crash each year". The distance travelled is irrelevant.

[danielle]

One thought that did cross my mind is how many dangerous/reckless riders are going to be priced out of riding by the increase? In my eyes the riders who are not doing anything 'wrong' (sensible riders) are most likely able to afford the increase although they may have more trouble justifying the expense to their better half! I know a number of people that pay more in speeding tickets in a 12 month period than the proposed increase will be!

I consider myself a sensible rider, im only on my learners but thus far have done everything as carefully and safely as i can. BUT because im a 19 year old student living on minimum wage i will NOT be able to afford 500 bucks for my 150cc bike, I've also never had a speeding ticket, so think that was a gross generalisation

[caseye]

From reading all the 'spam' posts that have come up about the proposed ACC levy increase it would seem that many people are simply opposed to paying more for their ACC levy, whether that be $50 more or $500 more.

I think what people need to understand is that an increase is justified (given that the books don't balance) and that it would be better if we are seen as campaigning for a fairer amount, rather than just out and out bitching/complaining that 'we don't/can't pay upto $750+ a year for ACC levy on our rego'.

The majority of people who have taken proper action regarding the increase, such as looking at the statistics and doing some research into what we 'actually' cost etc, are already on the right path. :2thumbsup

One thought that did cross my mind is how many dangerous/reckless riders are going to be priced out of riding by the increase? In my eyes the riders who are not doing anything 'wrong' (sensible riders) are most likely able to afford the increase although they may have more trouble justifying the expense to their better half! I know a number of people that pay more in speeding tickets in a 12 month period than the proposed increase will be!

A good point/s but as things have happened at pace and we've been left standing still, ACC deserves everything we can thow it's way while this mess is sorted out.
If this happens many riders who have nurtured their bikes and included their families in their pastime are going to have to walk away. Criminally inclined and speeding ticket gathers will simply ride unregistered and of course uninsured as always.So guess what, we the ordianry riders will still cop the flak for them as always.

[MSTRS]

Personally I think we should be fighting for a fairer system. In that regard those who currently pay no ACC levy (i.e off-road bikes) should be charged a comparable levy and those who are currently paying and repeatedly claiming from ACC should be the ones to carry the burden of any increases.

Can't do that, without moving to licence-based levies. Under 'no fault' the individual is not tracked, only their input to the stats counts.
(not worded well, but I hope my meaning is clear)

[Headbanger]

I think what people need to understand is that an increase is justified (given that the books don't balance) and that it would be better if we are seen as campaigning for a fairer amount, rather than just out and out bitching/complaining that 'we don't/can't pay upto $750+ a year for ACC levy on our rego'.


I think what you need to understand is this runs contrary to the fundamentals ACC was founded and operates on, and that motorcycle owners have been singled out to be treated different from every other facet of society.

And of course the system of charging based on CC is just plain retarded.

Which is why it may look like to some that everyone is just bitching because its a hit in the pocket.

[PrincessBandit]

Increases in premiums/costs/taxes are a part of everyday life as each year progresses. People are balking at the amount of the increase. If it had been thought out sensibly, and dare I say in a more fair fashion, there would not have been anywhere near the same level of resistance as we're seeing now.

I just reckon that the perceived easiest path of picking on a group who do have a slightly less-than-desirable profile when it comes to accident statistics (combined with a perhaps-less-than-desirable public image in general to boot) appealed to them. Despite the stats screaming loud and clear that injuries in the home, sports (how could we be so blasphemous as to besmirch the god "Sport"), cyclists etc. add up even worse they wouldn't dream of picking on exemplary Mr and Mrs Everyday Joe Public.

p.s. of course they conveniently overlook the fact that motorcyclists generally are Mr and Mrs Joe Public, not some seedy lowlife breed which come lower down the caste system.

[firefighter]

I personally am really farked of with the motorcyle levy increase, but am also worried with the cuts to survivor victims of sexual abuse etc


Its all bullshit

Why the fuck are they covered by ACC anyway?

