I've had enough!

[Murray]

Now we are a 3 bike family and all but motorcycle ACC levies are being reduced when are we going to say enough is enough. I just wish that our bikehoi some 3-4 years ago had gone the full distance and we had bought wellington to a standstill! Maybe now if something similar was arranged public perception may be different as it is widely publicised all Acc levies are going down apart from the mo-cyclists.

Give me a date and me and my mates will be there!!

Appreciate efforts put in before but maybe our time has come again - election not far away

[IkieBikie]

totally agree everywhere overseas seem to be able to protest without informing police - military etc lets just do it

[jellywrestler]

years ago there were stickers something like 400000 people have gun licenses; and vote, why not similar now and a group of people approach every person standing for parliament and ask them formally what is their policy, if they're all hit at once then it's got to be prioritised i would've thought?

[Winston001]

Yeah Jellywrestler, that is a good plan. Politicians react much better to personal contact. Its easy to read and dismiss written submissions but when a voter is in front of them, much harder to ignore.

[Akzle]

stop paying the cunts

[unstuck]

stop paying the cunts

But then you are supporting the system through agencies like Baycorp and the like, or if you persist in your folly, the justice system.:bleh:

[Berries]

stop paying the cunts
This should be the next t-shirt.

[Voltaire]

You don't seriously think governments worry about a few blokes riding around on motorcycles do you? :killingme:killingme

There are far more important things to worry about than paying $200 a year more than a car :baby::baby:

[Mike.Gayner]

stop paying the cunts

Every now and then Akzle speaks some sense. This is one of those occasions.

[SMOKEU]

For me it works out cheaper to get 2 infringement notices per year than it is to pay the vehicle licensing.

[avgas]

Burn the beehive!

[awa355]

For me it works out cheaper to get 2 infringement notices per year than it is to pay the vehicle licensing.

Until they add the years rego to the fine as has been suggested. Dont they do something similar to unpaid road user charges?

[willytheekid]

http://www.acc-exposed.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/acc-a-fraudulent-scam-abuse-of-human-rights-logo1.jpg
Just back paid 9 months of rego...god it hurt!:weep: (I nearly yelled rape!)

an yet even with all this money that I pay for "cover"? :confused:

...once again my smashed knees are failing* :crazy:, all due to ACC telling one of the best knee surgeons in the southern hemisphere that he didn't know what he was talking about, and I only need keyhole surgery on the "worst knee"...not a total rebuild on the left and key hole on the right like the "surgeon" highly recommended...what the fuck would HE know...they even made me wait 8yrs in the hope that I would just "go away" :niceone:...and all this damage was courtesy of a drunk driver!, not my own actions :facepalm:...go fuckin figure! (I imagine they think it must be my fault for daring to ride bikes around the drunk driving populace of NZ?:crazy:)

So its always nice to be forced into paying these excessive fees just to cover the actions of others!, and then to be ignored & left in pain for over 8yrs while fighting these pricks for the very cover that you are supposedly paying for!...all that, just to be given the very cheapest medical support there system has to offer:facepalm:


(*this is why Willy is a grumpy shit in the mornings and on cold days...and is NOT allowed within choaking/striking distance of ACC workers lol)


...seriously....why the fuck do we allow them to charge us all so much...for so damn little in return?:confused:


http://www.teara.govt.nz/files/32643-atl.jpg
What ever method it takes to argue these BS fees, I would be keen:yes:...well...as long as its not a fun run!:killingme

PS..."You don't seriously think governments worry about a few blokes riding around on motorcycles do you"
....dead right!
...so how about 20 thousand plus surrounding parliment?...completely overwhelming the police & security (With numbers!..NOT violence!), and actually sealing off and taking over parliment grounds!....and the fucking back bencher pub!!(Hit them where it hurts! lol)...pritty sure that would make some people listen (Or we can all just lube up!...roll over!, and wait for the next BS motorcycle "safety" revenue grab/arse rape!)

...bout time we got organised, mobilised and vocalized!
...lets start a fuckin fight!!!:headbang:

[SMOKEU]

Until they add the years rego to the fine as has been suggested. Dont they do something similar to unpaid road user charges?

With RUCs it's 3X what you owe + bringing the RUCs up to date (the latter part is optional, if it's some old wreck with thousands of $ worth of unpaid mileage it might be better to scrap the vehicle). That's why if you have an ancient diesel it could be a viable option to fit a "magic switch" for the speedo.

[awa355]

Can someone tell me, If an All Black is paid, $300,000 per year, and gets injured away from the game, does he get 80% of that salary paid by ACC? And if he gets injured during a game or a practice session, does he draw a full salary from ACC?

[Mike.Gayner]

For me it works out cheaper to get 2 infringement notices per year than it is to pay the vehicle licensing.

Yup, same as my maths. Seeing as I haven't been pulled over in years, I'd say I'm well ahead.


Until they add the years rego to the fine as has been suggested. Dont they do something similar to unpaid road user charges?

I've never heard of being forced to back-pay if your rego is on hold.

[Mike.Gayner]

Can someone tell me, If an All Black is paid, $300,000 per year, and gets injured away from the game, does he get 80% of that salary paid by ACC? And if he gets injured during a game or a practice session, does he draw a full salary from ACC?

There is a cap - I'm not in public accounting any more so I forget what it is - somewhere around $110,000 per year. And yes to your second question, he will be entitled to claim ACC, up to the cap.

Keep in mind that professional sports players pay the highest ACC levy in the country. It's actually amateur sports players who are a massive drain on the system.

[SMOKEU]

Yup, same as my maths. Seeing as I haven't been pulled over in years, I'd say I'm well ahead.


+1 to this.

[willytheekid]

I thought the fine for using a vehicle with rego on hold was about to be increased?:blink: (And possibly with demerits!:facepalm:)

...I know the new ANPR cameras are programmed to catch people doing this, seems logical that they would want to maximise the possible "revenue" from this...can't have you poor people clogging the roads after all :laugh:

...the days of dodging may be coming to an end!...so either pay up and shut up!!

...or grab your pitch forks and get ready to join the mob!!
http://lunachan.net/chat/src/139327154150.jpg
...there will be cake! (honest!)

[SMOKEU]

Might as well make the most of this "free for all" while it lasts then!

[G4L4XY]

For me it works out cheaper to get 2 infringement notices per year than it is to pay the vehicle licensing.

Nice logic, but at the end of the day you still need to have rego

[SMOKEU]

Nice logic, but at the end of the day you still need to have rego

That's not a problem, the bike is registered.

[G4L4XY]

That's not a problem, the bike is registered.

But the registration needs to be kept up to date.

[DR650gary]

Maximum paid by ACC is $94,000 ish, regardless of salary.

Not sure what other arrangements an All Black would have in place but it would be private cover.

Cheers

[BigAl]

Motorcyclists are revolting!

:argh:

[Mike.Gayner]

But the registration needs to be kept up to date.

Why? You can always put your rego on hold.

[Akzle]

But the registration needs to be kept up to date.
in your ignorpants, you have confused continuous vehicle licensing with registration.
You also used the word "need".
Air, food, water, shelter, porn, beer. These are things i NEED. To give my shit to the govt?
Nope. Dont need.

the bike is registered.

that IS the problem.

[The Reibz]

Can we support lower regos even if we don't intend paying for one anyway?
If the cost was lowered significantly I would still rather run the risk with the fines in there current state.

[SMOKEU]

But the registration needs to be kept up to date.

It is, but my GSXR has an exemption from continuous licensing.

