Dom-post this morning (28 Nov)

[wingrider]

the letters to the editor contains a reply to two previous individuals.
i dont have time to cut and paste it ( perhaps someone else may be able to.)

My reply is as follows

Thoughts please

In response to Kieth McLea General Manager ACC (letters 28th November).

Firstly it was your department that singled out Motorcyclists as bearing the highest rise in levies to be imposed, This was done in all media releases from your department and the Minister with little or no mention to other proposals.

What did you expect our response to be?

You now state that you are also raising levies on “High Risk” others like Cyclists and Rugby Players through the earners levy. You are therefore admitting that you intend to penalise Motorcyclists twice.

With no disrespect to the others mentioned, there would be a much higher level of Non-Earners within those two groups as apposed to Motorcyclists. Also these two groups represent a much higher cost per injury than a motorcyclist as per your own department’s statistics. With (little or no) contribution as a direct levy payable,does the amount of cross subsidy from all other levies approach the $77 sum you state is paid to motorcyclist from car drivers?

Playing rugby or riding a cycle is a lifestyle choice enjoyed by many. Just as Motorcycle riding is.

ACC was never intended to segregate user groups. It was always intended to be where one person assisted the other should they have an accident, irrespective of their chosen lifestyle, occupation or circumstance. Fairness, affordable and equality.

Your other comments on investments, income and sustainability have been discredited by many using your own published statistics.

With your affiliation by way of your appointment by the National party, the only creditable statement you could now offer the public is.
“I resign, and will be gone by lunchtime”.

[MSTRS]

You now state that you are also raising levies on “High Risk” others like Cyclists and Rugby Players through the earners levy. You are therefore admitting that you intend to penalise Motorcyclists twice.

With (little to) no direct levy on rugby etc, I wonder if the amount they are subsidised by all the non-participants will be approaching $77...


With your affiliation by way of your appointment by the National party, the only creditable statement you could now offer the public is.
“I resign, and will be gone by lunchtime”.
:clap:

[nothingflash]

With no disrespect to the others mentioned, there would be a much higher level of unemployed within those two groups as apposed to Motorcyclists.

Hi there - I think this would be difficult to prove...

[NighthawkNZ]

Hi there - I think this would be difficult to prove...

would be just as difficult to dis proove it as well... ;)


but I do agree with yah

[crazyhorse]

I agree too

[red mermaid]

When he talks about rugby players I think he may be referring to the large playing group in the main, eg: All Blacks, Super 14 teams, NPC teams.

You only have to look at the large support group they have for there teams with trainers, physio's, etc to see where a large chunk of ACC payments are going.

[Nasty]

When he talks about rugby players I think he may be referring to the large playing group in the main, eg: All Blacks, Super 14 teams, NPC teams.

You only have to look at the large support group they have for there teams with trainers, physio's, etc to see where a large chunk of ACC payments are going.

I agree they would be talking about professional paid players.

[wingrider]

First post edited. to reflect your comments

[NighthawkNZ]

When he talks about rugby players I think he may be referring to the large playing group in the main, eg: All Blacks, Super 14 teams, NPC teams.

You only have to look at the large support group they have for there teams with trainers, physio's, etc to see where a large chunk of ACC payments are going.

I believe the All Blacks and most of the Super 14 and professional have their own physio's etc which isn't coming out of ACC but being paid for by the regional clubs and NZRU etc...

My guess is most of the rugby accidents on the ACC bill would be school and non professional levels

[BMWST?]

I believe the All Blacks and most of the Super 14 and professional have their own physio's etc which isn't coming out of ACC but being paid for by the regional clubs and NZRU etc...

My guess is most of the rugby accidents on the ACC bill would be school and non professional levels

agreed and there are a LOT of people who play rugby,prolly as many as there are motorcyclists.If you include rugby league the number must be huge.AND its a contact sport where by definition you are LIKELY to be injured.

[wingrider]

I believe the All Blacks and most of the Super 14 and professional have their own physio's etc which isn't coming out of ACC but being paid for by the regional clubs and NZRU etc...

My guess is most of the rugby accidents on the ACC bill would be school and non professional levels

Thats what I thought as well.

[NONONO]

With your affiliation by way of your appointment by the National party, the only creditable statement you could now offer the public is.
“I resign, and will be gone by lunchtime”.
Nice, very nice.

[oldrider]

With your affiliation by way of your appointment by the National party, the only creditable statement you could now offer the public is.
“I resign, and will be gone by lunchtime”.
Nice, very nice.

I enjoyed that little "left jab, right cross, left hook, combination" too! :lol: Good on you, it definitely "was" very nice!

[Pedrostt500]

We should also Bann rugby, all who play thsi now illegal game shall have their Knee Caps broken.

[NighthawkNZ]

We should also Bann rugby, all who play thsi now illegal game shall have their Knee Caps broken.

bring back bull rush... :shifty::mellow:

[wingrider]

I enjoyed that little "left jab, right cross, left hook, combination" too! :lol: Good on you, it definitely "was" very nice!

Wan't meant to be any left hook.
I wanted it delivered in good old kiwi fashion.

