Rip off Smith spouting shyte again

[Brian d marge]

On the news saying there wont be anymore increases as people are financially suffering enough , and that the ACC is clawing its way back from the HUGE debt it has

PLEASE PEOPLE GET RID OF THEM


Stephen

[MSTRS]

The debt? The one that isn't real? That exists on paper only? Because of the way they show their liabilities?

Same as saying...'You know that mortgage you have? Well, you have to pay it all this year. Yep - all of it."

That kind of debt?

[Brian d marge]

The debt? The one that isn't real? That exists on paper only? Because of the way they show their liabilities?

Same as saying...'You know that mortgage you have? Well, you have to pay it all this year. Yep - all of it."

That kind of debt?

thats the one !

the one needed to privatise ACC

Stephen

Ps Emailed Jim Mora about it but he is choosing to ignore it ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

[Maha]

Nick has just become an 'Easy Target' well, an easier one, he always did have 'Pick me' stamped on his fore head.

[Brian d marge]

Nick has just become an 'Easy Target' well, an easier one, he always did have 'Pick me' stamped on his fore head.
but he makes it so much easier by following the party line , not thinking ,,,,and opening his gob

Stephen

[rainman]

PLEASE PEOPLE GET RID OF THEM



Righto cap'n, you can count on me to play my part in their downfall! :yes:

[puddytat]

I'll help too.... Ill tie him to the post & on the one next to him will be his mate Jerry......
then the next one'll be:scratch::psst:

[Winston001]

The debt? The one that isn't real? That exists on paper only? Because of the way they show their liabilities?

Same as saying...'You know that mortgage you have? Well, you have to pay it all this year. Yep - all of it."

That kind of debt?

Life insurance companies have to cover the future risk of people who haven't died yet. Why would ACC be any different?? :shit:

[Brian d marge]

Life insurance companies have to cover the future risk of people who haven't died yet. Why would ACC be any different?? :shit:

Got a feeling they , don't but could be wrong ,,,,

ACC is different because it ISN'T an INSURANCE , its a pot of money they whole society can dip into , when we ( or others ) screw up

we ALL contribute and WE ALL benefit ( even Filthy Mac Rich. or toolongaloafa)


Stephen

[riffer]

Yes it is rather irritating. We should have all seen it coming when they changed the accounting rules a while back but as usual, you can never quite anticipate exactly how it's going to screw you when they do this stuff. We haven't even started to see the impact of the ETS in any of this yet. Just wait until that starts to happen.

And sorry Stephen, they're already turned ACC into an Insurance Company.
(http://www.acc.co.nz/news/PRD_CTRB136200)
You are aware that the Hon N. Smith is the Minister for the Environment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_for_the_Environment_%28New_Zealand%29)are n't you? This has me more worried than the ACC stuff. They're going to have to change the laws again to try and screw us more on ACC and we can counter that easier with facts. When it comes to climate change we're up against a worldwide propagandist organisation that's a lot harder to refute.

[Mom]

but he makes it so much easier by following the party line , not thinking ,,,,and opening his gob

Stephen

So when are you coming back to NZ to join us? :laugh:

[davereid]

Life insurance companies have to cover the future risk of people who haven't died yet. Why would ACC be any different?? :shit:

Of course an insurance company is required by law, to have adequate reserves to meet its obligations. Thus it cannot simply bail out of large claims if its day to day revenues can't fund its obligations.

ACC on the other hand doesn't need to do this. It can set each years premiums at a level that reflects that years costs. As it is compulsory, and has no competition there is no danger with this approach.

[paturoa]

Here are some stunners ....
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/4188497/Govt-rules-out-ACC-levy-increase

There is no 10.3 billion dollar deficit. This is only the gap between being fully funded (based on some fairly BIG assumptions) and where they are now.

Does anyone have the measure of how much is already in the coffers, over pay you go?

That would be a major!!!!!! pot of gold for a future govt to raid if the decision was made to revert to a PAYG basis.

[Ocean1]

Of course an insurance company is required by law, to have adequate reserves to meet its obligations.

Which they manage not by accumulating a great wad of cash, (no no no no). They spread the liability around amongst other insurance companies, insuring themselves against the big hit.

Governments are wonderfully gullible when faced with profesional extortionists, the rules they set are usually reactive and inefective.