[The Reibz]

Maybe if all ACC was funded by fuel taxes that would be the way to go and would save the Govt and Police a heap in administration or maybe a road user charge system like diesel vehicles to fund it so people who ride/drive only occasionally are not charged the same as those on the road everyday who are at greater risk of having an accident

$19 a litre for gas. You win the internet for today.

[swbarnett]

You don't seriously think governments worry about a few blokes riding around on motorcycles do you? :killingme:killingme
Of course not.


There are far more important things to worry about than paying $200 a year more than a car :baby::baby:
And this is why they get away with it.

[Swoop]

I know the new ANPR cameras are programmed to catch people doing this

Using the "If a tree falls in the woods ..." analogy.
If a motorcyclists' number plate passes in front of an ANPR camera and that camera cannot see the number plate, was the motorcyclist ever there?:scratch:

With thanks to Mr Spidi, this can happen!:banana:

[swbarnett]

Maybe if all ACC was funded by fuel taxes that would be the way to go and would save the Govt and Police a heap in administration or maybe a road user charge system like diesel vehicles to fund it so people who ride/drive only occasionally are not charged the same as those on the road everyday who are at greater risk of having an accident
Or you could go one step further and go back to the overriding principles of ACC - everybody benefits so everybody pays prorata to income i.e. TAKE IT OUT OF TAX REVENUE and stop all the bullshit about who subsidies who. After all, if nobody subsidised anyone else ACC would not exist.

[Mike.Gayner]

Using the "If a tree falls in the woods ..." analogy.
If a motorcyclists' number plate passes in front of an ANPR camera and that camera cannot see the number plate, was the motorcyclist ever there?:scratch:

With thanks to Mr Spidi, this can happen!:banana:

Time to start perfecting the ol' foot over the numberplate move.

edit: Mind you I've been riding my A7 all summer with no numberplate at all....I don't really know what would have happened if I had been pulled over. Hopefully this time next week it will have a plate though....and I can stomach $120/year retro-rego.

[willytheekid]

Using the "If a tree falls in the woods ..." analogy.
If a motorcyclists' number plate passes in front of an ANPR camera and that camera cannot see the number plate, was the motorcyclist ever there?:scratch:

With thanks to Mr Spidi, this can happen!:banana:


Time to start perfecting the ol' foot over the numberplate move.


:blink:...but...I don't have the knees for such acrobatics! :weep:
(:eek:...can i settle for just throwing one of my spare boots at the camera's?:laugh:)

...I honestly don't mind paying my fair share for cover, but not the present unjustified rate's...and especially not when you have to FIGHT to get the over priced cover you are "meant" to be legally entitled to.

Fuck ACC!...where da pitchforks & torches at? <_<

[roy.nz]

With RUCs it's 3X what you owe + bringing the RUCs up to date (the latter part is optional, if it's some old wreck with thousands of $ worth of unpaid mileage it might be better to scrap the vehicle). That's why if you have an ancient diesel it could be a viable option to fit a "magic switch" for the speedo.


My man that has changed. I think is $200 ticket for a vehicle 3.5t and under that exceeded the maximum distance on the RUC and the maximum ticket for a heavy vehicle is $1500.

Just some FYI

[Big Dog]

Maybe if all ACC was funded by fuel taxes that would be the way to go and would save the Govt and Police a heap in administration or maybe a road user charge system like diesel vehicles to fund it so people who ride/drive only occasionally are not charged the same as those on the road everyday who are at greater risk of having an accident

In theory at least those who operate vehicles the least are more likely to have an at fault accident due to their relative inexperience.

You increase your exposure but the level of risk gradually decreases as you gain experience provided it is quality experience and not just reinforcing bad habits.


Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

[Big Dog]

RUC is more a question of proportionally taxing road users for the degree of damage likely to come from your vehicle to the road surface. Goes back to the days Of not taxing diesel as much as petrol. Now they tax diesel and charge RUC and you pay extra for the privilege on your rego.


Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

[The Reibz]

Time to start perfecting the ol' foot over the numberplate move.

Or just install Infrared LEDS around the number plate.
Been hearing alot of things overseas about this stopping the vast majority of automatic detection cameras. Very cheap and easy to do if you know your way around electrical circuits. Undetectable to the naked eye as well, Im investigating making one for myself.

As far as RUC goes, I challenge you to find a vehicle in NZ with genuine miles on the speedo thats running Diesel.
We all are all cheating the system in someway or another, weather we get caught or not depends on what counter-measures we employ

[Voltaire]

Maybe they do away with income tax and put GST up to 50% let everybody do as they like and have no licences or rego or any of that shit. My worthwhile contribution to a pointless thread.:laugh:

[SPman]

RUC's are fucking stupid for vehicles up to 3.5tns anyway. With the large numbers of diesel cars/wagons around they should incorporate it into the fuel price and then pay RUC for trucks etc over 3.5tns - like they do in most overseas countries. The price of diesel would then end up between 91 and 95, probably, as it does over in Aus.

Bike rego has gone up over here as well - now pay $255 each for the 1000's - the bloody car and van are around $580/yr - probably cause they're diesel....

[nerrrd]

We all are all cheating the system in someway or another, weather we get caught or not depends on what counter-measures we employ

I'm not.

Don't own a diesel though.

[Reckless]

ACC side of the story

They reckon the fee should be $1267-00 per year.

http://www.acc.co.nz/about-acc/consultation/levy-consultation/index.htm

[G4L4XY]

It is, but my GSXR has an exemption from continuous licensing.

Give to me

[SMOKEU]

Give to me

What, the bike, or the exemption?

[Woodman]

As far as RUC goes, I challenge you to find a vehicle in NZ with genuine miles on the speedo thats running Diesel.
We all are all cheating the system in someway or another, weather we get caught or not depends on what counter-measures we employ

I have one. do I get a prize?

[Voltaire]

Or just install Infrared LEDS around the number plate.
Been hearing alot of things overseas about this stopping the vast majority of automatic detection cameras. Very cheap and easy to do if you know your way around electrical circuits. Undetectable to the naked eye as well, Im investigating making one for myself.

As far as RUC goes, I challenge you to find a vehicle in NZ with genuine miles on the speedo thats running Diesel.
We all are all cheating the system in someway or another, weather we get caught or not depends on what counter-measures we employ

I'll add mine in, Diesel VW van.
Cheating the system, I tried when I was self employed but found an easier way.
Murray....you've gone quiet ....so when are you going to step up and become the new Stoney?

[scracha]

Rego bike for 2 or 3 weeks a year. Then if popo stop you the back tax only goes back to the last time it was rego'd. If you're running about on a car or bike that's not had rego for years then you're asking for trouble.

[G4L4XY]

What, the bike, or the exemption?

Both :) haha

[SMOKEU]

Both :) haha

Cash or Bitcoin only.

[swbarnett]

ACC side of the story

They reckon the fee should be $1267-00 per year.

http://www.acc.co.nz/about-acc/consultation/levy-consultation/index.htm
This is corruption! Pure and simple. It is the deliberate manipulation of shaky statistics to fit their agenda.

Fucking arrogant bastards.

[swarfie]

So according to their (bullshit) figures the cagers cost us $561 (under 600cc bikes) each a year to bowl us off our bikes. :facepalm: Each and every one of us should be complaining to them via the ACC website (they call it a submission), I know I will be.

[Murray]

I'll add mine in, Diesel VW van.
Cheating the system, I tried when I was self employed but found an easier way.
Murray....you've gone quiet ....so when are you going to step up and become the new Stoney?