On the end of a baseball bat, aimed fair between the eyes

[Conquiztador]

Would like to see the initial information all this is relating to.

My comment here: ACC is NOT doing the job it was set out up to do. Main part what ACC is supposed to be involved in is Accident Prevention. If you consider that in the past the funds available for ACC has been enough to cover it's costs and nothing has changed re how ACC does get those funds (actually it has, ACC has increased the levies for all...) but now there is supposedly not enough $$'s to cover injuries, then one could safely draw the conclusion that the only thing ACC is doing is paying for injuries and increasing it's overheads therefore needing more money to run what it does.

If ACC was actively decreasing the chances of the poulation to become injured, then the costs per person in NZ should, by my simple logic, decrease. As the population increases and vehile registrations increase and petrol use increases there should be more money to cover it all.

[Swoop]

When he talks about rugby players I think he may be referring to the large playing group in the main, eg: All Blacks, Super 14 teams, NPC teams.
As fully paid "professionals" they should not be bludging off of the public system. Cunts.

bring back bull rush... :shifty::mellow:
Damn right!
(I know of one school that still allows it... rural area though!)

[been_there]

We should also Bann rugby, all who play thsi now illegal game shall have their Knee Caps broken.

We should also ban forums, as we could get OSI (RSI) from typing bullshit! :whocares:

[p.dath]

I believe the All Blacks and most of the Super 14 and professional have their own physio's etc which isn't coming out of ACC but being paid for by the regional clubs and NZRU etc...

It would be interesting to know if any of the clubs get direct funding from ACC.

[Ixion]

You now state that you are also raising levies on “High Risk” others like Cyclists and Rugby Players through the earners levy


Wait, wait, what? Did he really say that - 'Acc are raising levies on high risk others -- through the earners levy.'

Cos at present , the earners levy is a flat rate. You pay the ame (about 1% odd) whether you are a granny in a rocking chair or a jihad suicide bomber trainee.

So if he says that they are going to change the earners levy to target high risk , non-road groups, then that is a very significant change .

Is it possible he's let something slip?

Does anyone have the actual quote?

[wingrider]

Original quote scanned from dom-post

Why ACC hikes are necessary

David Rett and Kirn Naylor (Letters,
Nov 24) suggest some ACC levy
payers, mainly motorcyclists, are be-
ing singled out for levy increases.

That's not true. ACC proposes
increases for almost all levy payers
this year. That will include others
with high risks, such as cyclists or
rugby players, who will pay
increased levies through the
earners' levy that all workers pay to
cover non-work injuries. Mr Flett
asks why ACC is increasing levies
when it has investment assets of $11
billion. The answer is that these
assets are needed to cover ACC's
$24b in future liabilities.
ACC uses its investment and levy
income not just to cover new claims
each year but also to cover the
ongoing costs of previous claims.
ACC's future liabilities are growing
faster every year than its investment
assets, meaning increased income
also has to come from levies.
ACC is, of course, also trying to
control the liability growth.

Kim Naylor suggests levies have
reached too high a level. ACC has
acknowledged the increases might
be unpalatable, especially in the cur-
rent economic climate. However, we
remain convinced that levy
increases of this scale are needed to
ensure the scheme's sustainability.
KEITH McLEA
General manager, ACC

I note he singes off with no mention now of ACC Insurance.

[Ixion]

Hm

In that case either Mr McLea is being ingenuous, suggetsing that rugby players , as high risk groups , cover that roisk through their earners levy. In which case, why should not we also?

Or, he has let an intention slip.

either way , we can use it.

Mr Smith, Oh Minister , a wee question, Mr McLea says ....

[Naki Rat]

Loosely related to this NewstalkZB was fielding calls on the possibility of cyclists being charged a toll to use a proposed under-bridge cycle lane on the Auckland Harbour bridge. Don't know what the discussion was based on but there were mumblings of cycle registration being introduced to enable tolls to be levied.

May be nothing more than the radio host flying a kite, but it seemed a little too pointed to just have been plucked out of the air :whistle:

[wingrider]

Would like to see the initial information all this is relating to.

My comment here: ACC is NOT doing the job it was set out up to do. Main part what ACC is supposed to be involved in is Accident Prevention. If you consider that in the past the funds available for ACC has been enough to cover it's costs and nothing has changed re how ACC does get those funds (actually it has, ACC has increased the levies for all...) but now there is supposedly not enough $$'s to cover injuries, then one could safely draw the conclusion that the only thing ACC is doing is paying for injuries and increasing it's overheads therefore needing more money to run what it does.

If ACC was actively decreasing the chances of the poulation to become injured, then the costs per person in NZ should, by my simple logic, decrease. As the population increases and vehile registrations increase and petrol use increases there should be more money to cover it all.

yep, there is no mention of expenditure on prevention. Just seems to be pointed on revenue gathering for them gazing into a crystal ball.

[NighthawkNZ]

Hm

In that case either Mr McLea is being ingenuous, suggetsing that rugby players , as high risk groups , cover that roisk through their earners levy. In which case, why should not we also?