A couple of decades ago the whole house of cards very nearly fell when a statistically unlikely series of disasters occured across Europe within a single year.

Which begs the question: why don't ACC do the same, instead of rorting a McDuck sized mountain of cash from us?

Seriously.


Wouldn't be an alterior motive there perchance?

[davereid]

On the news saying there wont be anymore increases as people are financially suffering enough , and that the ACC is clawing its way back from the HUGE debt it has

On the bright side, it would appear that our protests have had some effect.. Mr. Smith is clearly not unaware of the movement against him, and the proximity of an election..

[MSTRS]

Does anyone have the measure of how much is already in the coffers, over pay you go?


At last count (some months ago) there was over $14B in the kitty.

[pc220]

At last count (some months ago) there was over $14B in the kitty.

And yet they want more ?:gob:

[MSTRS]

Of course - they're broke, don't you know...

[Brian d marge]

So when are you coming back to NZ to join us? :laugh:

only come back to vote , was, could be a great place ( warning Rant coming ) but has been spoilt by apathy
some of the great things about NZ

ACC , by the people for the people

The womens movement

Footrot flats

the 8 hour work day

me

Would love to live there but only have one shot at this life and I dont see why I should live in poverty , or work my arse off to make ends meet , when I dont have to
Have a nice house ( new built it this year , ) a car Honda Elysion, 2008 model and a few bikes , 4 last count , Race 2 of them

and i work 5 hours a day ( everyday though) , no holidays ( having 3 days off next week ) but I enjoy my work , so ,,,,,,,

( dont want to seem like I am showing off but to show the standard of living )

If I moved back to NZ , ( I looked into this recently )

I would have to start again sort off , work...what could I do ??/ and How much would I make ( I est you would need about 800 pw, to be safe possibly more ...Know of any Jobs that pay 800 pw???

So I looked at alternatives ,,,try this one ,,,Invercargil, 1000m^2 land with NO utilities , fully self sufficient with possibly small income generated by contacts and what I do now or 7/11 flipping burgers ) ,,I have been looking at this possibility for awhile ........

always liked a challenge and this one tickled my fancy,,,,,,

Anyway I will be there to vote, I regularly write letters to the powers that be , and when I get off my arse , next week sometime , join groups that are in my best interest , MAG , BRONZ ,( Ulysses ,,, yes well....the least said ,,,)


Ok as you were

Carry on regardless

Stephen

[puddytat]

On the bright side, it would appear that our protests have had some effect.. Mr. Smith is clearly not unaware of the movement against him, and the proximity of an election..

Thats just a cunning plan so they sucker in the same silly buggers who voted for them last time....
then when they're back in, they'll use the broad new powers that they've just got thru to ramrod
( read assfuck) us totaly . Your've got to remember, Armageddon wil be quite expensive:yes:

[Winston001]

ACC is different because it ISN'T an INSURANCE , its a pot of money they whole society can dip into , when we ( or others ) screw up



You are mistaken Stephen but many other people are too. You cannot define ACC as anything other than insurance, ever since inception in 1973. After all, it specifically replaced private insurance.

We've argued these issues before and I can't be fagged searching the threads for the facts. Ultimately in my opinion it comes down to two options: either ACC sets different levies every year to cover ongoing claim payments, or ACC sets aside a sufficent lump sum which funds existing claims into the future.

Its just like superannuation. You can spend everything today believing you'll have enough at age 65 to enjoy life after work. Or you can spend less today and accumulate a lump sum to live off after 65.

[miloking]

only come back to vote , was, could be a great place ( warning Rant coming ) but has been spoilt by apathy
some of the great things about NZ

ACC , by the people for the people

The womens movement

Footrot flats

the 8 hour work day

me

Would love to live there but only have one shot at this life and I dont see why I should live in poverty , or work my arse off to make ends meet , when I dont have to
Have a nice house ( new built it this year , ) a car Honda Elysion, 2008 model and a few bikes , 4 last count , Race 2 of them

and i work 5 hours a day ( everyday though) , no holidays ( having 3 days off next week ) but I enjoy my work , so ,,,,,,,

( dont want to seem like I am showing off but to show the standard of living )

If I moved back to NZ , ( I looked into this recently )

I would have to start again sort off , work...what could I do ??/ and How much would I make ( I est you would need about 800 pw, to be safe possibly more ...Know of any Jobs that pay 800 pw???

