ACC campaign, are we barking up the wrong tree?

[dipshit]

in 20 years time?

In 10 years time it should be self funding. That is, interest earned off the capital investments will cover claim payouts. Then ACC levies can be dramatically reduced.

Unless of course there is another financial crash and they lose their investments again.

[PrincessBandit]

In 10 years time it should be self funding. That is interest earned off the capital investments will cover claim payouts. Then ACC levies can be dramatically reduced.

Unless of course there is another financial crash and they lose their investments again.

Yep, so they'll fleece motorcyclists all over again. Oh no, wait, there won't be any more of us left by then....

[rustic101]

wants to put a submission into ACC, however on my blog thingy over there >>>>>> I put my one in and cc'd in; Dr Dick Nick SMITH and John KEY, the CE ACC, and the CE AA. I had an email back from JK's aide today thanking me for my well thought out submission.

Anyway feel free to do what ACC are about to and, rape and pillage my stuff, i.e copy and paste make sure you edit it after

Sam

[Skyryder]

I see everyone's all up in arms about this, and I can see why. Massive increases are hard to swallow, it hurts. But it's really simple maths. (Fuck this is going to make me unpopular)

ACC is running at a HUGE deficite. Massive. Something has to be done, a number of changes have been suggested by the government.

They've obviously worked out motorcycles cost more to rehabilitate and suffer worse injuries than other road users. And riders of bigger bikes suffer more than riders of small bikes.

So can somebody explain to me rationaly WHY we shouldn't be paying higher levies?

It's all here

“Labour last year pledged to make the law change straight after the election, as it became clear that the global economic crisis was putting pressure on ACC.
“The PricewaterhouseCoopers report released by Dr Smith yesterday shows those pressures have continued to increase. The report shows $1.8 billion of the $2.5 billion increase in ACC’s liabilities over the last six months is due to the international economic slump,” David Parker said.
“This international situation is the primary reason for the increased pressures on the ACC levies – not “generous” entitlements as claimed.
“Dr Smith said yesterday the Government was now considering the law change proposed by Labour, yet used alarmist figures which ignored the substantial reduction of levy increases which can easily be achieved.
“This is the solution and what he now needs to do is to commit to doing it urgently so motorists don’t pay more than they need to in July,” said David Parker.
“Labour believes political parties need to unite to fight the common enemy which is the international recession. The law change would enable us to blunt the impact on the levy rates and Labour is willing to support the Government to ensure this happens.
“Last year ACC said the motor vehicle levy would need to be raised from $254 to $287 in the 09/10 financial year, which we found unacceptable. The information released yesterday says the changed economic situation means the July levy would now have to be increased to $376.48,” said David Parker.
“But PricewaterhouseCoopers said that if the law change was introduced just over $100 could be knocked off the levy. Dr Smith needs take this action now, instead of using alarmist figures in a blatant attempt to mislead New Zealanders into thinking fundamental entitlements for injured people must be slashed.”
From http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0903/S00076.htm

Price Waterhouse do not agree with Smiths figures. Pretty rational to me.


Skyryder

[What?]

What does 'no fault' mean? From ACC's FAQ's

‘No fault’ means that no matter what you were doing when you were injured – whether your actions caused the injury, or were illegal or dangerous – you will be covered by ACC, so long as the injury falls within the parameters of ACC’s legislation.

For the gummint to claim that ACC is No Fault is a little like you looking at the knife in your right hand and claiming that you don't use a fork to eat. ACC is an arm of said gummint, and that arm has no need to find fault; said gummint has other arms like the police farce and DOL to do that.

[CherryB]

Absolutely, why aren't we paying one motor vehicle ACC fee - we can only ride or drive one at a time, if you own ten vehicles (some mates do with mix of historic bikes, trail, adventure, road etc) why be discouraged from registering them because the ACC levies are so high a part of the cost, without true relativity. As the land transport folk have a list of all our registered vehicles it should be easy to charge the ACC levy only on one (the highest cost) of those.

[Ragingrob]

Absolutely, why aren't we paying one motor vehicle ACC fee - we can only ride or drive one at a time, if you own ten vehicles (some mates do with mix of historic bikes, trail, adventure, road etc) why be discouraged from registering them because the ACC levies are so high a part of the cost, without true relativity. As the land transport folk have a list of all our registered vehicles it should be easy to charge the ACC levy only on one (the highest cost) of those.

Here's where you register as a "dealer" and just transfer your yellow plate to whichever vehicle you may be using at the time

[Winston001]

Absolutely, why aren't we paying one motor vehicle ACC fee - we can only ride or drive one at a time, if you own ten vehicles (some mates do with mix of historic bikes, trail, adventure, road etc) why be discouraged from registering them because the ACC levies are so high a part of the cost, without true relativity. As the land transport folk have a list of all our registered vehicles it should be easy to charge the ACC levy only on one (the highest cost) of those.

The logical alternative would be for every person who holds a drivers licence to pay an annual ACC and registration fee. Say $300.

However that would mean grannies and teenagers paying even though they might drive once a month, so politically can't see it being a winner.