Letter to the editor by Keith McLea GM ACC

[FastBikeGear]

See how he's signed this letter. Poor bugger can't work out who he works for (Last week it was ACC Insurance now he's gone back to working for just the ACC).

Hope he can find the right building when he goes to work.

Read here (http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/3105413/Letter-Why-ACC-hikes-are-necessary)

OPINION: David Flett and Kim Naylor (Letters, Nov 24) suggest some ACC levy payers, mainly motorcyclists, are being 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 current 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

[Spratt]

Geez this guy is full of it - "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." So actually what he is saying is that all those who pay into the Earner's Account will be made to pay more to subsidise those who undertake high risk sports or outdoor activites, they won't be specifically targeting people who do the high risk activites for extra levies. So why can ACC not do this very same thing with the Motor Vehicle Account? They are a very confused bunch there, not just the GM!

[Ixion]

Is it not somewhat pitiful that he is reduced to writing a letter to the editor?

[Bald Eagle]

Is it not somewhat pitiful that he is reduced to writing a letter to the editor?

hopefully that's because they slapped his hand over the advertising spend early in the campaign of dis-information.

[Mully]

Is it not somewhat pitiful that he is reduced to writing a letter to the editor?

Yep. Pretty much.

Still, funny shit.

[DidJit]

Is it not somewhat pitiful that he is reduced to writing a letter to the editor?

Yet his letters seem to be published with some regularity...

[Ixion]

So tooa re those from motorcyclists. And his letters are quite good, short and to the point. I can understand an editor printing them.

[DidJit]

As long as it's tit for tat — sorry, I mean as long as both views of the arguement are represented.

[Dealer]

So is he saying that they plan to target cyclists and rugby players specifically? Or are they just going to raise everyones ACC levy to subsidise the cyclists and rugby players. If the second, then that means that a non rugby playing motorcyclist is getting hit twice (or thrice if you own a car too).
So if its all right to subsidise the rugby players and cyclists, why is it not ok for cars to subsidise bikes?
Can anyone out there actually work out their reasoning for this?
When they say that they are not targeting motorcyclists, yet we are the only group that has been singled out for special levies (so far).
Oh, and thanks National government, I see in todays Herald that you have caved, and lowered the proposed levies by $50, how considerate. Tui anyone?

[Dealer]

From the Herald

Moped / motorcycles to 125cc: Up from $58.97 to $236.54

Motorcycles 126cc to 600cc: Up from $252.69 to $476.81

Motorcycles above 600cc: Up from $252.69 to $698.61

Cars: Up from $168.46 to $233.97

Currently only proposed, still need to be ratified by Government.
Link here (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10612689)

[pzkpfw]

He so missed the out of the phrase "singled out".

[MSTRS]

So if its all right to subsidise the rugby players and cyclists, why is it not ok for cars to subsidise bikes?


Because rugby players and cyclists are so loved by the (stupid) masses, they will happily accept a subsidy. But we are dirty, smelly, outcasts (probably criminals, as well) so why would the lovely, genteel car drivers of this country pay towards us?

[bogan]

So is he saying that they plan to target cyclists and rugby players specifically? Or are they just going to raise everyones ACC levy to subsidise the cyclists and rugby players. If the second, then that means that a non rugby playing motorcyclist is getting hit twice (or thrice if you own a car too).
So if its all right to subsidise the rugby players and cyclists, why is it not ok for cars to subsidise bikes?
Can anyone out there actually work out their reasoning for this?
When they say that they are not targeting motorcyclists, yet we are the only group that has been singled out for special levies (so far).
Oh, and thanks National government, I see in todays Herald that you have caved, and lowered the proposed levies by $50, how considerate. Tui anyone?

the earner levy doesnt take into account whether you play sports etc so thugby player and cyclists etc will still be subsidesed by everyone else. So yeh, some of us will be getting hit thrice or more.
The only reasoning I can think of is that national are deliberately undermining the ACC no fault policy, introduce fault based levies for one minority that nobody else cares about, then once they are established use the argument that 'biker levies are fault based so yours should be too' to impose a fault based insurance scheme on NZ.

Q: Who's Next?
A: Everyone

[Mully]

Because rugby players and cyclists are so loved by the (stupid) masses, they will happily accept a subsidy. But we are dirty, smelly, outcasts (probably criminals, as well) so why would the lovely, genteel car drivers of this country pay towards us?

It's also to hard to charge rugby players and cyclists.

Where do you draw the line? Some mates wanna go have a kick around at a park - "sorry, pay the levy". Young kid gets her fist bike - "Sorry, pay the levy"

Whereas road bikes are obliged to carry a nice identifying number on the back of them - and therefore are nice and easy to charge stuff to.

[Badjelly]

You've all failed to notice the obvious solution to our problem, suggested by Mr McLea's letter: have motorcyclists pay their increased levies via the earner's levy, just like the cyclists and the rugby players!

Sorted.

[MSTRS]

You've all failed to notice the obvious solution to our problem, suggested by Mr McLea's letter: have motorcyclists pay their increased levies via the earner's levy, just like the cyclists and the rugby players!

Sorted.

But but but...that'd mean a return to one source of levies, one fund for all purposes...good idea.
Too good for them to go for.

[AD345]

See how he's signed this letter. Poor bugger can't work out who he works for (Last week it was ACC Insurance now he's gone back to working for just the ACC).

Hope he can find the right building when he goes to work.

Read here (http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/3105413/Letter-Why-ACC-hikes-are-necessary)

OPINION: David Flett and Kim Naylor (Letters, Nov 24) suggest some ACC levy payers, mainly motorcyclists, are being 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 current 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

That was MY letter he was replying to - so I figured it's only fair that I respond to his. So I've sent this:

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?

David Flett

[Pedrostt500]

Ok I geustimate that my ACC Levies will be $233.97 car, $698.61 1st bike, $476.81 2nd Bike, $1820 earners Levey = $3229.39
I live alone, no dependants, Don't cycle, don't play Rugby, Not a Mountain Climber, so it would be wort it if I got a Refund at the end of the year if I didn't have a ACC Claim of any sort over the year.

[dpex]

Is it not somewhat pitiful that he is reduced to writing a letter to the editor?

That made me laugh. Well spotted Ix.