There should really be another organisation to cover this sort of thing, not the Accident Compensation Corp, nor should it cover bloody depression or all the other crap that has been lumped in, that's what the sickness benefit is for.....(should be for)

[James Deuce]

A Sportster 883 Iron is not 40% faster than a GSXR600. For example. Neither is a TRX850.

[MSTRS]

From reading all the 'spam' posts that have come up about the proposed ACC levy increase it would seem that many people are simply opposed to paying more for their ACC levy, whether that be $50 more or $500 more.



Of course we resent the proposal to gouge more from our wallets. If the amount was fairly reflected in honest, proven stats that held up under scrutiny, we still wouldn't like it. But we'd grudgingly take it on the chin. And so would all the other contributors to ACC who were being gouged as well.
But the stats aren't open, honest or proven. The figures do not stack up (as presented by ACC). And barring a relatively small increase imposed on 4 wheelers, the other recipients of the road fund are still cycling along debt-free.

[DidJit]

You need to understand that the founding principle of ACC is a no fault system...

Well said that man! :niceone: That's what bugs me most about these proposed increases as well. If it's a no fault system, then no-one should be singled out to pay more. If an increase in levies is required, it should be the same percentage increase across the board from all contributing parties.

[vifferman]

Personally, I am not that bothered by the ACC fee increase, just the size of it. But it has to be covered somehow, so one way or another I'll be paying.

As for ACC claims - I have had one lot (4 or 5 physio treatments?) for a motorcycle-related injury, and far more for other injuries. Most recent was for a back injury caused by drying myself after having a shower! Would've cost around $400 at a guess.

The biggest was caused indirectly by DIY - I was collected some tools from my crowded gargre, and slipped off the bumper bar of the SUV we had at the time, faceplanting myself into the doorframe and concrete. Had a few days off work, some after-hours A&E treatment for a smashed face, and several months of physio treatment for a wrecked rotator cuff.

[Katman]

Can't do that, without moving to licence-based levies. Under 'no fault' the individual is not tracked, only their input to the stats counts.
(not worded well, but I hope my meaning is clear)

Our 'no fault' welfare system has led to a society with an appallingly high percentage of bludgers and those who refuse to accept personal responsibility.

Those people need to be reminded that the world doesn't owe them a living.

[danielle]

Why the fuck are they covered by ACC anyway?

There should really be another organisation to cover this sort of thing, not the Accident Compensation Corp, nor should it cover bloody depression or all the other crap that has been lumped in, that's what the sickness benefit is for.....(should be for)

I wouldnt go thr mate. Yeah there should be something else to cover them, but thr aint. In my eyes if a chick gets raped, its not exactly on purpose is it. Just because a person gets raped doesnt give them a mental illness. Bloody hell.

[MSTRS]

Our 'no fault' welfare system has led to a society with an appallingly high percentage of bludgers and those who refuse to accept personal responsibility.

Those people need to be reminded that the world doesn't owe them a living.

Yes indeed. But the system used for collecting levies would need to change (for a start)

And, Vifferman....yours was obviously a vehicle-related accident. Those SUVs really need to pay their way...

[Katman]

Yes indeed. But the system used for collecting levies would need to change (for a start)



Absolutely.

I'm sick and tired of handing over my hard earned money to fix up the Pauls and Rajs of this country.

[MSTRS]

Absolutely.

I'm sick and tired of handing over my hard earned money to fix up the Pauls and Rajs of this country.

You do have a point.

[yachtie10]

Quote:
Originally Posted by firefighter View Post
Why the fuck are they covered by ACC anyway?

There should really be another organisation to cover this sort of thing, not the Accident Compensation Corp, nor should it cover bloody depression or all the other crap that has been lumped in, that's what the sickness benefit is for.....(should be for)

danielle
I wouldnt go thr mate. Yeah there should be something else to cover them, but thr aint. In my eyes if a chick gets raped, its not exactly on purpose is it. Just because a person gets raped doesnt give them a mental illness. Bloody hell.

