Non-payment of ACC levies: how do you reckon this will end?

[danchop]

im a motorcycle courier,well on a scooter,anyway since acc have increased the levies on bikes i have refused to pay acc levies on my income as a protest against the pricks.3 years in a row now i havnt paid a cent but i still keep paying the rego license fees on my scoot.
my arguement to them is that i am covered in my workplace by the acc levy paid through my bike license and that they are double dipping.
they say that everyone else like taxis,van couriers etc pay both,and i have argued that they need to because cars and vans arent specifically targeted to contribute thier fair share as us bikers are.
also i have asked whether they have been challenged like this before and they dont answer the question.
i ask them "if i crash my bike during work,which acc account does my injury get paid from?bike license or work account?again they dont answer.
anyway its 3 years and every year they and i have the same heated phone calls but no action from them to take matters further.
any legal advisers here on whether you reckon i have a point?or am i a bit silly?

[caseye]

Looking forward to hearing the outcome of this interesting topic. I sincerely hope you keep it up and that they eventually give in and acknowledge that they are "double dipping".

[Shadows]

If you are claiming the operating expenses for your scooter against your income tax then you are the one double dipping.

[danchop]

If you are claiming the operating expenses for your scooter against your income tax then you are the one double dipping.
yes i do that but i dont get your point here?i use the scooter soley for work use.
my arguement still is,why do i need to pay acc levies on my work income when the sole reason i would need to use acc services is covered by the fact i pay thier levies in my licensing?
id like to know if anyone has challenged this like im doing or are most people just sheep?

[Hitcher]

If ACC wasn't bureaucratically lazy, then citizens would may levies based on what they do. In other words based on their individual risk profile.

Accumulating levies on vehicle registrations is just lazy ineptitude, given that most drivers and riders struggle to operate more than one vehicle at a time.

[Ocean1]

Accumulating levies on vehicle registrations is just lazy ineptitude...

Either one explains the situation, claiming both is double dipping.

[Akzle]

well, you're at least a step in the right direction, vive la revolution!

as far as legal goes, legal is made to suit legally inclined persons. it's designed to keep you going to work and giving them money.
i'm assuming you operate as a sole trader, which is still a corporate person, just acting in commerce proper like. which means you're probably *legally* obliged to pay your tax duties, and they will include ACC. check teh companies act.

but again, good on you for challenging the system. now stop paying rego and tax and start asking hard questions and see what happens.

[Zedder]

If ACC wasn't bureaucratically lazy, then citizens would may levies based on what they do. In other words based on their individual risk profile.

Accumulating levies on vehicle registrations is just lazy ineptitude, given that most drivers and riders struggle to operate more than one vehicle at a time.

Lazy or typical ripoff gubbermint? There's an element of risk profile already related to the Work Account as "charges" are calculated per industry type plus cost of injuries for that particular industry.

Add that to the other three revenue streams and it's no wonder they have a fund worth $24.6 billion as of June 30 2013.

[Zedder]

yes i do that but i dont get your point here?i use the scooter soley for work use.
my arguement still is,why do i need to pay acc levies on my work income when the sole reason i would need to use acc services is covered by the fact i pay thier levies in my licensing?
id like to know if anyone has challenged this like im doing or are most people just sheep?

Going on what you've written, the fact they haven't "set the dogs on you" does imply you've caught them out at present. However, given the history of people not paying taxes etc and winning against TPTB it's usually a very one sided battle.

A very interesting situation none the least.

[swbarnett]

If ACC wasn't bureaucratically lazy, then citizens would may levies based on what they do. In other words based on their individual risk profile.
NO NO NO NO!!!!!

ACC is NOT insurance (or at least is not supposed to be). We ALL benifit from a healthy, productive population; ipso facto, we all pay an equal share based solely on our ability to pay. The only practical way to do this is to stop this levy nonscense and fund it out of the general tax take.

[jasonu]

im a motorcycle courier,well on a scooter,anyway since acc have increased the levies on bikes i have refused to pay acc levies on my income as a protest against the pricks.3 years in a row now i havnt paid a cent but i still keep paying the rego license fees on my scoot.
my arguement to them is that i am covered in my workplace by the acc levy paid through my bike license and that they are double dipping.
they say that everyone else like taxis,van couriers etc pay both,and i have argued that they need to because cars and vans arent specifically targeted to contribute thier fair share as us bikers are.
also i have asked whether they have been challenged like this before and they dont answer the question.
i ask them "if i crash my bike during work,which acc account does my injury get paid from?bike license or work account?again they dont answer.
anyway its 3 years and every year they and i have the same heated phone calls but no action from them to take matters further.
any legal advisers here on whether you reckon i have a point?or am i a bit silly?

Great arguments but I really think sooner or later they (the ACC) will stick it to you. You can't beat 'the man'.

[swbarnett]

Great arguments but I really think sooner or later they (the ACC) will stick it to you. You can't beat 'the man'.
Tell that to the French at the Bastille.

While I really don't want to go that far, sooner or later it may come to that.

