PDA

View Full Version : In A Perfect World



dpex
20th November 2009, 20:38
In A Perfect World

In a perfect world, where every man, woman and child adheres to the principles set out first by Plato then reaffirmed in the works of Ayn Rand, every person would adhere to the concept of cooperative selfishness.

But to arrive at this perfect world, where every citizen was sufficiently educated and emotionally capable of putting aside all negative influences which now contain them, we would have to obliterate mankind and start again; with just two.

But how would we select these two? Who would be the arbiter? God? I don’t think so. He made a mess of the last pairing so I see no reason to believe he’d get it right on the second attempt.

The fact is; we live in a world peopled by imperfect beings.

Eleven billion folk, each with a slightly to significantly different point of view.

Thus to have all agree to any one contract is an impossibility.

Therefore we eschewed the concept of oligarchies (Kings, Queens and other sundry beggars) and allowed the invocation of governments; folk we came to elect believing they would do the best for the most, knowing that no matter their best there would always be the disenfranchised.

And it was from this morass of departing views that Sir Owen Woodhouse conceived ACC.

An utterly brilliant scheme.

A scheme so good, in fact, that The President of America is working overtime to introduce, and for one reason only. Mr Obarma has realised that the lawyers are the only ones who truly profit from litigation, not the victims.

So here’s the President of the United States Of America seriously considering the NZ ACC system, while our very own Prime Minister is trying to figure out how to remodel ACC in the American way….ergo, privatise it and therefore reembroil Kiwis in litigation.

You see, ACC cannot be privatised unless it is reformed and privatised into a pure insurance programme unless the victims of events are allowed to sue the agressors.

And we know where that leads. Today it is clear negligence, tomorrow it is a cow suing McDonalds for a coffee-scorched fanny, or a biker who upsets a concerned mother of three because he passed her and scared her and her children and, therefore can reasonably claim a cause of action through the courts….That is the American way.

That is the way Obarma is going to stop by introducing NZ’s ideal, ACC, presuming he lives long enough.

Do you see the point here? We have to fight with all we have to retain ‘OUR’ ACC, exactly as Sir Owen designed.

It is not an insurance scheme.

It is a compensatory scheme designed to remove the right of lawyers to suck the innocent into litigation.

It is a no fault scheme. Sure, that means dickheads being dickheads get paid out. But they pay in pain, so we can all feel a little bit of happiness about that.

We must fight to not just preserve ACC. We must fight to have it returned to the original ideal of no-fault.

In that way there can be no targeted levies, there can be no increased levies for certain sectors of industry.

How do we get this?

Simple.

We demand an increase in GST, by 2.5%, and have that money used expressly for all ACC claims.

How do we achieve this?

Simple. 5,000 bikers started the programme. Now we just have to get a few more million Kiwis to understand how important it is that we return to the original ethic od ACC, as set out by Sir Owen.

How do we achieve this?

Simple.

We start acting like men…and I use that term in the loosest form….and follow the French and Italians by making life so unbearable for Smith and his cohorts, that they back off.

Being sweet and pleasant, and ever-so concerned about who we might offend next will not cut it

stify
20th November 2009, 20:56
We demand an increase in GST, by 2.5%, and have that money used expressly for all ACC claims.






hey why don't we make it a 25% increase to GST to cover...blah blah blah......ummm that sounds like a stupid idea...really stupid

Laxi
20th November 2009, 21:05
the fact remains that ACC collected more revenue than they paid out last year, their reported loss is just smoke and mirrors

mashman
20th November 2009, 21:14
Sorry dpex, but the fact remains, we are being turned over like last years soggy lettuce to make way for a new culture, a new New Zealand... and not the one that makes you feel :love:. we should not be quibbling over cost, we should be enforcing our rights!

Winston001
20th November 2009, 21:35
LOL anyone who can combine Plato and Ayn Rand on a KB thread gets a bling from me for sheer chutzpah. :2thumbsup

ready4whatever
21st November 2009, 09:38
Being sweet and pleasant, and ever-so concerned about who we might offend next will not cut it

+1. You don't get anywhere in life by being nice. Thats why alot of rich guys are pricks, they dont turn into them, thats how they got there

p.dath
21st November 2009, 10:37
the fact remains that ACC collected more revenue than they paid out last year, their reported loss is just smoke and mirrors

It depends on weather you want people in the future to pay for injuries that were incurred today.

At the moment, ACC want to be fully funded. So some of the accidents they paid out for last year they'll still be paying out for in 20 years, maybe even longer.

ACC has been running around 25 years (started 1974). So either the premium needs to keep increasing every year until an entire generation has been under cover - because you have to keep paying for those people injured sometime ago, or you move to a fully funded model and accept a much higher premium for a couple of decades (as you have to catch up on the payments that were not previously being collected for those already long term injured) and then hopefully they should stabilise again at a lower amount.

Either way, ACC will be needing to collect some more money. Just a matter of when. However in one generations time is shouldn't matter too much which way we go I think.

Bald Eagle
21st November 2009, 10:59
It depends on weather you want people in the future to pay for injuries that were incurred today.

At the moment, ACC want to be fully funded. So some of the accidents they paid out for last year they'll still be paying out for in 20 years, maybe even longer.

ACC has been running around 25 years (started 1974). So either the premium needs to keep increasing every year until an entire generation has been under cover - because you have to keep paying for those people injured sometime ago, or you move to a fully funded model and accept a much higher premium for a couple of decades (as you have to catch up on the payments that were not previously being collected for those already long term injured) and then hopefully they should stabilise again at a lower amount.

Either way, ACC will be needing to collect some more money. Just a matter of when. However in one generations time is shouldn't matter too much which way we go I think.

Given that they have three years worth of their total running costs in the bank the 'fully funded' model is just an accountants bollocks.

They don't need more money to fund 0.3% of their business, which is the toal motor vehicle account. Or as someone made comment here in another thread why are they worrying about the change down the couch

Winston001
21st November 2009, 19:28
Given that they have three years worth of their total running costs in the bank the 'fully funded' model is just an accountants bollocks.


Not bollocks unfortunately, just reality.

I know a lad in a wheelchair as a result of an accident when he was 19. He'll be supported by ACC for at least another 30 years. That is a longterm liability which we either build up now, or our kids will be paying it. There are less working taxpayers every year so the reality is there won't be enough money from tax. Exactly the same problem with superannuation.

Conquiztador
21st November 2009, 20:01
So let's put our thinking hat on (the one with that propeller, I LOVE that one, it charges up my brain using windpower. The only thing I need to add is some ice, Dry and a drop of JD and I can fix anything!)

Right...

Facts:
- We have a small population.
- We will soon have many more retired people
- Our workforce is not increasing at same rate as the ones needing support
- We only really have two things to sell: Dairy industry and fruit (ok, so there is wine, boats etc, but really, they are just peanuts)
- We will need $$'s to support all the retired, the sick, schools etc.

So what to do?

Here some of the ways this can be achieved:
- Increase retirement age from 65 to 68.
- Increase GST to 15%
- Give small businesses tax cuts. Even no tax to starters so they can get established.
- Give exporters tax cuts so they keep on exporting and keep on manufacturing in NZ.
- Give overseas companies incentives to establish them self in NZ so they will employ NZ's.
- Make it hard to import and sell cheap crap from 3'rd world countries that kill NZ industry!
- Give OSH a once over so it does not get in the way (and cost heaps to employers) as now!

And I am sure after one more JD I come up with even better ideas...

scissorhands
22nd November 2009, 10:49
I have my finger on the button. Tell me when oh lord! let me be your servant