Why wouldnt he go there?
Did you read his post?
rape is not a accident
ACC should not be a welfare system

[danielle]

Why wouldnt he go there?
Did you read his post?
rape is not a accident
ACC should not be a welfare system

Im pretty sure rape is a pretty big accident to the person it happens too? Right? And sure i agree there SHOULD be something else to cover them, but is there? So meanwhile why there isnt their funding gets cut normal people in abnormal circumstances suffer and suffer hard

[R6_kid]

It's no more an accident than someone braking into your house. Rape victims are exactly that - victims of a crime. It's not an accident, just like people failing/succeeding at suicide. Neither events are very pleasant, and neither of them are accidents.

[Ixion]

It's no more an accident than someone braking into your house. Rape victims are exactly that - victims of a crime. It's not an accident, just like people failing/succeeding at suicide. Neither events are very pleasant, and neither of them are accidents.

If someone breaks into your house and assaults you, that is covered by ACC.

If someone breaks in and just steals stuff, that is not. It is personal injury by accident.

[danielle]

Why is it then that ACC will only cover rape victims with mental illness when mental illness is not an accident. Either way the systems fucked correct?

[Ixion]

I think that their logic (don't shoot me, I'm just the messenger) is that normally rape does not leave any (long term) injuries. So, unless there is "mental injury" , there is no injury to be covered.

[R6_kid]

A Sportster 883 Iron is not 40% faster than a GSXR600. For example. Neither is a TRX850.

My 'point' was aimed at the people simply bitching about the monetary cost - not the flaws in the system, or how they intend to bracket the 'risk'. Mainly because there are a number of people that still at the point of "OMG not $250/$500/$750" and haven't bothered to look into what real route problems are - which those doing the investigation work are finding out.

I've had three bikers come up to me today and bitch about the cost, without justifying why not, simply saying that it was 'just too much money'...

[danielle]

Sucks doesnt it when you think about it. And i do agree there should be something else to cover it not ACC

[danielle]

Btw i wasnt trying to start an arguement, just trying to point out that other people are suffering to this change too

[firefighter]

I wouldnt go thr mate. Yeah there should be something else to cover them, but thr aint. In my eyes if a chick gets raped, its not exactly on purpose is it. Just because a person gets raped doesnt give them a mental illness. Bloody hell.

I'm pretty sure the rape was intentional, and yes I am going there.

I'm not saying there should'nt be funding, or that it should be cut, so don't get your knickers in a twist because you miss-interpreted me.

The sickness benefit is'nt for people with mental illnesses, it's for; sick, injured, disabled persons or pregnant women who;

•have had to reduce your hours
•have had to stop working
•are not working, or are working part-time, and find it hard to look for and do full-time work.

So really, those suffering from depression, also something I mentioned (are they less important to you than the rape victims?) and the suicide/rape etc victims should really be covered here.


Just because a person gets raped doesnt give them a mental illness. Bloody hell.

Then what's the funding for?

Mental illness does'nt just mean schizopherenia, it covers a far broader area than you obviously realise.

If your mental status has been affected, and you need councelling, then it's a mental illness, it does'nt mean your crazy, it just means you need help.

Not everone with mental illnesses either short or long term are licking windows.....

[danielle]

Like i said, i wasnt trying to start a fight just giving my opinion

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0910/S00281.htm

[DidJit]

Did somebody say, "Divide and conquer..." :whistle:

Is this the time to be discussing what should/shouldn't be covered in our imperfect system? Let's focus on what we do agree on: unfairly picking on motorcyclists is just not right. That's what is unifying us right now. Let's not fall back into our usual ways just yet. :girlfight: Once we have that particular proposal kicked into touch, we can move onto the next agenda — creating utopia.

[firefighter]

That's what is unifying us right now

All but the O.P who seems to be on an individual conquest! :lol:

Still, only one who's not on our side, not a bad effort!

[Ender EnZed]

One thought that did cross my mind is how many dangerous/reckless riders are going to be priced out of riding by the increase? In my eyes the riders who are not doing anything 'wrong' (sensible riders) are most likely able to afford the increase

Only poor people crash? I think your eyes need some work.