Im still trying to figure out why you are still posting in what you called a pointless thread in the previous page.

[Oakie]

Just putting it out there ... but what if bikers ACC levies weren't reduced solely because of the number of bikers who didn't relicence their bikes (and there are plenty here on KB trumpeting that) meant that the annual amount required (call it 10 million just to have a figure) had to be obtained from a smaller number of registered bikers so each of us had to pay more. Just sayin'.

[Voltaire]

Im still trying to figure out why you are still posting in what you called a pointless thread in the previous page.

I post on keyboard biker when I'm bored at work.:lol:

[Voltaire]

Just putting it out there ... but what if bikers ACC levies weren't reduced solely because of the number of bikers who didn't relicence their bikes (and there are plenty here on KB trumpeting that) meant that the annual amount required (call it 10 million just to have a figure) had to be obtained from a smaller number of registered bikers so each of us had to pay more. Just sayin'.

Probably correct, given the general " the world owes us a living" view taken here on Kiddie Biker.:yawn:
That's what years of stealing music of the net has taught the youth....don't pay for anything.

[Woodman]

Just putting it out there ... but what if bikers ACC levies weren't reduced solely because of the number of bikers who didn't relicence their bikes (and there are plenty here on KB trumpeting that) meant that the annual amount required (call it 10 million just to have a figure) had to be obtained from a smaller number of registered bikers so each of us had to pay more. Just sayin'.

So what you are saying is that if everyone paid their rego then regos would go down because their would be a lot more money in the pot.

Maybe their is a loading in the cost that takes into account the amount of unpaid regos. If so then us that rego our bikes are subsidising those that don't ?

[Katman]

Maybe their is a loading in the cost that takes into account the amount of unpaid regos. If so then us that rego our bikes are subsidising those that don't ?

I thought you weren't one for conspiracy theories.

[Woodman]

I thought you weren't one for conspiracy theories.


Not a conspiracy, just good accounting.

[Akzle]

...complaining..., I know I will be.
ahh yes. the penis mightier than the sword.
i hope it makes you feel better, because it's unlikely to achieve anything.

Just putting it out there ... but what if bikers ACC levies weren't reduced solely because of the number of bikers who didn't relicence their bikes (and there are plenty here on KB trumpeting that) meant that the annual amount required (call it 10 million just to have a figure) had to be obtained from a smaller number of registered bikers so each of us had to pay more. Just sayin'.
good. thanks and fuck yourself.


That's what years of stealing music of the net has taught the youth....don't pay for anything.

you realise how many people put shit on internets, for free? people who work collaboratively, for the benefit of anyone and everyone, for free?

because if you don't realise that, there's a good chance you're a cunt. an ignorant cunt.

you realise a lot of the next generation doesn't want to play the money game? you realise that the sand castles are falling, and that people are waking up to the bullshit you've been bought up to believe?

enter, stage left: ocean.

[swarfie]

Just putting it out there ... but what if bikers ACC levies weren't reduced solely because of the number of bikers who didn't relicence their bikes (and there are plenty here on KB trumpeting that) meant that the annual amount required (call it 10 million just to have a figure) had to be obtained from a smaller number of registered bikers so each of us had to pay more. Just sayin'.

I might be bitchin about it but it doesn't stop me fully or at least part rego'ing at least 3 of my 7 registerable bikes so I can ride them when I feel like it...still pisses me of though...I CAN'T RIDE THEM ALL AT THE SAME TIME so why I have to pay multiple ACC levies confounds me :baby:
It does help that most of them are classics so the fee is acceptable. :clap:

[Ocean1]

I might be bitchin about it but it doesn't stop me fully or at least part rego'ing at least 3 of my 7 registerable bikes so I can ride them when I feel like it...still pisses me of though...I CAN'T RIDE THEM ALL AT THE SAME TIME so why I have to pay multiple ACC levies confounds me :baby:
It does help that most of them are classics so the fee is acceptable. :clap:

It's not just multiple registration levies that aren't fair. Now that I think about it I'm in favour of risk-based ACC levies for every account.

I've worked out that if they moved away from charging each account type based on how much money the target group has to a motorcycle style risk based policy across the board for all accounts I'd be better of by about $5k per year. My van registration would be a pittance to start with.

[swbarnett]

I'm in favour of risk-based ACC levies for every account.
When are people going to get it that ACC is NOT insurance in the normal sense. It is a scheme that was originally designed to spread the cost of accidents across the whole population with NO FAULT attributed to the accident "victims". The ONLY way this can be achieved in a fair manner is to fund it out of income tax.

[Katman]

It is a scheme that was originally designed to spread the cost of accidents across the whole population with NO FAULT attributed to the accident "victims".

The key word there being 'originally'.

Three generations of pandering to the evergrowing 'it's all about me' portion of society has successfully destroyed any vestige of the original ACC concept.

[Akzle]

The ONLY way this can be achieved in a fair manner is to fund it out of income tax.

what about those who dont "earn income" (or don't declare it... cashies yo)

[haydes55]

When are people going to get it that ACC is NOT insurance in the normal sense. It is a scheme that was originally designed to spread the cost of accidents across the whole population with NO FAULT attributed to the accident "victims". The ONLY way this can be achieved in a fair manner is to fund it out of income tax.


I agree, the only time I've claimed ACC has been from a speedway crash. So It didn't even happen in a registered vehicle.

If motorcycling is costing the health system $1300 per person annually. So we get charged more, why aren't racing licenses charged an ACC levy? Why aren't rugby players paying ACC levies on top of their income? I know 2 soccer players who have sprained their ankles bad enough to need ACC paid time off work.... They are claiming more from ACC than the average motorcyclist. Yet they aren't being targeted for levies.

[Ocean1]

When are people going to get it that ACC is NOT insurance in the normal sense. It is a scheme that was originally designed to spread the cost of accidents across the whole population with NO FAULT attributed to the accident "victims". The ONLY way this can be achieved in a fair manner is to fund it out of income tax.

I didn't say it was.

I was simply pointing out the obvious: ACC get to eat their cake AND keep it. We've got both income based levies where that means more revenue for ACC and risk based levies where that makes more money for ACC.

All the "fair's fair, pay your dues" bullshit ignores the fact that some of us pay an imperial shitload more than we're ever likely to cost.

[Akzle]

Yet they aren't being targeted for levies.

motorcycles are quick agile machines with fair range. could certainly out manouvre... say, an apc, or a tank.
when it comes time to lock down the population, you want them immobile and unarmed.

[swbarnett]

what about those who dont "earn income" (or don't declare it... cashies yo)
They are just a drain in the countries finances generally. Dealing with them is an issue all on it's own and not relevant to issues of ACC funding.

[swbarnett]

I didn't say it was.
You certainly implied it:

I'm in favour of risk-based ACC levies for every account.
Risk based levies are the purview of insurance.


some of us pay an imperial shitload more than we're ever likely to cost.
Which is why it needs to be taken out of tax so that the cost is fairly distributed.

[Woodman]

what about those who dont "earn income" (or don't declare it... cashies yo)

They are being subsidised by those who do.

[Laava]

you realise a lot of the next generation doesn't want to play the money game? .

No, it's very few. I don't know any personally. Might be just you.
I am not happy about the amount of money I have to fork out in ACC payments but it is a fact of life in this country if you pay tax and live in mainstream society.

[Scuba_Steve]

Which is why it needs to be taken out of tax so that the cost is fairly distributed.

