John Judge says it's unfair that other motorists subsidise Nick Smith's ACC levies

[FastBikeGear]

John Judge stated yesterday that it's unfair that other motorists are subsidising the ACC levies of people like Nick Smith.

(source: http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/3111945/Bikers-ACC-levy-lift-pared)

"At its heart it doesn't seem very fair ... that the poorest people in the community would subsidise the people with the highest incomes in terms of that income-replacement insurance as far as motor vehicles are concerned."

Now I am not one of the poorest people in the community, but I sure earn less than either Nick Smith or John keys. Paying 80% of my wage is a hell of a lot cheaper than paying 80% of Nick Smiths wage.

Lets have a call for every motorist to stop subsidising Nick Smiths ACC levy. The simple facts of the matter are that when/if he has an accident ACC pays 80% of his wage.

Income replacement makes up over 40% of ACC payouts! IF the injury is the result of a motorvehicle accident this is paid out of the motor vehicle account.

Nick Smith and John Key present a higher risk cost to ACC than 90% of other motorists. In fact their financial risk is many times greater than that of motorcyclists.

Other lower income motorists should not be subsidising Nick Smith and John Key

According to Nick Smith those who represent a higher financial risk to ACC should pay more.

Nick and John you bludgers, pay your share before you point the finger at motorcyclists.

Questions
How many people in the ACC earn over $250,000?
How many people in the ACC earn over $150,000?

Nick and john 90% of motorists are subsidising your risk. You need to shut up and pay your fair share!

[Hanne]

ERC ERC ERC!!!!!!!!


Incredibly, ACC told ONE News only one person in the corporation could comment, and he was in meetings all day Tuesday.

But they gave an illustration of why the levies must go up.

If a middle aged biker earning $80,000 a year breaks his back in a motorbike crash, the cost of care for the first three years is estimated at nearly $800,000, rising to over $4 million over his lifetime.

That is to cover the cost of spinal unit rehabilitation, home and child help and income compensation.

complete article here (http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/bikers-vow-keep-fighting-acc-hikes-3209862)

ACC are USING ERC to justify levy increases!!!!!!

(This is the third time I have mentioned this in one of the ACC threads but it is TOTALLY relevant right now, particularly seeing as 40% of the costs from the Motor Vehicle Account ARE Earnings Related Costs - that figure from the Minister, 30/11/09)

[Ixion]

Hold this thought for a couple of hours. I have relative costs, ERC, rehab etc for bikes (and cars), and by capacity class. Will post them up shortly

[FastBikeGear]

Hold this thought for a couple of hours. I have relative costs, ERC, rehab etc for bikes (and cars), and by capacity class. Will post them up shortly

Les it would also be nice if you had the relative costs of ERC per salary. This would allow us to show that Nick and John are being subsidised by my mother and everyone else just like John Judge says.

[FastBikeGear]

Questions
How many people in the ACC earn over $250,000?
How many people in the ACC earn over $150,000?



(source: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/3107817/ACC-eyes-quad-bikes)

"Publication of ACC's hard-nosed measures is bad timing for the state insurer. As it prepares to slash entitlements, it was revealed that the wages bill for ACC staff in the last year had blown out from $187m to $217m. While the government preaches restraint in the public sector, two ACC executives are now being paid more than $500,000 a year, with eight others on salaries of $300,000 or more. A further 18 ACC executives are taking home between $200,000 and $300,000"

Lets assume John Judge who it looks might be paid $500,000 a year has a car accident and gets hurt.

He pays the same ACC as any other car owner into the motor vehicle account, but like everyone else he gets 80% ERC for 20 years paid for out of the motor vehickle account

How much would that be...

Lets see $500,000 x 80% x 20 = $8,000,000 with inflation adjustment this figure more than doubles.


Lets say the average wage earner $27976 (source: NZ Income Survey, 2009 June Quarter). suffers the same fate. How much does that cost out of the motorvehicle account?

hmm lets see

$27,976 x 80% x 20 = $447,616

So lets see John Judge pays exaclty the same ACC levies into the ACC motorvehicle account as the average new Zealander but gets a 17.8 times the payout from the same motorvehicle account.

No wonder John Judge is currently saying the scheme is unfair! If he was really concerned about thsi he would be proposing that all ERC be paid out of the work account.

[ckai]

hang on a minute...John judge is saying the good working folk are subsidising the high earners? Isn't this biting the hand that feeds you? Shouldn't we be saying to Dick and Johnny boy "it's OK we've got your back. We'll subsidise you if you subsidise us".

this is getting really stupid. So basically, the tactic is to get everyone bitching about everyone else and how much I pay for you. So then we turn around and say "fuck it, I'm paying my own way".

It'`s not fucking user pays!

I don't give a shit if I pay for someone else. That's what ACC was and should be. Spreading the cost over everyone so it's AFFORDABLE for everyone.

[yachtie10]

But isnt there a limit on the salary payout

I think it is $85178 of which only 80% is payed out

makes John Judges argument irrelevant for very highly paid people

[FastBikeGear]

It'`s not fucking user pays!