Wealth does not equal Sensible Riding.

[The Stranger]

From reading all the 'spam' posts that have come up about the proposed ACC levy increase it would seem that many people are simply opposed to paying more for their ACC levy, whether that be $50 more or $500 more.

I think what people need to understand is that an increase is justified (given that the books don't balance) and that it would be better if we are seen as campaigning for a fairer amount, rather than just out and out bitching/complaining that 'we don't/can't pay upto $750+ a year for ACC levy on our rego'.

The majority of people who have taken proper action regarding the increase, such as looking at the statistics and doing some research into what we 'actually' cost etc, are already on the right path. :2thumbsup

One thought that did cross my mind is how many dangerous/reckless riders are going to be priced out of riding by the increase? In my eyes the riders who are not doing anything 'wrong' (sensible riders) are most likely able to afford the increase although they may have more trouble justifying the expense to their better half! I know a number of people that pay more in speeding tickets in a 12 month period than the proposed increase will be!

No, no, no.

They can deal with the dangerous and reckless riders with the current laws.

We should be on an equal footing with others.
We should be on an equal footing with cyclists. Why not? What is their contribution?

It goes against the original concept - which it was sold to us on no fault, no blame. Ok, times change and sometimes the original concept proves flawed, so change it across the board - why sinlge only motorcycles out? Why not rugby players and cyclists etc etc etc? So if the concept must be changed keep it equitable.

User pays they say. This isn't user pays, it's fucken victim pays.
If it is user pays then let the cages pay their share - as they are now. Victim pays is against all principals of law - well the few that I know of.

If we accept that we should pay a differing portion, who's to say what that portion is? The govt that's who. This only leaves the quantum open, and if the quantum is open then it is open for review at some time in the future - oh wait, it's the future now and they are damn well trying to review it - so guess what, we'll be having this problem later - or they will just sneak it up by stealth, $50.00 per year and we'll pay it, and pay and pay and pay.

NO the principal we should be fighting for is even stevens with other users OR everyone is on the victim pays system. It should be all or nothing, to fight for anything else is to fight for communism i.e. an exercise in futility.

[PrincessBandit]

A good point/s but as things have happened at pace and we've been left standing still, ACC deserves everything we can thow it's way while this mess is sorted out.
If this happens many riders who have nurtured their bikes and included their families in their pastime are going to have to walk away. Criminally inclined and speeding ticket gathers will simply ride unregistered and of course uninsured as always.So guess what, we the ordianry riders will still cop the flak for them as always.

Unfortunately that is the way our country seems to work, in lots of areas.

The way I read the propaganda coming from the govt and ACC makes it sound like all of a sudden there is this big hole in money caused by motorcyclists. The reality is that WE are being told to pay for decades worth of screwups and bludgers dating back to before most of us were even old enough to drive/ride a vehicle.
Balu printed off a police stats (Crash Analysis System) report reckless had posted on pg 2 of "Answer from the AA, new statistics", and those stats covered the time frame of 2003 - 2008. They did make for pretty sobering reading as far as motorbikes were concerned, but how do they stack up compared to going back, say, 20 years? I read elsewhere that long term motorbikes have not increased all that much in their stat input yet car stats have trebled.
The report also pointed out that in that time frame 14% of all fatals and 18% of all serious injury of road crashes were motorcycle accidents. I am assuming they are referring to road crashes as these figures are from the MoTs "Safer Journeys" consultation document. So how are the balance of those stats made up? huh? huh?

[davereid]

ACC is using the "fairness" argument here merely as a diversion, for which many have fallen.

Its not fair that bad drivers pay the same as good drivers.
Its not fair that my mums Daihatsu costs the same as my SS V8.
Its not fair that my mum does 400km a year and I do 30,000 but we pay the same.
Its not fair that cyclists cost more than bikers but pay nothing.

ACC are just picking on bikers because they are planning on eliminating us by taxation.

The "fair" rate doesn't exist. Everyone should pay the same.