[swarfie]

Great arguments but I really think sooner or later they (the ACC) will stick it to you. You can't beat 'the man'.

Good onya ...I hate that I pay up to five regos (for my bikes) while I can only ride one at a time (three rego'd at the mo :violin:) thieving pricks! At least you could argue that your'e not likely to get mugged like the taxi driver....long may you get away with it and hope you don't have to put it to the test.

[Zedder]

NO NO NO NO!!!!!

ACC is NOT insurance (or at least is not supposed to be). We ALL benifit from a healthy, productive population; ipso facto, we all pay an equal share based solely on our ability to pay. The only practical way to do this is to stop this levy nonscense and fund it out of the general tax take.

When it's risk based costing/charging then it is insurance. As mentioned earlier, the Work Account has a portion of risk based costing just like the motorcycle segment of the Vehicle Account.

ACC maintain 2019 is the target year for self sustainabilty and they want to be able to have enough to fund any current claims for the next 100 plus years. This is despite the fact 94% of claimants are rehabilitated in under nine months and 78% regained independence within 12 weeks.

Incidently, businesses view ACC levies as a tax anyway and because it's election year there will probably be a little election time "tax cut" just like every election year.

[Robbo]

Good onya ...I hate that I pay up to five regos (for my bikes) while I can only ride one at a time (three rego'd at the mo :violin:) thieving pricks! At least you could argue that your'e not likely to get mugged like the taxi driver....long may you get away with it and hope you don't have to put it to the test.

I'm with you on that one Swarfie, untill a few months ago i had four bikes, my work ute and my private car. All of which i was paying ACC levies on and on top of that was the ACC levy on my anual income. That's paying seven times for the one person. This to me is theft and was obviously designed by a fuckwit. As one person i can only do one task at a time and certainly can't do my job and ride four bikes and drive two vehicles at once.
The system needs to be calculated for one person only and to cover you for all activities to be considered fair.
As i have been paying ACC since it was introduced and never had a claim i should be entitled to a No Claims Bonus each year also. :angry::angry:

[swarfie]

I'm with you on that one Swarfie, untill a few months ago i had four bikes, my work ute and my private car. All of which i was paying ACC levies on and on top of that was the ACC levy on my anual income. That's paying seven times for the one person. This to me is theft and was obviously designed by a fuckwit. As one person i can only do one task at a time and certainly can't do my job and ride four bikes and drive two vehicles at once.
The system needs to be calculated for one person only and to cover you for all activities to be considered fair.
As i have been paying ACC since it was introduced and never had a claim i should be entitled to a No Claims Bonus each year also. :angry::angry:

IT SUCKS Robbo...and I forgot to mention the two cages I pay the levy on as well. I'm an employee so can't even claim any of this shit back on my taxes , which are outrageous as well.....not getting off my high horse or nowt ...just saying is all :bash::angry::angry:

[swbarnett]

When it's risk based costing/charging then it is insurance.
That's what the current government has made it.


As mentioned earlier, the Work Account has a portion of risk based costing just like the motorcycle segment of the Vehicle Account.
The original principle was to have some risk assessment across industries but not to the level of the individual. Personally I think even that wen't too far. We fund the treatment of desease out of the general tax take, it is illogical that the costs associated with injuries sustained from an accident are not handled in the same way.

[swbarnett]

I have always thought tax deductability.
Personal income tax is only calculated on what you are handed by your employer. Tax deductability ensures that this is also the same for businesses i.e. money you spend to run your business is not part of your businesses profit and therefore cannot reasonably be counted for tax calculation purposes.

[Zedder]

That's what the current government has made it.


The original principle was to have some risk assessment across industries but not to the level of the individual. Personally I think even that wen't too far. We fund the treatment of desease out of the general tax take, it is illogical that the costs associated with injuries sustained from an accident are not handled in the same way.

Both Labour and National have played politics with ACC and the levies.

Number two of the original five ACC principles was about injured persons receiving compensation from any community financed scheme on the same uniform method of assessment, regardless of the causes which gave rise to the injury.

[Winston001]

Add that to the other three revenue streams and it's no wonder they have a fund worth $24.6 billion as of June 30 2013.

Excellent. Its encouraging to see an arm of government succeeding when most Ministeries lurch from crisis to crisis.

Mind you, they are still short about $10 billion to be fully funded but much closer than in 2009 when ACC issues first gained our attention.


When it's risk based costing/charging then it is insurance. As mentioned earlier, the Work Account has a portion of risk based costing just like the motorcycle segment of the Vehicle Account.

ACC maintain 2019 is the year for self sustainabilty to fund any current claims for the next 100 plus years. This is despite the fact 94% of claimants are rehabilitated in under nine months and 78% regained independence within 12 weeks.



True but the longterm disabled are usually seriously injured and expensive to look after. It is sensible rational and wise to build a fund to help these people.

Or...we could trust future governments to look after them. Yeah right.