So I looked at alternatives ,,,try this one ,,,Invercargil, 1000m^2 land with NO utilities , fully self sufficient with possibly small income generated by contacts and what I do now or 7/11 flipping burgers ) ,,I have been looking at this possibility for awhile ........

always liked a challenge and this one tickled my fancy,,,,,,

Anyway I will be there to vote, I regularly write letters to the powers that be , and when I get off my arse , next week sometime , join groups that are in my best interest , MAG , BRONZ ,( Ulysses ,,, yes well....the least said ,,,)


Ok as you were

Carry on regardless

Stephen

$800pw what is that like $55,000 a year? You left NZ for that??? Realy.... thats an average wage in auckland.

But i agree NZ is tainted by apathy otherwise it would be perfect place on earth....

[Brian d marge]

$800pw what is that like $55,000 a year? You left NZ for that??? Realy.... thats an average wage in auckland.

But i agree NZ is tainted by apathy otherwise it would be perfect place on earth....


no thats the MIN you would need in NZ .....I get a touch more than that , hence the toys any house

Stephen

[Brian d marge]

You are mistaken Stephen but many other people are too. You cannot define ACC as anything other than insurance, ever since inception in 1973. After all, it specifically replaced private insurance.

We've argued these issues before and I can't be fagged searching the threads for the facts. Ultimately in my opinion it comes down to two options: either ACC sets different levies every year to cover ongoing claim payments, or ACC sets aside a sufficient lump sum which funds existing claims into the future.

Its just like superannuation. You can spend everything today believing you'll have enough at age 65 to enjoy life after work. Or you can spend less today and accumulate a lump sum to live off after 65.

Sorry , not mistaken , its was a social agreement between ourselves , springing from the Buller mine disaster and soldiers returning from WW1

it is Independent of risk ie the payout and amount payed in is not proportional to risk taken , ie the miner pays the same as the civil servant as WE ALL contribute to society( unless they have changed it since )

Insurance , Noun;
the act, system, or business of insuring property, life, one's person, etc., against loss or harm arising in specified contingencies, as fire, accident, death, disablement, or the like, in consideration of a payment proportionate to the risk involved.
2. coverage by contract in which one party agrees to indemnify or reimburse another for loss that occurs under the terms of the contract. ( if we have a social contract then yes its a social insurance )

Do you keep enough money in your savings to cover the ( total) mortgage ,,,in case the bank calls in the loan????

Stephen

[Winston001]

it is independent of risk ie the payout and amount payed in is not proportional to risk taken , ie the miner pays the same as the civil servant as WE ALL contribute to society( unless they have changed it since )



We'll probably have to agree to disagree. :yes:

On this point you are incorrect: the ACC levy for office workers ($0.12c or $0.15c self-employed ) is far less than the levy for miners ($2.23 or $2.83 self-employed). The amount charged by ACC depends upon the job risk. The levies have always been calculated on occupation. http://www.google.co.nz/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBQQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.acc.co.nz%2FPRD_EXT_CSMP%2Fgr oups%2Fexternal_levies%2Fdocuments%2Fguide%2Fwpc08 7243.pdf&ei=SGWoTIKACYr2swOd-IjeDA&usg=AFQjCNFRtnftiQb7Kui97asvbD2nubZbkw&sig2=9bLVVClNZMj6bcqKNBE9Kw

[Brian d marge]

We'll probably have to agree to disagree. :yes:

On this point you are incorrect: the ACC levy for office workers ($0.12c or $0.15c self-employed ) is far less than the levy for miners ($2.23 or $2.83 self-employed). The amount charged by ACC depends upon the job risk. The levies have always been calculated on occupation. http://www.google.co.nz/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBQQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.acc.co.nz%2FPRD_EXT_CSMP%2Fgr oups%2Fexternal_levies%2Fdocuments%2Fguide%2Fwpc08 7243.pdf&ei=SGWoTIKACYr2swOd-IjeDA&usg=AFQjCNFRtnftiQb7Kui97asvbD2nubZbkw&sig2=9bLVVClNZMj6bcqKNBE9Kw

Then yes i would say its an insurance as well..

but from the woodhouse report 1967
“...the insurance system itself can offer no central
impetus in the important areas of accident prevention and
rehabilitation.
To rectify this, the Commissioners thought that a scheme
reliant on the acceptance of community-wide responsibility
in respect of every injured citizen must be handled as a social
service by a Government agency