Since I don't play rugby... heck I don't even watch it on TV... since I don't bungy jump, ski, jump out of planes, run, box, nor do I skate board,

actually the most dangerous thing in my mind is not when I am riding but crossing the bloody street,

So do I still have to pay the higher PAYE Levy...

ACC has to recombine the accounts for a start and has come up with a better way of collecting its levy and as I have suggested... drop all levy's and then put on GST... this way you still pay ACC even if you are on ACC...the dole or any benefit

This way it works out to be a fair system for every one, this way it covers every one and hell they would be fully funded in a year or two, and it is spread out over the entire community... the older are still paying ACC, tourists are covered, you have kids you will be paying more for them as you buy more stuff for them... it will still be on fuel, oil, and even still on your rego and Wof etc as basically every thing you buy you can ACC... Sports players will be paying it on all there gear and food and every thing the club buys and or the player buys...

It means the entire community contributes to ACC not just a select few... and would impossible to work out how much any one or group has contributed to ACC (which is the way it should be)

The method of collection is already in place and the IRD goons and treasury do the rest to pay ACC... It also means that it would be very hard to privatise this way... but hell why would you want to as it the only government department making money

[Ixion]

Since I don't play rugby... heck I don't even watch it on TV... since I don't bungy jump, ski, jump out of planes, run, box, nor do I skate board,

actually the most dangerous thing in my mind is not when I am riding but crossing the bloody street,

So do I still have to pay the higher PAYE Levy...

..

Yes , you do.

As do I . And that's the evil cross subsidisation that Mr McLea waxes wrath about.

[MSTRS]

That's not true. ACC proposes increases for almost all levy payers this year. That will include others with high risks, such as cyclists or rugby players, who will pay increased levies through the earners' levy that all workers pay to cover non-work injuries.
And just how are they to know which earners play what sport etc?
So every earner will pay more, and subsidise those who partake in 'risky' activities. And ACC is fine with that, except they went to great pains to tell the public just how much they were 'unfairly subsidising motorcyclists'.
FFS - talk about a bob each way...

[NighthawkNZ]

Yes , you do.

As do I . And that's the evil cross subsidisation that Mr McLea waxes wrath about.

I know and thats why I we have to stick to our guns on this issue... there must be a fairer way of the levy collection

I cross subsidise every one else but nobody wants subsidise me...




You want to paint your own house? I'll help you if you fall off your ladder.
You like your kids to help in the kitchen? I'll help you if they cut themselves.
You like playing rugby? I'll help you when the scrum collapses on your neck.
You like cycling? I'll help you when the car "didn't see you".
I like riding my bike. Will you help me, if I need it?

[wingrider]

Seems like its the never ending ball of string or each hole ya dig produces more worms.

I think the worms are squirming. Every time they open their mouths or put pen to paper they are creating more crap.
And the're running out of places to hide cause they keeping shitting in their own nest.

What about dumping the whole pile of evidence we have onto John Campbell or
Mark Sainsbury's desk and telling them to put it before the public, no holds barred.

[AD345]

Original quote scanned from dom-post

Why ACC hikes are necessary

David Rett and Kirn Naylor (Letters,
Nov 24) suggest some ACC levy
payers, mainly motorcyclists, are be-
ing singled out for levy increases.

That's not true. ACC proposes
increases for almost all levy payers
this year. That will include others
with high risks, such as cyclists or
rugby players, who will pay
increased levies through the
earners' levy that all workers pay to
cover non-work injuries. Mr Flett
asks why ACC is increasing levies
when it has investment assets of $11
billion. The answer is that these
assets are needed to cover ACC's
$24b in future liabilities.
ACC uses its investment and levy
income not just to cover new claims
each year but also to cover the
ongoing costs of previous claims.
ACC's future liabilities are growing
faster every year than its investment
assets, meaning increased income
also has to come from levies.
ACC is, of course, also trying to
control the liability growth.

Kim Naylor suggests levies have
reached too high a level. ACC has
acknowledged the increases might
be unpalatable, especially in the cur-
rent economic climate. However, we
remain convinced that levy
increases of this scale are needed to
ensure the scheme's sustainability.
KEITH McLEA
General manager, ACC

I note he singes off with no mention now of ACC Insurance.

Well - it has inspired me to make a reply:

To the editor

I note Mr McLea has taken the time to reply to some of the points I raised and I think him for it. As usual, however, the devil lies in the (unsaid) details.
Two of his assertions bear closer examination. The first that motorcyclists are only amongst a raft of levy payers facing increases. The unsaid detail is that only motorcyclists are being faced with increases of over 300% and they are the ONLY levy payers still recommended to have an increase designed to hit the 2014 timeline for full funding. All other payers in the motor vehicles account have had their timeline pushed out to 2019.

The second assertion is that the 11 billion dollar investments only go part way to meeting 24 billion dollars of liability. The unsaid detail is that the liability is only a future PROJECTED liability based on a range of assuptions including an investment return using current recession-hit rates of return. I cannot speak to Mr McLea's pessimism about any economic recovery but the fact remains that the liability could quite easily be less. As a universal publically funded compensation scheme it would seem unlikely that ACC's income stream is going to suddenly dry up.
That only becomes a risk if it was sold to become a private insurance scheme.
Surely not?

AD345