Both National and Labour changed the rules for elderly people's rest home care, requiring them to pay their own costs. That never used to happen and suddenly a whole generation of powerless elderly New Zealanders suddenly found themselves stripped of their savings.

A fully funded ACC is the best guarantee injured people will get long term support. Nobody not even the Greens would tamper with that.

[Zedder]

Excellent. Its encouraging to see an arm of government succeeding when most Ministeries lurch from crisis to crisis.

Mind you, they are still short about $10 billion to be fully funded but much closer than in 2009 when ACC issues first gained our attention.



True but the longterm disabled are usually seriously injured and expensive to look after. It is sensible rational and wise to build a fund to help these people.

Or...we could trust future governments to look after them. Yeah right.

Both National and Labour changed the rules for elderly people's rest home care, requiring them to pay their own costs. That never used to happen and suddenly a whole generation of powerless elderly New Zealanders suddenly found themselves stripped of their savings.

A fully funded ACC is the best guarantee injured people will get long term support. Nobody not even the Greens would tamper with that.

You probably think it's also excellent they passed a law to reduce payouts for things like hearing loss, claim injuries are pre-existing conditions to avoid payouts, overcharge and contravene the original Woodhouse principles etc.

They aren't short of money, in fact they recently recommended to Government they reduce levies to the tune of $300 million. If we're really lucky, we might get that little election incentive I wrote about earlier...

[James Deuce]

Bullshit Winston. ACC run at a massive profit. They only have to fund the next year's crop of accidents and disability, they have no need to adopt a funding model accepted as prudent by the Insurance industry but never adhered to by any private insurance company ever, hence the repeated cycle of boom and bust followed by a diminished population of those who can be considered middle class.

ACC was never supposed to be the profit centre that it is and it was supposed to help people with long term repercussions for "accident damage". It doesn't. The moment you are discharged from them you are never ever given any further help for further complications that arise from the accident. These are ALWAYS put down to normal deterioration expected of a pre-existing condition. So go fuck yourself loser.

I'm sick to death of the Tory element in society reducing people to stats. You can all suck my balls. Pain is real, suffering is real, the fallout of the financial destruction of one family is horrific and no one gives a fuck, because sanctimonious dickheads like you have sold the crock of shit that is, "They must have done something wrong to end up like that".

There is not one politician in this country that is good for anything except the bonfire that we should be burning their corpses on after we've lined them up and shot them. Lawyers, financiers, insurance bastards, "employers", councilors, anyone who works at a policy or profit motivated level in society is just a bastard at heart.

[Winston001]

We fund the treatment of desease out of the general tax take, it is illogical that the costs associated with injuries sustained from an accident are not handled in the same way.

Ah but you see, we don't - and that is the tragedy highlighted by our ACC scheme.

If you have a disease, you are a sickness beneficiary.

If you have an accident, you are ACC and your wages continue. That is often a difference of $40,000 a year.

ACC began in 1973 and was adopted by NZers who were weary of Workers Compensation problems and civil litigation uncertainty. ACC was revolutionary.

In the mid 70s politicians and social progressives (with encouragement from Sweden) wanted to expand ACC to include disease and illness to everyone.

I remember it well (as an optimistic student) because it was such a logical progession from purely accident cover.

Sadly NZs fortunes changed and it never happened. Total coverage proved to be hugely expensive.

Today if you hurt your spine on a rugby field, ACC covers you. But if your spine collapses on the same field because of a medical problem, you are out of luck. Your life is destined to be an sickness beneficiary. Meanwhile your neighbour in a wheelchair is being paid his drivers wages because he was lucky enough to have an "accident".



NO NO NO NO!!!!!

ACC is NOT insurance (or at least is not supposed to be).

For better or for worse ACC is an insurance scheme. You and I might not like that but its silly to pretend otherwise. Have a look at the Accident Compensation and Insurance Act 1992.

[Winston001]

Bullshit Winston. ACC run at a massive profit. They only have to fund the next year's crop of accidents and disability, they have no need to adopt a funding model accepted as prudent by the Insurance industry but never adhered to by any private insurance company

Insurance companies (and ACC is insurance in reality) always - repeat always, build a fund to cover long term claims. FYI Warren Buffet has made a fortune understanding that and buying insurance companies. Most people don't know that but its the funds held that have enabled Berkshire Hathaway to be the most successful business in the modern world.



ACC was supposed to help people with long term repercussions for "accident damage". It doesn't. The moment you are discharged from them you are never ever given any further help for further complications that arise from the accident. These are ALWAYS put down to normal deterioration expected of a pre-existing condition. So go fuck yourself loser.

Both you and I have had serious motorcycle accidents. I have not recovered. ACC has abandoned me.

So yeah I'm a loser. Its a bitch.

[Winston001]

my arguement to them is that i am covered in my workplace by the acc levy paid through my bike license and that they are double dipping.
they say that everyone else like taxis,van couriers etc pay both,

Good on you, we need people to say enough is enough.