I live in a country with health insurance and I wouldn't wish it upon my worst enemy

if you have something which isn't on the list , it doesn't get treated , my friend has lost everything due to a motorcycle crash in America

he was the Rider that took Royal Enfield to the No1 AMA plate a few years ago , the Ambulance ride and the short stay in hospital , cost his house and pretty much everything he owned .... he didn't have enough cover

Ala the Brunner mine tragedy ,

Please dont go down that road

I know you are pissed at the expenditures and the perception that a lot of Layabouts get something for nothing ,,,but its further from the truth , you may be alright but a lot of others aren't , there are quite a lot of good solid folk who work hard , try to do the right thing and suffer from a bad employer ( blunt knives in the processing line ) champolabactor (sp) ? etc and would have got nothing if it wasn't for our ACC ,

Sorry but its a good system , isn't /wasn't broken . doesn't need fixing but isnt ready to be privatized in order for an outside insurance agent to buy its assets


Stephen

[MSTRS]

We'll probably have to agree to disagree...

Now, perhaps.
But ACC was envisaged, and set up, as a compensation scheme. There was no risk-rating (to speak of) - everyone contributed and everyone 'benefited'. Not insurance.
Insurance exists to make a profit for the company and it's shareholders, by way of setting levies based on risk, on a individual basis. Diammetrically opposed to ACC. Successive National govts (with some fiddling by Labour too) have done their level best to reverse the precepts of Woodhouse, thereby turning ACC into just another profit-driven insurer. In ACC's case, there is only one shareholder. The Govt.

[Ocean1]

Or you can spend less today and accumulate a lump sum to live off after 65.

In which case the gentlemen in question will extort your savings.

Initially based on the premise that if you can save at all then you can afford a tad more tax. And eventually because societies more responsible members have, (in spite of their attentions to the contrary) amassed a collected sum rather too large for them to be able to keep their GRUBBY FESTERING LARCENOUS BASTARD HANDS OFF.





Arseholes.

[Winston001]

Now, perhaps.
But ACC was envisaged, and set up, as a compensation scheme. There was no risk-rating (to speak of) - everyone contributed and everyone 'benefited'. Not insurance.

Insurance exists to make a profit for the offerer, by way of setting levies based on risk, on a individual basis.

We could argue about this and not get any further. Insurance is simply a contract where I pay you a periodic sum and you undertake to pay me if a certain event happens. There doesn't have to be any profit involved eg. co-operative insurance schemes such as Southern Cross which is owned by the policy holders. ACC is the same.

The unemployment benefit by contrast is social compensation. As is National Superannuation. Our payments (tax) have no relationship to the compensation payment which is the same across the nation. No risk weighting and no relationship to previous income. You get $200/wk super whether you previously earned $100k or v$20k.

FYI previous generations paid a specific tax - sixpence in the pound for social security, but eventually this wasn't enough and it merged with general taxation.

[MSTRS]

Same difference. You pay taxes, part of which (your premium) goes into a pot to pay you UB in the bad time or Pension when you stop working (and they agree you are old enough to do so). The insurer has decided what you can live on, and pays you a little less.
By your description, there's no difference.

[Winston001]

I live in a country with health insurance and I wouldn't wish it upon my worst enemy

....if you have something which isn't on the list , it doesn't get treated , my friend has lost everything due to a motorcycle crash in America...

....you may be alright but a lot of others aren't , there are quite a lot of good solid folk who work hard .... and would have got nothing if it wasn't for our ACC ,

Sorry but its a good system , isn't /wasn't broken . doesn't need fixing but isnt ready to be privatized in order for an outside insurance agent to buy its assets


Stephen

Totally agree. ACC has its faults but it is far and away better than the insurance systems which exist in other countries.

A simple example: a friend in Australia belonged to a small hobby group which gets together regularly and needed somewhere to meet. Couldn't do it. Every place required proof of liability insurance from the group, plus a rent to cover the building owners liability.

Eventually the way around it was for everyone to join an organisation which had a room available, and meet there. Cover came with membership. Not exactly like borrowing the local squash clubrooms for a MAG/BRONZ etc meet..... :D

[Scuba_Steve]

Of course - they're broke, don't you know...

I'm broke... Where's my $14Bil???