[NighthawkNZ]

It goes against the original concept - which it was sold to us on no fault, no blame. Ok, times change and sometimes the original concept proves flawed, so change it across the board - why sinlge only motorcycles out? Why not rugby players and cyclists etc etc etc? So if the concept must be changed keep it equitable.

ACC is no going broke though... it made more than enough money to cover all accidents for the year plus left over...

The problem is in 1999 they are changed from a "pay as you go" to a "Fully funded" way of operating...

[The Stranger]

ACC is using the "fairness" argument here merely as a diversion, for which many have fallen.

Its not fair that bad drivers pay the same as good drivers.
Its not fair that my mums Daihatsu costs the same as my SS V8.
Its not fair that my mum does 400km a year and I do 30,000 but we pay the same.
Its not fair that cyclists cost more than bikers but pay nothing.

ACC are just picking on bikers because they are planning on eliminating us by taxation.

The "fair" rate doesn't exist. Everyone should pay the same.

That's fair.

[The Stranger]

ACC is no going roke though... it made more than enough money to cover all accidents for the year plus left over...

The problem is in 1999 they are changed from a "pay as you go" to a "Fully funded" way of operating...

Regardless of the reason for change, change it did.
That doesn't detract from my argument - if change is to be made it should be made on an equitable basis.

[pzkpfw]

Whatever happens, this campaign is not going to make the whole ACC system change.

All we are going to achieve right now will be a limiting of the increase.


If we really want to make a change (e.g. either remove differential fees or make them fairer by getting the stats made better and getting other "minorities" to pay their way; and/or change the way vehicle fees are paid; etc. ...) we have to keep up the pressure in the long-term - to get the laws that govern ACC changed.

I'm not convinced we'll do that.

(Partly because that becomes an issue wider than motorcyclists concerns.)

[GOONR]

That's what bugs me most about these proposed increases as well. If it's a no fault system, then no-one should be singled out to pay more. If an increase in levies is required, it should be the same percentage increase across the board from all contributing parties.

I feel the same, I don't see why, under a no fault system, one group of motorised transport pay's any more / less than any other group. Work out the bill and split it evenly.

[Deceased]

From reading all the 'spam' posts that have come up about the proposed ACC levy increase it would seem that many people are simply opposed to paying more for their ACC levy, whether that be $50 more or $500 more.

I think what people need to understand is that an increase maybe justified (given that the books don't balance) and that it would be better if we are seen as campaigning for a fairer amount, rather than just out and out bitching/complaining that 'we don't/can't pay upto $750+ a year for ACC levy on our rego'.

The majority of people who have taken proper action regarding the increase, such as looking at the statistics and doing some research into what we 'actually' cost etc, are already on the right path. :2thumbsup

One thought that did cross my mind is how many dangerous/reckless riders are going to be priced out of riding by the increase? In my eyes the riders who are not doing anything 'wrong' (sensible riders) are most likely able to afford the increase although they may have more trouble justifying the expense to their better half! I know a number of people that pay more in speeding tickets in a 12 month period than the proposed increase will be!
Mate...no offence ..but you need to shake your head ...your eyeballs are stuck... read Sir Owen's comments on how a 'no blame' ACC regime has degenerated into a 'shaft who's easiest' scheme whose latest proponent is a lame conservative lightweight spoon who came back from stress leave too early. Do you see the biggest drainers of the fund - sport's people - paying their share therough theor national governing bodies? Do you see people with back injuries and women (who suck more out of ACC than guys) paying moe than others. No mate.... you don't. As the shirt says ' easy target'...We're already paying too much,. for fux sake!

sad em the the pioneer founder of the ACC d

[Keithf]

Hear Hear,

motorcyclists are taxed via rego and fuel costs and are probably equally represented in injury statistics with pushbikers who pay nothing......

that should be the point that is being promoted-not that people with motorbikes shouldn't contribute but that all road users on two wheels should be paying the same cost-then you might get something reasonable



ACC is using the "fairness" argument here merely as a diversion, for which many have fallen.