I think you are mistaken but what the heck, maybe you'll change things. :drool:

[Winston001]

Good onya ...I hate that I pay up to five regos (for my bikes) while I can only ride one at a time (three rego'd at the mo :violin:) thieving pricks!

The local truckies company are complaining about ACC charges too. They have five lorries. Should they pay one registration for their five vehicles? The owner can only drive one truck at a time.

[swarfie]

The local truckies company are complaining about ACC charges too. They have five lorries. Should they pay one registration for their five vehicles? The owner can only drive one truck at a time.

Yeah right...that's really comparing apples with fruit loops. I'm sure the truck owner has drivers Winston (who incidentally he probably pays ACC levies for). That said, I do loan my bikes to a couple of Aussie mates when they are over here but it still pisses me off having to pay multiple fees. There's got to be a fairer way but then gubbermints have never been about fair. They'll always steal from those that are easiest to steal from!

[Ocean1]

There's got to be a fairer way but then gubbermints have never been about fair. They'll always steal from those that are easiest to steal from!

How else could it be? They only get to the position where they can do anything by buying votes from those who want more than they earn and paying for them by taking it from those that earn more than they have to.

A vote should cost you $1000, if you can't stump up with that then you're in no position to be deciding how public money should be spent.

[Zedder]

[QUOTE=Winston001;1130642183]Insurance companies (and ACC is insurance in reality) always - repeat always, build a fund to cover long term claims. FYI Warren Buffet has made a fortune understanding that and buying insurance companies. Most people don't know that but its the funds held that have enabled Berkshire Hathaway to be the most successful business in the modern world.


If insurance companies build a fund to cover long term claims, and are so good at it, why are the papers full of cases of them fighting tooth and nail to not pay out claims in Christchurch?

Also, AMI failed and had to be bailed out by the taxpayers. Prior to that it was Western Pacifc Insurance who went belly up.

[James Deuce]

AIG nearly destroyed the world economy in 2008. They were almost solely responsible for the GFC. They were bailed out to avoid the cascade effect that would have destroyed every insurance and banking business with a Poors and Standard rating. To single out the one financier who seems to have a human soul is disingenuous. Warren Buffet is part of the problem. His recent bumbling attempts to redeem himself notwithstanding, he helped create a financial model of investing money that Insurance companies didn't have in the hope that they would end up with the money the needed to cover the liability they held. It failed and the cycle is already starting again.

No private Insurance company has ever held its liability in reserve. Once operating budget is covered they "reinvest" money they don't have. That's been revealed and nailed to the mast of capitalist economic failure over and over. Why do supposedly educated people fail to grasp the inherent problem with that approach Winston?

[Winston001]

If insurance companies build a fund to cover long term claims, and are so good at it, why are the papers full of cases of them fighting tooth and nail to not pay out claims in Christchurch?

Also, AMI failed and had to be bailed out by the taxpayers. Prior to that it was Western Pacifc Insurance who went belly up.

Fair comments.

1. To the best of my knowledge insurance companies are required by law to build a "float" - that is to protect policy holders.

Here is an interesting explanation of how it works - http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/12/01/explaining-warren-buffetts-career-in-one-paragraph/

2. Insurers in Christchurch are nervous of continuing earthquake damage - they don't want to repair a home only to see it further damaged next week. And that has happened - there have been at least 3 serious quakes and arguments arise.

That is no comfort to home owners though and I'm sure the insurers have been deliberately delaying to wear people down. Bastards.

3. AMI failed because they concentrated on Christchurch. Nobody ever expected a disaster this bad. By comparison FMG is a NZ insurance company with policies in Christchurch (and elsewhere) and it has not failed.

[Winston001]

No private Insurance company has ever held its liability in reserve. Once operating budget is covered they "reinvest" money they don't have. That's been revealed and nailed to the mast of capitalist economic failure over and over. Why do supposedly educated people fail to grasp the inherent problem with that approach Winston?

At a simple level you are correct. Insurance companies do not have a giant piggy bank in the back office. Neither do banks.

Both businesses collect money and then invest it through loans or other assets.

Nevertheless those loans/assets are held to repay customers claims which makes them reserve funds.

[rastuscat]

I'm with you on that one Swarfie, untill a few months ago i had four bikes, my work ute and my private car. All of which i was paying ACC levies on and on top of that was the ACC levy on my anual income. That's paying seven times for the one person. This to me is theft and was obviously designed by a fuckwit.:

Just thought you'd be interested in the definition of theft.

[219Theft or stealing
(1)Theft or stealing is the act of,—
(a)dishonestly and without claim of right, taking any property with intent to deprive any owner permanently of that property or of any interest in that property;

Sorry, ACC levies don't qualify as theft.

As much as you and I don't like it, it's legal, and the law.

Not to say that you have to agree, just to say that it's not theft.

[swbarnett]

Just thought you'd be interested in the definition of theft.

[219Theft or stealing
(1)Theft or stealing is the act of,—
(a)dishonestly and without claim of right, taking any property with intent to deprive any owner permanently of that property or of any interest in that property;

Sorry, ACC levies don't qualify as theft.