IMO you're taking it from the wrong tax, I'd put it wholly on the GST, that way everyone pays working or not regardless of age. Everyone can use it why not everyone pay for it?

[Akzle]

an issue all on it's own and not relevant to issues of ACC funding.
well it is, in that if youre swapping cash for stuff, and youre not telling the jrd, the appropriate levy wouldnt be paid, innit.

[Akzle]

IMO you're taking it from the wrong tax, I'd put it wholly on the GST, that way everyone pays working or not regardless of age. Everyone can use it why not everyone pay for it?

this .

[Akzle]

No, it's very few. I don't know any personally. Might be just you.
I am not happy about the amount of money I have to fork out in ACC payments but it is a fact of life in this country if you pay tax and live in mainstream society.

you have a very narrow world view, and i expect, maintain an equally narrow circle of acquaintances, you hang with homies jamming to your own tune, yo dawg.
This re-affirms your own beliefs and means you dont have to challenge them or seriously consider any alternate, innit.
Not sure if youve noticed any protests on TV, you love tv. But you probably dismiss a lot of it, because your such a fucking upstanding subject of the state, arent ya, and they protesters are jus rousing rabble.

Three word retort and back to the tv old chap. G'wan...

[Laava]

you have a very narrow world view, and i expect, maintain an equally narrow circle of acquaintances, you hang with homies jamming to your own tune, yo dawg.
This re-affirms your own beliefs and means you dont have to challenge them or seriously consider any alternate, innit.
Not sure if youve noticed any protests on TV, you love tv. But you probably dismiss a lot of it, because your such a fucking upstanding subject of the state, arent ya, and they protesters are jus rousing rabble.

Three word retort and back to the tv old chap. G'wan...

A, you are fucking ignorant.
B, but not a bad retort for a stoner living in a fantasy world

[Akzle]

"be the change you want to see in the world"

[Damantis]

what about those who dont "earn income" (or don't declare it... cashies yo)

They should probably just hang themselves. Or at the least, have their cock slammed in a door.

[Akzle]

They should probably just hang themselves. Or at the least, have their cock slammed in a door.

oh darling. You need a hug.

[swbarnett]

IMO you're taking it from the wrong tax, I'd put it wholly on the GST, that way everyone pays working or not regardless of age. Everyone can use it why not everyone pay for it?
In principle I agree with you.

However, then we get in to the philosophical discussion on the fiscal efficiency of too many taxes. Personally I'd scrap GST. It's a band-aid solution to a complex problem (that of the rich evading tax) that costs heaps in administration.

Also, low-income earners pay a far greater percentage of their income as GST than the rich. This is hardly fair.

[swbarnett]

well it is, in that if youre swapping cash for stuff, and youre not telling the jrd, the appropriate levy wouldnt be paid, innit.
I can see how it seems that way. However, tax evasion is a wider issue and not directly related to ACC funding. It needs to be tackled separately.

[Winston001]

When are people going to get it that ACC is NOT insurance in the normal sense. It is a scheme that was originally designed to spread the cost of accidents across the whole population with NO FAULT attributed to the accident "victims".

I'm afraid you are mistaken. ACC for much of its existence was called the Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act and was an insurance scheme from the beginning in 1974.

The confusion arises from Sir Owen Woodhouse's 1967 Royal Commission report which recommended no fault and universal coverage. That is actually what we got 7 years later.

OT for a moment, Sir Owen later conducted a similar Commission in Australia but ACC was too radical for them.

The Royal Commission envisaged a taxpayer funded scheme but Parliament after chewing it over for 5 years ultimately decided on a tax/user-pays hybrid. At that time (which I remember) Norman Kirk's government wanted to move to a total accident/sickness comp scheme.

Then came the 1973 oil shock plus Britain joining the Common Market and NZ was in a very bad financial situation.

Sickness compensation evaporated and honestly I mourn that to this very day. So much distress in later years could have been avoided.

[Winston001]

The ACC scheme today is unique throughout the world. And IMHO we are much better served by it then the civil litigation everyone else uses.

ACC has five funding requirements:

1. Employers pay a percentage of wages calculated by industry. Farmers, scaffolders, and forestry pay the highest amount.

2. Wage earners pay 1.45% which is $1.45 per $100 of earnings.

3. 10 cents per litre on petrol but not diesel.

4. Motor vehicle levies.

5. Funding of past claims which extend 50+ years into the future. It's a type of bottomless pit. This is the big one. Logically a fund is built up to cover future costs, but on the other hand our children could pay the increased levies instead. Just as they do with the old age pension.

Every way this can be analysed, its insurance.

[Voltaire]

ahh yes. the penis mightier than the sword.
i hope it makes you feel better, because it's unlikely to achieve anything.

good. thanks and fuck yourself.


you realise how many people put shit on internets, for free? people who work collaboratively, for the benefit of anyone and everyone, for free?

because if you don't realise that, there's a good chance you're a cunt. an ignorant cunt.

you realise a lot of the next generation doesn't want to play the money game? you realise that the sand castles are falling, and that people are waking up to the bullshit you've been bought up to believe?

enter, stage left: ocean.

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:: laugh::laugh:

[Ocean1]

you realise a lot of the next generation doesn't want to play the money game? you realise that the sand castles are falling, and that people are waking up to the bullshit you've been bought up to believe?

enter, stage left: ocean.

Stage left? Fuck off, nothing of any value whatsoever ever arrived from that direction.

[Scuba_Steve]

In principle I agree with you.

However, then we get in to the philosophical discussion on the fiscal efficiency of too many taxes. Personally I'd scrap GST. It's a band-aid solution to a complex problem (that of the rich evading tax) that costs heaps in administration.

Also, low-income earners pay a far greater percentage of their income as GST than the rich. This is hardly fair.

See I'd again go another way & scrap income tax. The problem with GST is like ACC in that it's not the component itself that's the problem it's the way it's being run that's the problem.
If GST was THE tax there'd be no problem with it, the fact it's being used instead as a way to extort more tax (mostly for no reason) is the problem

[swbarnett]

Every way this can be analysed, its insurance.
Maybe that's what it has become but it should have never been allowed to. ACC is of benefit to all so all should pay what they can. The only was to do this fairly is out of income tax.

I still maintain that ACC is not, in principle, an insurance scheme. Even if that is what it's been bastardised into. Any changes to ACC funding need to move it toward what it is supposed to be.

[swbarnett]

See I'd again go another way & scrap income tax. The problem with GST is like ACC in that it's not the component itself that's the problem it's the way it's being run that's the problem.
If GST was THE tax there'd be no problem with it, the fact it's being used instead as a way to extort more tax (mostly for no reason) is the problem
The problem with GST that I see is that the lower your income the greater percentage of it you spend just to get by. Therefore the poor pay a far greater percentage of their income in GST than do the rich. At least income tax is higher for those that are more able to pay.

[Akzle]

The problem with GST that I see is that the lower your income the greater percentage of it you spend just to get by. Therefore the poor pay a far greater percentage of their income in GST than do the rich. At least income tax is higher for those that are more able to pay.

you know how tax dodging works, right? you know that would only work for honest men, and that fuckall of them wear suits.

[swbarnett]

you know how tax dodging works, right? you know that would only work for honest men, and that fuckall of them wear suits.
So instead of a system that, when working as designed, takes money from all equally based on income you'd rather have a system that hurts the poor more than the rich by design?

What we actually need is a government that isn't solely in power for the benefit of John Key's rich mates. Then maybe they'd figure out a system that fixed all the tax dodge loopholes that currently exist.