Yes it is. Poeple who present a high financial risk have been paying higher ACC levies for years both through their worker leveis (Which don't contribute to ERC payouts for motorvehicle accidents) and through different ACC levy rates for different types of vehicles.

[davereid]

I don't give a shit if I pay for someone else. That's what ACC was and should be. Spreading the cost over everyone so it's AFFORDABLE for everyone.

The ERC component of accidents should be funded by income tax, thus higher earners, who are insured for more, pay more.

[Ixion]

Hold this thought for a couple of hours. I have relative costs, ERC, rehab etc for bikes (and cars), and by capacity class. Will post them up shortly

Sorry. I got hijacked

Cost breakdown is

> 600cc.. ERC 35%...Social Rehabilitation....33%....Other Cost....32%
125-600.........40%..................................3 1%......................29%
Other * .........24%..................................60%. .....................19%

* Other , because some claims have meaningless cc ratings (I don't know of a 5000 cc bike!) : and mopeds complicate matters, ACC are now lumping them all in with bikes, but the historical data, and MoT , classify them separately . I've included all under 125 or meaningless in other

This is percentage that each cost type forms , on average, of the total claim (fully funded).

As expected , big bikes, ERC is a bigger component of cost. Small bikes , Social Rehabilitaton (mainly medical treatment) is far the biggest compenent- they are more likely to be non long term injuries (fell off my scooter , road rash and bruises; ditched my Hog, broke my back). I might take a gues sthat the 600cc class has higher ERC because a proportion of the big bikes will be Harleys and such, and may have a significant proportion of retired riders - no ERC.

I don't understand "relative costs of ERC per salary" ? ERC is always 80% of pre injury earnings ; and the earners account is a flat percentage of salary - currently about 1%, recommended to rise to 2%. There is a cap on both the levy and the erc payment - correlates to a salary of about $100000.

[ckai]

Yes it is. Poeple who present a high financial risk have been paying higher ACC levies for years both through their worker leveis (Which don't contribute to ERC payments for motorvehicles) and through different ACC levy rates for different types of vehicles.

arr yes, was concentrating on vehicle levies and forgetting about income related.


The ERC component of accidents should be funded by income tax, thus higher earners, who are insured for more, pay more.

see this would be logic. I've mentioned similar. Divide payouts from the sources you receive them from. Like roading getting funded by petrol tax instead of going to parliamentary holidays.

Na - will never happen. Makes sense too much.

[ckai]

a little sidetracked but i was looking over the acc form from my crash and no where does is say "what type of vehicle were you driving" or"what was the cc rating".

Have i missed a form that gets filled out by someone else? The ambo wrote "fell off bike" on mine.

[Ixion]

Nope. It doesn't.

That's why the cc classifiaction is so shonky. The ACC rely on trying to cross match the claim to the police records of teh crash. The Police SOMETIMES write the cc on the crash report. And SOMETIMES even get it right. And SOMETIMES ACC manage to make a successful match. Sometimes.

[FastBikeGear]

Sorry. I got hijacked

Cost breakdown is

> 600cc.. ERC 35%...Social Rehabilitation....33%....Other Cost....32%
125-600.........40%..................................3 1%......................29%
Other * .........24%..................................60%. .....................19%


As expected , big bikes, ERC is a bigger component of cost.

I'm missing something here because your showing ERC for bigger bikes (over 600CC) as being 35% of the cost which is a lower component of cost compared to smaller bikes (125-600cc) which your showing as 40%

Is there a typo or am I confused?

[Ixion]

Nope , that's what it shows. I did speculate that a lot of Harleys are ridden by people who are retired from the work force, therefore no ERC.

Another possibility is that Harleys, again, are ridden by older riders, who don't bounce so well - hence medical costs are higher. (its a percentage so higfher costs in one area mean a lower percentage in others)

[FastBikeGear]

Nope , that's what it shows. I did speculate that a lot of Harleys are ridden by people who are retired from the work force, therefore no ERC.

Another possibility is that Harleys, again, are ridden by older riders, who don't bounce so well - hence medical costs are higher. (its a percentage so higfher costs in one area mean a lower percentage in others)

So yet again Nick Smith is drawing a very long bow. God he would have been fearful at Agincourt.

[Ixion]

+Broke it down more finely

1341+ cc , ERC is 44%
1000 to 1340 is 42%

But 750 to 1000 is only 27%

Bear in mind this is more complex than it may seem.

It also relates to the severity of the crash. Since ACC don't pay the first two weeks off work, a more "minor" crash may cost very little in ERC. Gravel rash for istance won't keep you off work for long - hurts like hell but not much hospital time. So, high medical costs, lower ERC

Maybe the 600 riders are hard riders, and when they crash they seriously munt themselves.

The 750 to 900, that tends to be fairly experienced riders, who are too sedate to want a litre bike. Maybe when they crash it's less spectacular, so more medical, less erc?

[Subike]

* Other , because some claims have meaningless cc ratings (I don't know of a 5000 cc bike!) : and mopeds complicate matters, ACC are now lumping .

Boss Hog V8 bikes,
and it could be inclusive of V8 trikes

[Ixion]

Possible. I'm not sure what happens with trikes. interesting point.