As much as you and I don't like it, it's legal, and the law.

Not to say that you have to agree, just to say that it's not theft.
Technically you are correct. However, defining something in law does not make it right. There is some serious dispute about ACC's "claim of right" on moral grounds.

[Zedder]

Fair comments.

1. To the best of my knowledge insurance companies are required by law to build a "float" - that is to protect policy holders.

Here is an interesting explanation of how it works - http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/12/01/explaining-warren-buffetts-career-in-one-paragraph/

2. Insurers in Christchurch are nervous of continuing earthquake damage - they don't want to repair a home only to see it further damaged next week. And that has happened - there have been at least 3 serious quakes and arguments arise.

That is no comfort to home owners though and I'm sure the insurers have been deliberately delaying to wear people down. Bastards.

3. AMI failed because they concentrated on Christchurch. Nobody ever expected a disaster this bad. By comparison FMG is a NZ insurance company with policies in Christchurch (and elsewhere) and it has not failed.

My first question was rhetorical. However, I know how insurance companies work, or in the case of the ones who failed in their duty over Christchurch, don't work. They are meant to know their business. They've been raking in the money for years, got it wrong and are not only deliberately not paying out but are also now charging fixed sum insurance, the premiums for which in most cases have doubled, all over New Zealand.

As for AMI, they got it really wrong and to make matters worse then went crying to the Government.

Furthermore, I read an article where one company is gloating over making much more money out of the NZ situation. In short they are scum.

[Robbo]

Just thought you'd be interested in the definition of theft.

[219Theft or stealing
(1)Theft or stealing is the act of,—
(a)dishonestly and without claim of right, taking any property with intent to deprive any owner permanently of that property or of any interest in that property;

Sorry, ACC levies don't qualify as theft.

As much as you and I don't like it, it's legal, and the law.

Not to say that you have to agree, just to say that it's not theft.


Hi Rastus, No doubt that your legal definition of theft is correct, but from my point of view to collect from someone seven times for the same service is thieving in my eyes. If i was to operate my business like that i would soon be done for theft or corruption. Take for example the levy difference between a 250cc bike and a 1000cc bike. A rider can sustain the same injuries on either bike so why the difference. This was obviously thought of by some idiot who knows jackshit about motorbikes. Also, a pushbike rider who does'nt own any vehicles and only pays an ACC levy on his earnings, has the same level of cover as i do for a fraction of the cost.
I wholly agree with the concept of ACC but the collection of levies has to be fairer.:msn-wink:

[MSTRS]

I wholly agree with the concept of ACC

So do we all. Trouble is, the reality is ACC has changed to the point where any concept it started with is now irrelevant

[MSTRS]

Today if you hurt your spine on a rugby field, ACC covers you. But if your spine collapses on the same field because of a medical problem, you are out of luck.


Not quite. You are thinking of yesterday...
I think you will find that today if you hurt your spine playing rugby, ACC will do their utmost to deny cover on the basis that was a medical problem that caused the so-called injury.

[Swoop]

Just thought you'd be interested in the definition of theft.

[219Theft or stealing
(1)Theft or stealing is the act of,—
(a)dishonestly and without claim of right, taking any property with intent to deprive any owner permanently of that property or of any interest in that property;

Sorry, ACC levies don't qualify as theft.
So... Multiple charging for the same "sevice" is perfectly legal?

I remain happily contributing to the ACC fund for ONE person.
The vehicles over and above the ONE, will remain unregistered.


The sooner that ACC becomes related to the individual human being operating any vehicle, the better. Quite simple really.

[mashman]

All levies are paid for from a single source. Earnings. Sliding scale that fucker.

[Robbo]

The sooner that ACC becomes related to the individual human being operating any vehicle, the better. Quite simple really.

And that's it in a nutshell Swoop. If mere mortals like us can comprehend this then why the hell cant these wankers(overpaid experts) that
designed this totally unfair system understand it. I guess our taxes pay them such huge salaries that they just don't give a shit. :mad::mad:

[Winston001]

My first question was rhetorical...I know how insurance companies work, or in the case of the ones who failed in their duty over Christchurch, don't work.

As for AMI, they got it really wrong and to make matters worse then went crying to the Government.


Just to clarify the AMI situation because someone up thread referred to a government bailout. That implies some big business got away with government money.

Nothing could be further from the truth. AMI was a mutual insurance company - basically a co-op. It was owned by the policy holders. FMG is also owned by policy holders. There are no shareholders, no listing on stock exchanges, no big business involved.

If the government had not stepped in to fund AMI then thousands of Christchurch people wouldn't be arguing about insurance delays today. They'd have no insurance at all. Gone. This was no gift or subsidy.

[Zedder]

Just to clarify the AMI situation because someone up thread referred to a government bailout. That implies some big business got away with government money.

Nothing could be further from the truth. AMI was a mutual insurance company - basically a co-op. It was owned by the policy holders. FMG is also owned by policy holders. There are no shareholders, no listing on stock exchanges, no big business involved.