Its not fair that bad drivers pay the same as good drivers.
Its not fair that my mums Daihatsu costs the same as my SS V8.
Its not fair that my mum does 400km a year and I do 30,000 but we pay the same.
Its not fair that cyclists cost more than bikers but pay nothing.

ACC are just picking on bikers because they are planning on eliminating us by taxation.

The "fair" rate doesn't exist. Everyone should pay the same.

[Katman]

Perhaps what we should be fighting for is..........

Initially - the immediate canning of the current increase proposal...........

Followed by - a full review as to ways of introducing a fairer system of apportioning cost to all ACC users.

[Pixie]

What are you fighting for?When it is easier to be a good kiwi and bend over and say"yes please"

[k2w3]

In the immortal words of Chip Diller to Doug Neidermeyer..."Thank you Sir, may I have another".

[Pixie]

I personally am really farked of with the motorcyle levy increase, but am also worried with the cuts to survivor victims of sexual abuse etc


Its all bullshit

Everyone wants a slice of the fuckin' pie.
How about you get basic medical treatment,no income support ,no physio ,no fuckin' counselling because a bee almost stung you (it came so close you could feel the wind as it flew past).

No income support means you don't malinger and go back to work asap.If you want income protection you get insurance.
If you are psychologically damaged by your experience,start a fuckin' group.

[NighthawkNZ]

R if change is to be made it should be made on an equitable basis.


thats just it, changes don't need to be made... it just means it will take longer to than 2014 to become a fully funded system


I agree... if we are to change it need to be fair... and under a no faults all motorised vehicles on the road pay the same

[NighthawkNZ]

Perhaps what we should be fighting for is..........

Initially - the immediate canning of the current increase proposal...........

Followed by - a full review as to ways of introducing a fairer system of apportioning cost to all ACC users.

yes dropping all ACC levys and introducing a levy for being a human.

[Ender EnZed]

I'm sure there's something wrong with sticking it all on income tax but what exactly is that? (Other than: its a way harder target than motorcyclists)

[Skyryder]

Mate...no offence ..but you need to shake your head ...your eyeballs are stuck... read Sir Owen's comments on how a 'no blame' ACC regime has degenerated into a 'shaft who's easiest' scheme whose latest proponent is a lame conservative lightweight spoon who came back from stress leave too early. Do you see the biggest drainers of the fund - sport's people - paying their share therough theor national governing bodies? Do you see people with back injuries and women (who suck more out of ACC than guys) paying moe than others. No mate.... you don't. As the shirt says ' easy target'...We're already paying too much,. for fux sake!

sad em the the pioneer founder of the ACC d

Yep right on. Those that rort ACC the most are not those that are injured but the profesionals. I had some polyps taken out of my 'snore.' a few years back. One was done through the public health system and a follow up operation for the same thing was done privatley. All the specialists fees were paid by ACC. In other words if the job had been properly there would only have been the need for one op. But no there were two.
And this was common with this surgeon and problably others too.

Skyryder

[Winston001]

... read Sir Owen's comments on how a 'no blame' ACC regime has degenerated into a 'shaft who's easiest' scheme



Sir Owen Woodhouse delivered a widely respected and seminal report which led to the ACC Act 1972. It was a revolutionary piece of law. It still is.

Times change. Attitudes change. Differential levies sit comfortably with user-pays. Furthermore ACC already charges differential levies and I can't understand why no-one mentions that. Try being a shearer and see what your levy is.

Finally - no fault = no blame. It does not mean no risk. If you or I are in a high risk category then social equity suggests we pay something extra, even if it isn't the full cost.

[Brian d marge]

Im going on the Sickness benefit due to Depression caused by a non work related injury

Not being able to ride me bike due to ACC

Stephen

[Brian d marge]

Sir Owen Woodhouse delivered a widely respected and seminal report which led to the ACC Act 1972. It was a revolutionary piece of law. It still is.

Times change. Attitudes change. Differential levies sit comfortably with user-pays. Furthermore ACC already charges differential levies and I can't understand why no-one mentions that. Try being a shearer and see what your levy is.