[Akzle]

So instead of a system that, when working as designed, takes money from all equally based on income you'd rather have a system that hurts the poor more than the rich by design?

What we actually need is a government that isn't solely in power for the benefit of John Key's rich mates. Then maybe they'd figure out a system that fixed all the tax dodge loopholes that currently exist.

jeez. by bong's not even warm, but here goes:

if the system worked as (you purport is) intended, we wouldn't be having this discussion. if it ever had, we wouldn't be here. if it was ever going to, i wouldn't entertain this discussion.

someone else said it ahead of me: "everyone is cheating the system/ fiddling the books/ out to get the best for themselves, against a system they perceive to be unfair/unjust/costs too much/why bother paying it.
so, is the fucked system the symptom of the behavior? or the behavior symptomatic of a fucked system?
do you believe it's possible to even have a system that works? presumably it doesn't rely on consent, and would be forced on everyone equally? and what do you propose to do about the rabble who refuse to participate, what do you propose to do about the john keys playing jew games and not contributing "their fair share"? and what about them who cannot contribute... say bed ridden, or in a wheelchair, you account for them?

tax dodge loopholes? offshore bank accounts, blind trusts, minimisation accounting, undeclared earnings. these are the trappings of the wealthy. it's not joe blow benny boy on the take.
maybe the upper middle class too, but certainly noone in (relative?) poverty is diverting large amounts of funds away from the taxman.

and again, you've ignored the accounting for those who are not "earning income"


what i would rather is a system that gives, rather than takes. being that, in the natural state of things, god (gaia, jah etc) gives all that you need to live. if a system wishes to interpose on that relationship, they should at least match the offering, if not better it.

the problem, is cunts. outlaw cuntery, on pain of death, and things would change, for the better, in short order. cuntery doesn't discriminate, rich or poor, class, position, employment.... yes. eliminate cuntery.

[Akzle]

A, you are fucking ignorant.
B, but not a bad retort for a stoner living in a fantasy world

a) you've been waiting a while to bounce that one back at me. feel better now?
b) pretty poor retort, even for a bald old guy living in in someone else's fantasy world.

[swbarnett]

if the system worked as (you purport is) intended, we wouldn't be having this discussion. if it ever had, we wouldn't be here. if it was ever going to, i wouldn't entertain this discussion.
Agreed.


someone else said it ahead of me: "everyone is cheating the system/ fiddling the books/ out to get the best for themselves, against a system they perceive to be unfair/unjust/costs too much/why bother
paying it.
Maybe that's why I feel knocked down by our financial system. I'm probably one of the few that isn't fiddling the system.


so, is the fucked system the symptom of the behavior? or the behavior symptomatic of a fucked system?
Both I would say. Probably a bit of a chicken and egg scenario.


do you believe it's possible to even have a system that works?
Yes and no. The system that works is one that gets all but a few on board wanting it to work.


eliminate cuntery.
I think this sums up the situation perfectly. Get rid of this and all will be rosey. As has been said many times before - if we could all just get along and stop just looking after number 1 things would fall nicely in to place.

[Akzle]

Maybe that's why I feel knocked down by our financial system. I'm probably one of the few that isn't fiddling the system.

if we could all just get along and stop just looking after number 1 things would fall nicely in to place.

1)does that help you sleep at night?
If not, give diddling a go. All the cool kids are doing it.

2) thats exactly my proposition, but i dont ever see it happening while the monetary farce exists. And i certainly dont see it while the faux power structure holds old men to their misguided beliefs.

3) and your insistence that "what we need is a government who isnt..."
Youre looking to someone else to sort the (your) problems. History clearly demonstrates that governance doesnt help you. Ever.
Enter the bleeding heart "for the greater good" brigade. (ocean, again)
(stage left is apparent right, it all depends whether youre acting, or just here to watch the show. Eh oceay?)

[Voltaire]

1)does that help you sleep at night?
If not, give diddling a go. All the cool kids are doing it.

2) thats exactly my proposition, but i dont ever see it happening while the monetary farce exists. And i certainly dont see it while the faux power structure holds old men to their misguided beliefs.

3) and your insistence that "what we need is a government who isnt..."
Youre looking to someone else to sort the (your) problems. History clearly demonstrates that governance doesnt help you. Ever.
Enter the bleeding heart "for the greater good" brigade. (ocean, again)
(stage left is apparent right, it all depends whether youre acting, or just here to watch the show. Eh oceay?)

http://www.hqhumor.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/arguing1.jpg

[swbarnett]

1)does that help you sleep at night?
Yeah, it does. But I still feel the system is not serving me (or anyone else) well.


2) thats exactly my proposition, but i dont ever see it happening while the monetary farce exists. And i certainly dont see it while the faux power structure holds old men to their misguided beliefs.
I think you may be right. I'm increasingly of the opinion that some kind of Star Trek style moneyless system may be our only hope long term. How we get there I have no idea.


3) and your insistence that "what we need is a government who isnt..."
Youre looking to someone else to sort the (your) problems.
Actually no. I don't think just about myself like it seems a lot of people do. I'm looking for someone to sort out the problems of society as a whole. If it becomes clear that this is happening I'll be more than willing to do my part to make it work.


History clearly demonstrates that governance doesnt help you. Ever.
Power corrupts and all that. Or, to put it another way:


The major problem — one of the major problems, for there are several — one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them.
To summarize: it is a well known fact that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job. To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem.

[Woodman]

At least income tax is higher for those that are more able to pay.

Thats discriminatory against people that earn more.

Maybe when you go into a dairy to buy an icecream you should be means tested to determine the cost of the icecream? Same thing as taxing someone a higher percentage because they earn more really.

[Big Dog]

Thats discriminatory against people that earn more.

Maybe when you go into a dairy to buy an icecream you should be means tested to determine the cost of the icecream? Same thing as taxing someone a higher percentage because they earn more really.

To reiterate your analogy in full, those with a high income would bring a lawyer and an accountant. They would pay nothing for the icecream because they would receive compensation for the costs of collection and any background research on flavour, and a further discount for buying a sausage at the mitre-10 sausage sizzle fundraiser for kidscan if it was not as good a year as previous years the dairy owner would pay them to take the icecream, the dairy owner would pay a portion of the accountants time and be liable for the cost of the lawyer if used. Meanwhile the low income earner would pay for his icecream and leave with a smile on his face. That he stuck it to the man because he paid x% less than the dickhead in the suit.


Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

[Ocean1]

To reiterate your analogy in full, those with a high income would bring a lawyer and an accountant. They would pay nothing for the icecream because they would receive compensation for the costs of collection and any background research on flavour, and a further discount for buying a sausage at the mitre-10 sausage sizzle fundraiser for kidscan if it was not as good a year as previous years the dairy owner would pay them to take the icecream, the dairy owner would pay a portion of the accountants time and be liable for the cost of the lawyer if used. Meanwhile the low income earner would pay for his icecream and leave with a smile on his face. That he stuck it to the man because he paid x% less than the dickhead in the suit.


Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

Lets just gloss over the fact that none of that has any connection to any reasoning behind differential pricing and ask who it was that you noticed behaving like that? Or did you just make it up? It certainly bears no resemblance to the behaviour or reasoning of any wealthy people I've ever met.

[swbarnett]

Thats discriminatory against people that earn more.
When I say higher I mean proportionately. The more you earn, the more tax you pay. Nothing discriminatory about that?

Yes, the current system does have different tax rates and, yes, the more you earn, the more you pay per dollar. But only to a certain point.