If the government had not stepped in to fund AMI then thousands of Christchurch people wouldn't be arguing about insurance delays today. They'd have no insurance at all. Gone. This was no gift or subsidy.

AMI was first bailed out by the government/taxpayer then sold to IAG. The taxpayers ended up footing a $254 million dollar bill and IAG paid $380 million for the company.

The fact is AMI, just like South Canterbury Finance incidently, was badly run and carried out risky growth strategies among other unsustainable operations.

[Winston001]

AMI was first bailed out by the government/taxpayer then sold to IAG. The taxpayers ended up footing a $254 million dollar bill and IAG paid $380 million for the company.

The fact is AMI, just like South Canterbury Finance incidently, was badly run and carried out risky growth strategies among other unsustainable operations.

Yep, well said, bling. I do know the general details.

The thing is people in Christchurch who insured with AMI are still covered but only because the government was merciful.

[MSTRS]

I think the reason why it is higher for bigger bikes is because mid life crisis bikers buy them and think they can ride as well as they did 25 years ago and come to grief as the power of big bikes today is much higher.

Nope. It is higher because 'big' bikes are generally owned by people with 'big' incomes. Therefore accidents cost ACC more than for 'little' bikes. Meanwhile, back in the real world, the fuckers have double-dipped (again). Earnings-related levies are far higher for people with 'big' incomes. Strange, that.
You see, there are 4 funds. Work, leisure, motor, non-earners. But have a vehicle injury and the motor fund obviously pays for earnings loss as well. Hence the double-dipping.

[Winston001]

So you own 4 bikes or 4 classic cars whatever but you only use one on the road at any particular time. How do you reduce down to one registration?

And what would it cost? - LTNZ and ACC won't reduce what they collect.

[Zedder]

So you own 4 bikes or 4 classic cars whatever but you only use one on the road at any particular time. How do you reduce down to one registration?

And what would it cost? - LTNZ and ACC won't reduce what they collect.

Some type of Road User Charge, I'm not sure about the numbers yet.

[Ocean1]

So you own 4 bikes or 4 classic cars whatever but you only use one on the road at any particular time. How do you reduce down to one registration?

And what would it cost? - LTNZ and ACC won't reduce what they collect.

It's been pointed out before, the Swiss for one have a single registration per person, it ain't difficult.

As for reducing revenue, they get less from bikers now than before they increased the levy. What was the point of the increase again?

[swbarnett]

So you own 4 bikes or 4 classic cars whatever but you only use one on the road at any particular time. How do you reduce down to one registration?

And what would it cost? - LTNZ and ACC won't reduce what they collect.
Bloody simple really. Abolish ACC levies completely and take the entire cost from tax. We all benifit so we should all pay. This way it's even relative to income.

[Erelyes]

So you own 4 bikes or 4 classic cars whatever but you only use one on the road at any particular time. How do you reduce down to one registration?

And what would it cost? - LTNZ and ACC won't reduce what they collect.

There are problems with pretty much any solution.

Collecting it at the pump - would work well for cars (generally, those that are more fuel efficient are safer too). However the increase in petrol cost would be a slick opportunity for the petrol barons to stick a few cents on top again and skim even more cream off the top at the expense of the public. The other reason that wouldn't wash is that motorcycles are fuel efficient, and roughly quartering the relative fees that motorcycles pay wouldn't be popular, as ACC says- (source) (http://www.acc.co.nz/PRD_EXT_CSMP/groups/external_levies/documents/papers_plans/wpc119809.pdf)
The continuing cross subsidisation of motorcycles by other vehicle types is a concern to several stakeholder groups

Doing it by driver (through the driver licencing process) - those that do low KMs only to the supermarket each weekend (i.e. Doris) will be paying a disproportionate amount. Plus how fair is that to summer riders (vs those that ride all year round), etc - (source) (http://www.acc.co.nz/PRD_EXT_CSMP/groups/external_levies/documents/reference_tools/wpc119370.pdf)
ACC requires owners of motor vehicles to pay $1,065 million towards the levies required for 2014/15. If this amount is collected from unique owners rather than from each vehicle then the amount per owner will be higher than the current levies.

'by kilometer' according to vehicle type - we all know how easy a RUC-type scheme is to 'work around'. GPS wouldn't fix this, just as easy to tamper with.

You could offer a 50% discount to the registered owner on the second and subsequently owned vehicle. But then you'll have people that are registered as the owner of their bike, their dad's bike, and their brother's bike. Admittedly this would be a minor issue and you're still paying more. If you offer a 100% discount then the 'minor' issue will be come a big one!

You could offer a system where you only pay licence fees on the days you ride (Rather than a minimum licencing period of a month, and a minimum 'hold' period of 3 months). But how the fuck would you administer that.... plus you could get a $200 fine for getting mixed up as to which bike was licenced on which day, etc...

A nightmare huh :crazy:

[Zedder]

Bloody simple really. Abolish ACC levies completely and take the entire cost from tax. We all benifit so we should all pay. This way it's even relative to income.