Finally - no fault = no blame. It does not mean no risk. If you or I are in a high risk category then social equity suggests we pay something extra, even if it isn't the full cost.

but the five principles don't change

are you saying that my wife being in a high risk position ,,,The home , should pay ACC ( well her cooking my cause a bit of strife )

User pays only really benefits those who can afford to pay

ACC on large capacity's

I can afford to pay it , I am alright .... but its not a place where i want to raise my kids

A "me" orientated society

I am going the community approach and socially berate those who linger on Dole or who don't save , etc

Stephen

[NighthawkNZ]

Sir Owen Woodhouse delivered a widely respected and seminal report which led to the ACC Act 1972. It was a revolutionary piece of law. It still is.

Times change. Attitudes change. Differential levies sit comfortably with user-pays. Furthermore ACC already charges differential levies and I can't understand why no-one mentions that. Try being a shearer and see what your levy is.

Finally - no fault = no blame. It does not mean no risk. If you or I are in a high risk category then social equity suggests we pay something extra, even if it isn't the full cost.

if we start finger pointing at one group least finger point at all the other groups...

If we want to go down the finger pointing game, then lets do that.


Cyclist cost $12,573,000 yet there is no extra ACC levy to be on the road as a road user.



Pedestrians ACC payout - $24,494,000, ACC own stats show only 1 or 2 motorcycles were involved with predistrians... since the only levy pedestrians pay is ACC in PAYE (and that is only if they are working) then car drivers should be lumped with this.



Why should I pay for every sports injuiry when I don't play a sport. Sports people should pay an ACC levy to cover their injuiries.



Why should I pay for every kid that has a injuiry when I don't have any kids or want any kid/s. Parents of children should pay more ACC to cover their children than those that don't.



Why should I pay for any drunk driver, rider or pedistrian or cyclists injuries.



Why should I pay for the Cop doing a U-Turn in front of motorcyclists or the tourist the took out a group of motorcyclists on a charity run.



Why should I pay for the two cases of drunken car surfing, both cases that has happened lately.



Why should I if I get hit by a car that cuts the corner, or didn't see (or look) when its plainly their fault.



Why should I have to pay for other peoples stupid actions...

Why should I pay... because we are in a "No faults system" yet there seems to be a lot of finger pointing, and blaming "you cost X amount of dollars... we are not paying that but will pay the lawyer to proof other wise... " ACC is not really a No Faults system it never has been...

First and formost ACC is not broke and not lossing money, it never has been despite Nick Smith’s bureaucratic bullshit.

ACC had more than enough money to pay all claims last year, ACC is not broke or loosing money and has 11b in the bank and bank 1b last year (during a recesion)

The only reason for these increases is they (gooberment) want to get it fully funded by 2014 (which in theory is a good idea) I personally don't care if it takes another 20 years... instead of the proposed date of 2014.

During this transission levies will keep going up and up when in reality they don't really need too.

[sport-cruzer?]

ACC is the best thing to happen to this country, yes it's been bastardized and over abused almost to death but I don't know anyone who hasn't benefited at some time.

Sports teams and cyclists need to be left alone, theres too many fat assed kids who could use the exercise, plenty of parents won't be able to pay so the kids miss out.

Has no-one noticed we already get ripped $100 more then cars, I'ts already outrageously unfair, ACC was invented as a welfare system, the cost was to be shared equally as a nation and high risk activity's were not to be penalized because there was usually other benefits to the country.

However the current proposal is bulls*#!t and I will definitely be riding in the protest on Saturday, Nick Smith will take notice when 700-od bikes turn up at his house.

We will all know where he lives...

[NighthawkNZ]

Has no-one noticed we already get ripped $100 more then cars, I'ts already outrageously unfair, ACC was invented as a welfare system, the cost was to be shared equally as a nation and high risk activity's were not to be penalized because there was usually other benefits to the country.



Motorcyle: $252.69
Car: $168.46

ACC levies only

[sport-cruzer?]

Motorcyle: $252.69
Car: $168.46

ACC levies only

Yea, near enough. My wife and I have a car and a bike each, I'm forking out constantly as it is.