Those that advocate GST over income tax should consider this - do you want people that skip meals so that their kids can eat or people that perhaps will only by 10 investment properties this year instead of 11?


Maybe when you go into a dairy to buy an icecream you should be means tested to determine the cost of the icecream? Same thing as taxing someone a higher percentage because they earn more really
Replace that icecream with "a proportion of the government health budget", for example, and I would say, yes.

I used to think like you. I believed wholeheartedly in "earn a dollar and pay a dollars worth of tax". Be that $1 or $10 million. However, all that achieves is to make the almighty dollar the main reason that most people do the job they do. If there was no point earning past a certain level because most of that extra dollar went to the government then the prime motivation will move from money to "what floats your boat". In other words, if what you do doesn't have the affect on your income that it does now then more people will be doing that which gives their life meaning.

[Big Dog]

Lets just gloss over the fact that none of that has any connection to any reasoning behind differential pricing and ask who it was that you noticed behaving like that? Or did you just make it up? It certainly bears no resemblance to the behaviour or reasoning of any wealthy people I've ever met.

There you go then. I misunderstood the premise of the previous caller. I thought they were describing income tax.


Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

[Winston001]

Maybe that's what it has become but it should have never been allowed to. ACC is of benefit to all so all should pay what they can. The only was to do this fairly is out of income tax.

I still maintain that ACC is not, in principle, an insurance scheme. Even if that is what it's been bastardised into. Any changes to ACC funding need to move it toward what it is supposed to be.

I certainly understand where you are coming from but think about it this way:

We pay tax from our wages and that tax money supports people who are sick or out of work. A person earning $600/wk goes down to $200/wk on the unemployment benefit. They do not receive $600/wk on the dole.

If that person has private sickness/redundancy insurance (which is quite common with HP/finance) they will get $600/wk for up to a year, but no longer.

If this same person has a serious accident on the weekend (not working) ACC will pay them $480/wk...for years. If they die the family will be paid that sum until the children have left home. I know two families where this has helped immensely.

Big difference between taxpayer funded and insurance funded - which is ACC.

[swbarnett]

I certainly understand where you are coming from but think about it this way:

We pay tax from our wages and that tax money supports people who are sick or out of work. A person earning $600/wk goes down to $200/wk on the unemployment benefit. They do not receive $600/wk on the dole.

If that person has private sickness/redundancy insurance (which is quite common with HP/finance) they will get $600/wk for up to a year, but no longer.

If this same person has a serious accident on the weekend (not working) ACC will pay them $480/wk...for years. If they die the family will be paid that sum until the children have left home. I know two families where this has helped immensely.

Big difference between taxpayer funded and insurance funded - which is ACC.
I think I see what you're getting at. You're equating ACC to private sickness/redundancy insurance, yes?

In that case, I think you're right that ACC is like insurance in that it pays out larger benefits than things like the DOL. However, what I'm trying to get at is that ACC is unlike insurance in that it is not based on a risk assessment of the individual. Therefore ACC levies should not be apportioned based on risk but based on ability to pay. The simplest (as in lowest admin cost) way to do this is through income tax.

[Ocean1]

I think I see what you're getting at. You're equating ACC to private sickness/redundancy insurance, yes?

In that case, I think you're right that ACC is like insurance in that it pays out larger benefits than things like the DOL. However, what I'm trying to get at is that ACC is unlike insurance in that it is not based on a risk assessment of the individual. Therefore ACC levies should not be apportioned based on risk but based on ability to pay. The simplest (as in lowest admin cost) way to do this is through income tax.

Firstly, company levies and road user levies are indeed risk based. Only individual income levies are based on income alone.

Secondly, those with a higher "ability to pay" have already paid an exponentially higher tax on their income, why should they have to pay more again?

[swbarnett]

Firstly, company levies and road user levies are indeed risk based. Only individual income levies are based on income alone.
Exactly. This is what it has become. My point is that the former should not be the case and all ACC funding should be on a pro-rata income basis (i.e. income tax) the no-fault principle is to be adhered to.


Secondly, those with a higher "ability to pay" have already paid an exponentially higher tax on their income, why should they have to pay more again?
They shouldn't. See above.

Also, the tax on higher incomes is not "exponentially higher".

Just for clarity these are the current NZ tax rates:
up to $14,000 - 10.5%
from $14,001 to $48,000 - 17.5%
from $48,001 to $70,000 - 30%
$70,001 and over - 33%

[Ocean1]

Exactly. This is what it has become. My point is that the former should not be the case and all ACC funding should be on a pro-rata income basis (i.e. income tax) the no-fault principle is to be adhered to.

I'll refer you to the southern gentleman's history lesson above regarding ACC.


They shouldn't. See above.

So the "ability to pay" should dictate ACC contributions, but it shouldn't?

Fuck that's deep.


Also, the tax on higher incomes is not "exponentially higher".

Just for clarity these are the current NZ tax rates:
up to $14,000 - 10.5%
from $14,001 to $48,000 - 17.5%
from $48,001 to $70,000 - 30%
$70,001 and over - 33%

Yes. Numbers I'm abundantly aware of I assure you.

I'd also assure you that the above rates don't actually represent a linear relationship between income and tax, but it occurs to me I'd be wasting my soap.

[neels]

Also, the tax on higher incomes is not "exponentially higher".

Just for clarity these are the current NZ tax rates:
up to $14,000 - 10.5%
from $14,001 to $48,000 - 17.5%
from $48,001 to $70,000 - 30%
$70,001 and over - 33%
That makes me feel so much better, that paying a third of my income over 70k is not an exponential function of paying 10.5% of the first 14k.

Incidentally (and completely off topic) my teenage son no longer gets a tax rebate on his supermarket job, while John Key and his rich wanker mates drink champagne as their accountants beaver away eliminating their tax liabilities.

Anyway, still can't see how my 2 bikes sitting in the garage are attracting the same ACC levy for sitting in the garage not being ridden. At best I can only ride one of them at any given time, and in the current weather it's unlikely I'll be riding either of them, but still the paying goes on......

[swbarnett]

I'll refer you to the southern gentleman's history lesson above regarding ACC.
The history of ACC is both unfortunate and irrelevant. I'm only expressing my views on how I think it should be funded to stay in line with the spirit of the original principles.


So the "ability to pay" should dictate ACC contributions, but it shouldn't?
Why not? It dictates our contribution to every other public good paid out of the government coffers. ACC is supposed to be a public good after all.


Yes. Numbers I'm abundantly aware of I assure you.
I figured as much.


I'd also assure you that the above rates don't actually represent a linear relationship between income and tax
Of this I am also aware. However, it bears no relationship to powers of e either (mathematical definition of exponential IIRC). I was only objecting to the term being used incorrectly as a scare-mongering device.

[swbarnett]

That makes me feel so much better, that paying a third of my income over 70k is not an exponential function of paying 10.5% of the first 14k.
I'm not saying that the tax rates as they stand are necessarily what they should be. However, not that long ago the top rate was 39%. And I seem to remember it used to be higher than that again.


Incidentally (and completely off topic) my teenage son no longer gets a tax rebate on his supermarket job, while John Key and his rich wanker mates drink champagne as their accountants beaver away eliminating their tax liabilities.
I agree that this is just wrong. As is the removal of my ability to give half my income to my no earning wife for tax purposes. This would halve our tax bill.


Anyway, still can't see how my 2 bikes sitting in the garage are attracting the same ACC levy for sitting in the garage not being ridden. At best I can only ride one of them at any given time, and in the current weather it's unlikely I'll be riding either of them, but still the paying goes on......
This is exactly what I'm talking about. If ACC was paid out of the general tax take you'd be paying the same as anyone else at your income level no matter how many vehicles you own.