But ACC levies are a set of taxes anyway, just a bloody unfair set of taxes and an insurance scheme as well under the guise of a no blame system.

[Swoop]

Doing it by driver (through the driver licencing process) - those that do low KMs only to the supermarket each weekend (i.e. Doris) will be paying a disproportionate amount.
ACC levies currently do not relate to distances driven/ridden.
It makes no difference if a person drives 1km or 100,000km to ACC as they only get involved when that person has an accident.

So, it goes back to the individual operator of the machinery.

[Zedder]

ACC levies currently do not relate to distances driven/ridden.
It makes no difference if a person drives 1km or 100,000km to ACC as they only get involved when that person has an accident.

So, it goes back to the individual operator of the machinery.

AS Ocean1 wrote earlier, Switzerland has an operator system that works for them although it's not designed for an ACC levy collection process.

Germany has a similar one.

[Ocean1]

ACC levies currently do not relate to distances driven/ridden.
It makes no difference if a person drives 1km or 100,000km to ACC as they only get involved when that person has an accident.

So, it goes back to the individual operator of the machinery.

Reckon a fuel surcharge would work OK. It might not be perfectly proportionate to the time spent on the road, but if you factor in a fudge for the higher fuel consumption units being generally the larger and hurtier ones I reckon the cost to personal damage would be well close.

All of which fails to address the most likely driver of current policy: There’s no point at all taxing those that can’t pay. So we’ll continue to see heavily spun policy driven by dodgilly collected data designed to justify taxing those that CAN pay.

Whatever. I’ll continue to endeavour to retain as many of my hard-earned shekels as is conveniently possible, whatever the current rort.

[Robbo]

I think the reason why it is higher for bigger bikes is because mid life crisis bikers buy them and think they can ride as well as they did 25 years ago and come to grief as the power of big bikes today is much higher.

Cassina, that is absolute crap. If you had taken the time to check the ACC statistics you would known that the biggest amount of claims have come from the younger inexperienced riders, many of whom think they are Valentino Rossis and end up coming to grief. There is no substitute for experience and this is what most middle aged riders have along with the fact that most bikes in their earlier days were capable of 160km+ and handled like shit compared to modern bikes. :nono:

[Robbo]

What I have said is not made up as I have read similar comment from many publictions. Younger guys are not taking up motorcycling today like they did in the 70's as today you can buy a good quick car for same price as a big bike so they could not possibly make up the majority of bike deaths. If you want to debate further I will paste some articles.

Articles from publications are pure speculation in most cases. Suggest you go to the ACC website and get the correct statistics as this thread is about ACC costs and levies. It shows that 17 to 30 years of age has almost double the accidents and claims than 50+.

[pritch]

It's been pointed out before, the Swiss for one have a single registration per person, it ain't difficult.


When the question of multiple vehicles was raised at the time of the increase ACC stated that if they just had a single charge the funds raised would not meet the budget.
So common sense, logic, justice, or anything else don't come into it. It is this way soley to raise money. Of course they were too hungry and turned it into a fail.

[Winston001]

Bloody simple really. Abolish ACC levies completely and take the entire cost from tax. We all benifit so we should all pay. This way it's even relative to income.

My gut reaction is to agree but the tax situation doesn't support that. Family Support means many people pay no tax at all. In fact tax revenue comes from about 25% of the population including companies.

ACC is an insurance scheme even if we pretend it isn't. Risk is weighted and ACC levies follow the logic. If you are in forestry you are high risk and pay a high premium.

If you ride a motorcycle you are high risk and pay accordingly. It doesn't matter that muppets in cages cause the accidents for bikers, the core fact is a biker gets hurt and needs compensation.

[swbarnett]

My gut reaction is to agree but the tax situation doesn't support that. Family Support means many people pay no tax at all.
That means that those that are already being supported by the rest of us continue to be. Don't see a problem here.


In fact tax revenue comes from about 25% of the population including companies.
Do you have a source for this assertion?


ACC is an insurance scheme even if we pretend it isn't. Risk is weighted and ACC levies follow the logic. If you are in forestry you are high risk and pay a high premium.

If you ride a motorcycle you are high risk and pay accordingly. It doesn't matter that muppets in cages cause the accidents for bikers, the core fact is a biker gets hurt and needs compensation.
I agree that ACC is currently operated akin to an insurance company. However, that is completely against the principles on which it was founded.

Secondly, the definition of the groups that incurance companies use to aportion relative risk values are completely arbitrary. Imagine the public backlash if they started aportioning risk values based on race. Why should your choice of vehicle be any different?

Thirdly, the whole idea of no-claim bonuses, while nice when you're on the receiving end, is completely illogical. The financial model of an insurance company is based around that fact that some customers will never claim; their premiums then more than make up for those that do.

[Ocean1]

What I have said is not made up as I have read similar comment from many publictions. Younger guys are not taking up motorcycling today like they did in the 70's as today you can buy a good quick car for same price as a big bike so they could not possibly make up the majority of bike deaths. If you want to debate further I will paste some articles.