[Winston001]

However, what I'm trying to get at is that ACC is unlike insurance in that it is not based on a risk assessment of the individual.

Ah but it is. If you are a shearer or forestry worker the ACC levy on your earnings is five times as high as an office worker. However you don't know that because your employer has to pay that risk-weighted levy.


k.

Incidentally (and completely off topic) my teenage son no longer gets a tax rebate on his supermarket job, while John Key and his rich wanker mates drink champagne as their accountants beaver away eliminating their tax liabilities.



Yeah that seemed a petty move to me too.





This is exactly what I'm talking about. If ACC was paid out of the general tax take you'd be paying the same as anyone else at your income level no matter how many vehicles you own.

I agree. Add 50c/litre to fuel. Simple and job done.

[russd7]

I agree. Add 50c/litre to fuel. Simple and job done.
that still means that as motorcyclists we are still subsidising cyclists and skiers and rugby players etc etc for their injuries as well, and yes i know that most of those people also own and drive cars but so do i so based on that argument i should also not be paying ACC on my bike regos as i only ride them for recreation.

[unstuck]

Ah but it is. If you are a shearer the ACC levy on your earnings is five times as high as an office worker. However you don't know that because your employer has to pay that risk-weighted levy.



.

Unless it is an open run. :niceone:

[swbarnett]

Ah but it is. If you are a shearer or forestry worker the ACC levy on your earnings is five times as high as an office worker. However you don't know that because your employer has to pay that risk-weighted levy.
No it isn't. I used the word "individual" very deliberatly. Yes, there are disparities between industries (something that I think goes against the core principles of what ACC is supposed to be).


I agree. Add 50c/litre to fuel. Simple and job done.
How high do you want the inflation rate to go? This is why I would rather see the ACC cost come out of income tax. Increase the price of fuel and watch the price of everything that goes anywhere near any form of transport (except maybe bicycle couriers) go through the roof.

[Winston001]

that still means that as motorcyclists we are still subsidising cyclists and skiers and rugby players etc etc for their injuries as well, and yes i know that most of those people also own and drive cars but so do i so based on that argument i should also not be paying ACC on my bike regos as i only ride them for recreation.

Well no. Skiers rugby players etc, all of us pay a tiny levy on our incomes of 1.45c/$. Sod all but that covers non-work non-vehicle accidents.

[swbarnett]

Well no. Skiers rugby players etc, all of us pay a tiny levy on our incomes of 1.45c/$. Sod all but that covers non-work non-vehicle accidents.
I ride a bike for recreation (as well as for basic transport). Why should I pay a fuel levy for my recreation when the horse rider etc. doesn't?

[Winston001]

I ride a bike for recreation (as well as for basic transport). Why should I pay a fuel levy for my recreation when the horse rider etc. doesn't?

LOL ya kiddin right? Horses don't levitate to riding destinations, instead their owners pay large sums of money for floats and 4wd to tow yadda yadda etc. Even high country horses (not many left) get rides from time to time. In fact I'd guess that horsey people pay over the odds on petrol tax. A very expensive hobby.

[swbarnett]

LOL ya kiddin right? Horses don't levitate to riding destination, instead their owners pay large sums of money for floats and 4wd to tow yadda yadda etc. Even high country horses (not many left) get rides from time to time. In fact I'd guess that horsey people pay over the odds on petrol tax. A very expensive hobby.
Yes, but they're paying to get to were they partake in their hobby but not while they partake in it.

If I take a bike to a track day on a trailer I not only pay the same as the horse rider does to get there but I also pay while I'm riding.

[eelracing]

Some interesting fact & figures regarding Rugby and Football ACC claims nationwide for the last two years.

Football Injuries + cost:
2012 - 35,355 $26,353,484
2013 - 38,487 $28,598,582

Rugby injuries + cost:
2012 - 59,086 $62,829,684
2013 - 64,280 $67,133,311

Golfers and Lawn Bowlers are rumoured to be even higher.

[RJC]

I ride a bike for recreation (as well as for basic transport). Why should I pay a fuel levy for my recreation when the horse rider etc. doesn't?

I've got two motorbikes, the missus has a horse, we both snowboard and mountainbike. I figure it balances out.

And if you think acc levies on rego is expensive, I know some people in business that are required to have special insurance for missing debt repayments due to a motorcycle incident. It's eye watering.

[Winston001]

I've got two motorbikes, the missus has a horse, we both snowboard and mountainbike. I figure it balances out.

And if you think acc levies on rego is expensive, I know some people in business that are required to have special insurance for missing debt repayments due to a motorcycle incident. It's eye watering.

Yes, forgot about that - included me. You can add in self-employed people who like to rock climb, parapent, scuba dive, motor-racing etc. At my age its about $6000/year.

[Ocean1]

I know some people in business that are required to have special insurance for missing debt repayments due to a motorcycle incident. It's eye watering.


You can add in self-employed people who like to rock climb, parapent, scuba dive, motor-racing etc. At my age its about $6000/year.

Easy fix. Don't borrow money.

[Winston001]

True but even after the loans are down to manageable levels, if there is a family to protect then income insurance makes good sense.

Especially if ACC decide to recategorise a person and their life's career is gone.

Just sayin.

[Ocean1]

True but even after the loans are down to manageable levels, if there is a family to protect then income insurance makes good sense.

Especially if ACC decide to recategorise a person and their life's career is gone.

Just sayin.

Maybe. I've started again several times, never had the benefit of income insurance beyond that first small mortgage cover. Never had hungry kids.

The thing about every sort of insurance is that it's never as cheap as covering the same risk from your own pocket. Except where the govt mess with the rules, as with ACC. So it makes sense to acquire the means to cover any reasonable eventuality yourself as early as possible and then tell the insurance companies fuck.

[Pixie]

Yup, same as my maths. Seeing as I haven't been pulled over in years, I'd say I'm well ahead.



I've never heard of being forced to back-pay if your rego is on hold.

I recently received my 1st infringement for an "on hold license" bike in 3 years.3 previous stops were either not noticed or let off with a "get it licensed warning".
This time the "on hold had expired" and the bike was unlicensed.(unintentionally).
Fine was $100 still way ahead of the fuckers.
Went on line and put it on hold again - no problems.
btw. I looked at the statute and it seems that riding unlicensed has the least penalties.
Less than riding while on hold (exempt) or riding unregistered.

I highly recommend it.

Better than the Kiwi Way - bend over and let them fuck you.

[Pixie]

Maybe if all ACC was funded by fuel taxes that would be the way to go and would save the Govt and Police a heap in administration or maybe a road user charge system like diesel vehicles to fund it so people who ride/drive only occasionally are not charged the same as those on the road everyday who are at greater risk of having an accident

That would not assist their agenda to reduce the number of motorcyclists by making motor cycling unattractively expensive

[Pixie]

Firstly, company levies and road user levies are indeed risk based. Only individual income levies are based on income alone.

Secondly, those with a higher "ability to pay" have already paid an exponentially higher tax on their income, why should they have to pay more again?
obviously does not know what "exponentially" means

[Scuba_Steve]

I recently received my 1st infringement for an "on hold license" bike in 3 years.3 previous stops were either not noticed or let off with a "get it licensed warning".
This time the "on hold had expired" and the bike was unlicensed.(unintentionally).
Fine was $100 still way ahead of the fuckers.
Went on line and put it on hold again - no problems.
btw. I looked at the statute and it seems that riding unlicensed has the least penalties.
Less than riding while on hold (exempt) or riding unregistered.
.