Don’t bother, they're wrong. They're simply quoting or re-quoting official publications like this: http://www.transport.govt.nz/assets/Import/Documents/_versions/3987/Motorcycle-crash-facts-2012.1.pdf
without bothering to do any further analysis. The graph showing the "proof" you're looking for is about 1/4 of the way down.

You’ll notice the humps at 15/20 and at 45/55. Except, when you correct it for numbers riding at those ages the 45/55 hump becomes a hollow. The un-spun facts support the generally sound premise that experience produces results.

[Zedder]

Secondly, the definition of the groups that incurance companies use to aportion relative risk values are completely arbitrary. Imagine the public backlash if they started aportioning risk values based on race. Why should your choice of vehicle be any different?

Thirdly, the whole idea of no-claim bonuses, while nice when you're on the receiving end, is completely illogical. The financial model of an insurance company is based around that fact that some customers will never claim; their premiums then more than make up for those that do.

Winston can get back to you on the other questions.

However, insurance companies use actuaries for risk calculation. Actuarial science is what they do.

A no claims bonus sustem is a type of reverse discount. There's nothing wrong with that.

ACC is a joke in its present form, In fact why have it at all, why not just have a law in place that says no fault for injuries. Getting people into paid work should be the primary objective for Government,then we can afford to fund infrastructure properly.

[MSTRS]

If you ride a motorcycle you are high risk and pay accordingly. It doesn't matter that muppets in cages cause the accidents for bikers, the core fact is a biker gets hurt and needs compensation.

Tell us again how ACC is a 'no blame' system...

[caseye]

Correct cassina, but totally wrong!
Aged returning riders in fact make up far less of the stats than the young guns, having said that their ACC entitlements are significantly higher thanks to their advanced years, and their almost exclusive professional occupations that mean that POOR OL ACC have to pay out more.
Therein lies the beating heart of the debacle, ACC would have us believe that returning aged riders are most often involved in accidents and that they are in fact generally at fault in those accidents.
In reality they are involved in those accidents but their fault is far less than a young Valentino and it IS their remuneration that makes ACC Sweat so badly and encourages them to LIE about the stats in order to get the general public to NOT feel sorry for them.

[oneofsix]

Correct cassina, but totally wrong!
Aged returning riders in fact make up far less of the stats than the young guns, having said that their ACC entitlements are significantly higher thanks to their advanced years, and their almost exclusive professional occupations that mean that POOR OL ACC have to pay out more.
Therein lies the beating heart of the debacle, ACC would have us believe that returning aged riders are most often involved in accidents and that they are in fact generally at fault in those accidents.
In reality they are involved in those accidents but their fault is far less than a young Valentino and it IS their remuneration that makes ACC Sweat so badly and encourages them to LIE about the stats in order to get the general public to NOT feel sorry for them.

And there's the rub. Because they earn more they also pay more into ACC's coffers via their employee levies. It is their employee levies that covers their lost income, the motorcycle levy only covers the the treatment of the injuries.

In sum total the higher levy on the larger bikes is an all out lie.

[kiwi cowboy]

Some type of Road User Charge, I'm not sure about the numbers yet.

Why not register the person?.

[Zedder]

Why not register the person?.

See post number 57.

[kiwi cowboy]

See post number 57.

Yes got to that after I posted and couldn't be arsed editing:bleh:

[Zedder]

Yes got to that after I posted and couldn't be arsed editing:bleh:

Ya bloody cowboy...

[BMWST?]

Why not register the person?.


it would be more for most and less for those with lots of vehicles...they will divide their 50 million(or whatever by licenced motorcycles riders instead of the number of registered bikes.Do the sums

[kiwi cowboy]

it would be more for most and less for those with lots of vehicles...they will divide their 50 million(or whatever by licenced motorcycles riders instead of the number of registered bikes.Do the sums

Not if person reg was uniform it wouldn't and I don't agree with the motorcyclist should pay more because there are too many variables with other vehicles.

The gov wouldn't do that though because it would cost 90% of nz'ers more so would get the arse next election Same ol same ol screw the minority.

[MSTRS]

And there's the rub. Because they earn more they also pay more into ACC's coffers via their employee levies. It is their employee levies that covers their lost income, the motorcycle levy only covers the the treatment of the injuries.

In sum total the higher levy on the larger bikes is an all out lie.

Eggsakery!!
Said so much betterer than I could

[baffa]

Interesting reading.

Re AMI's bankruptcy, their apparent focus on CHCH doesnt hold water. They werent the only ones. And their focus was much more on vehicles than many of the other direct providers, who do the lion's share of house and contents covers.
The real reason they failed spectacularly was due to poor business practice, namely under-reinsuring.
Which really bugs me, as several other companies got raped financially from CHCH, and multiple other big events in the country, and they get lambasted by the media because the occasional client cant read his policy wording, and decides to go to fair go.

Meanwhile AMI gets bailed out, then bought by IAG, and acts like their shit dont stink.