True story, you just got extorted... It's almost impossible to ride unlicensed [vehicle] nowadays; continuous licensing means the licence is continuous, when you pay is irrelevant the licence runs from the end of the last there's no escaping it aside from exemption which has it's own offence or unlicensed which again has it's own offence.
It's residual from when vehicles didn't have continuous licences & is just used to illegally scam/extort $$$ from people today

[awa355]

That would not assist their agenda to reduce the number of motorcyclists by making motor cycling unattractively expensive


Unfortunately their agenda is working through slowly grinding down the individual rider. How many here can just go out and slap on a years rego without thinking about it?. I face retirement in a couple of years and I wonder if I am going to be able to continue owning a bike.

[Murray]

Unfortunately their agenda is working through slowly grinding down the individual rider. How many here can just go out and slap on a years rego without thinking about it?. I face retirement in a couple of years and I wonder if I am going to be able to continue owning a bike.

Yep I know what you feel - first time (in the last year) I've had bike / bikes "on hold". Next winter / cold period will look at registering bike / bikes on a daily basis

stuff the effing ACC system. If anything they are doing themselves out of adding to the 3-4 billion they already have in their account.

Still think people not registering at all are tossers

[mossy1200]

ACC levy should be paid on licence type held not on the vehicle.
Your either licenced or not.
No multi ownership penalty.
Don't want ride bike in winter don't hold licence during that time.
Make the vehicle licence renewable 3/6/9/12months with no need put it on hold just don't ride/drive without a current licence.
Introduce scooter licence so they pay to ride one.
I don't see why one person with 5 vehicles should pay tax 5 times to use the same road for the same potential total kms as a single vehicle owner.
I don't see why a licenced rider can borrow a bike/car without having contributed.

Abolish registration altogether and add the other costs into the fuel type for roads repairs.

Lets face it a single vehicle owner doing 20tho a year is taking the same risk as a multi vehicle owner doing 20tho.

[ruaphu]

See the problem there Mossy is common sense. What you said, we all get that. However the the plebs that make these rules don't!

Besides they really don't give a stuff if it costs us u and i more or not. We the public are simply there for pillaging more money from.

At the ned of the day Gov't depts are about one thing now.............mo money mo money mo money.

The world has changed, Gov't used to serve the people, now, the people are simply there to serve the Govt and in turn the Govt is simply there to serve big business.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Akzle]

At the ned of the day Gov't depts are about one thing now.............mo money mo money mo money.
(i try to get it right, but probably not: )
if what you're being sold isn't a service, you're the product...


The world has changed, Gov't used to serve the people, now, the people are simply there to serve the Govt and in turn the Govt is simply there to serve big business.

hahaha. no. they never did.

[tri boy]

WOF ya bikes, and forget about rego.
Oh, and stop whining you lot.
Govt departments don't give a toss about you. So why care about their rulings.

[BlackSheepLogic]

I went though a check point last week where they were checking registration & WOF. First time it's happened to me but these check point do exist.


WOF ya bikes, and forget about rego.
Oh, and stop whining you lot.
Govt departments don't give a toss about you. So why care about their rulings.

[Winston001]

ACC levy should be paid on licence type held not on the vehicle.
Your either licenced or not.

Yes some sense in that. Somebody calculated the cost would be $1500 per person to get the same amount of funds. In the UK thats what they pay on road tax (registration) per vehicle so it would be cheap here.

[awayatc]

Cheap.....
expensive.......
All relative of course......
( paid 6 months rego for 3 bikes last month.....
plus own 5 cars.....2 on exemption, so trust me its not cheap)
problem is unfairness of present system......
20 demerits for no rego?
how the fuck is no rego "dangerous "?
exemtion system is set up to make you fail and forget....
I am a sailor and spend at least half my life at sea,
like to be legal when on the road,
no format available for people like me...

so call it what you will,
but present sysrem is neither fair nor cheap

[awayatc]

Yes some sense in that. Somebody calculated the cost would be $1500 per person to get the same amount of funds. In the UK thats what they pay on road tax (registration) per vehicle so it would be cheap here.

I wish I could pay $1500 to any outfit and be legally registered.......
to get that cover for my "toys" in NZ costs me twice that....

with my job that would mean $3000 ish in regos for being 6 months on the road....
oh....and accidents on bike.... 0
accidents in car......0

I wish I could go private.....sign away my acc rights
I would happily do that.

had 1 accident at sea once....
acc doesnt understand my trip on/ trip off payment system,
so I lost more then half my pay with them....

[breakaway]

I wish I could go private.....sign away my acc rights
I would happily do that..

Take a look at the health care systems in "first world" countries that have privatised healthcare.

I for one enjoy not having to think twice about calling an ambulance when someone is seriously injured or falls violently ill.

The system we have is not perfect, far from it in-fact, but it is a damn sight better than the trouble privatised stuff causes.

[BlackSheepLogic]

The system we have is not perfect, far from it in-fact, but it is a damn sight better than the trouble privatised stuff causes.

I lived for 15 years in the states and much prefer private. With my insurance in the states I could see a doctor normally the same day, a specialist within a week and a out-patient procedure in under 2 weeks. Here it's more like six months to see a specialist or get an outpatient procedure.

Emergency treatment was always available, they didn't let you die while the figured out the insurance you may or may not have.

[breakaway]

And how much was your insurance? What if you had a pre existing condition the snakes refused to cover? What if you couldn't afford insurance?

Also just because you have insurance doesn't mean your covered. Insurance companies weasel out of shit all the time. I recently read about someone who was critically injured, taken to the closest hospital but the hospital wasn't on the insurance co's list of approved hospitals and as a result the woman was facing a six figure bill.


The U.S. Census Bureau reported that 49.9 million residents, 16.3% of the population, were uninsured in 2010 (up from 49.0 million residents, 16.1% of the population, in 2009). A 2004 Institute of Medicine (IOM) report said: "The United States is among the few industrialized nations in the world that does not guarantee access to health care for its population." A 2004 OECD report said: "With the exception of Mexico, Turkey, and the United States, all OECD countries had achieved universal or near-universal (at least 98.4% insured) coverage of their populations by 1990." Recent evidence demonstrates that lack of health insurance causes some 45,000 to 48,000 unnecessary deaths every year in the United States.[8][9] In 2007, 62.1% of filers for bankruptcies claimed high medical expenses. A 2013 study found that about 25% of all senior citizens declare bankruptcy due to medical expenses, and 43% are forced to mortgage or sell their primary residence.

That's messed up. I'm glad we don't have such issues here.

There are a shit ton of benefits to everyone with the kind of health care we have here in NZ.


Emergency treatment was always available, they didn't let you die while the figured out the insurance you may or may not have.

So you live, but with crushing debt that will take you close to a decade to recover from provided you don't have any long-term effects from whatever hospitalised you.

Privatising healthcare will result in shady practices like this also. (http://www.alternet.org/story/16466/why_hospitals_overcharge_the_uninsured)

[Scuba_Steve]

I lived for 15 years in the states and much prefer private. With my insurance in the states I could see a doctor normally the same day, a specialist within a week and a out-patient procedure in under 2 weeks. Here it's more like six months to see a specialist or get an outpatient procedure.

Emergency treatment was always available, they didn't let you die while the figured out the insurance you may or may not have.

You do know you have the option of private insurance here too ay? only here it's an option, & a fuckload cheaper