What are you fighting for?

[GOONR]

That's what bugs me most about these proposed increases as well. If it's a no fault system, then no-one should be singled out to pay more. If an increase in levies is required, it should be the same percentage increase across the board from all contributing parties.

I feel the same, I don't see why, under a no fault system, one group of motorised transport pay's any more / less than any other group. Work out the bill and split it evenly.

[Deceased]

From reading all the 'spam' posts that have come up about the proposed ACC levy increase it would seem that many people are simply opposed to paying more for their ACC levy, whether that be $50 more or $500 more.

I think what people need to understand is that an increase maybe justified (given that the books don't balance) and that it would be better if we are seen as campaigning for a fairer amount, rather than just out and out bitching/complaining that 'we don't/can't pay upto $750+ a year for ACC levy on our rego'.

The majority of people who have taken proper action regarding the increase, such as looking at the statistics and doing some research into what we 'actually' cost etc, are already on the right path.

One thought that did cross my mind is how many dangerous/reckless riders are going to be priced out of riding by the increase? In my eyes the riders who are not doing anything 'wrong' (sensible riders) are most likely able to afford the increase although they may have more trouble justifying the expense to their better half! I know a number of people that pay more in speeding tickets in a 12 month period than the proposed increase will be!

Mate...no offence ..but you need to shake your head ...your eyeballs are stuck... read Sir Owen's comments on how a 'no blame' ACC regime has degenerated into a 'shaft who's easiest' scheme whose latest proponent is a lame conservative lightweight spoon who came back from stress leave too early. Do you see the biggest drainers of the fund - sport's people - paying their share therough theor national governing bodies? Do you see people with back injuries and women (who suck more out of ACC than guys) paying moe than others. No mate.... you don't. As the shirt says ' easy target'...We're already paying too much,. for fux sake!

sad em the the pioneer founder of the ACC d

[Keithf]

Hear Hear,

motorcyclists are taxed via rego and fuel costs and are probably equally represented in injury statistics with pushbikers who pay nothing......

that should be the point that is being promoted-not that people with motorbikes shouldn't contribute but that all road users on two wheels should be paying the same cost-then you might get something reasonable

ACC is using the "fairness" argument here merely as a diversion, for which many have fallen.

Its not fair that bad drivers pay the same as good drivers.
Its not fair that my mums Daihatsu costs the same as my SS V8.
Its not fair that my mum does 400km a year and I do 30,000 but we pay the same.
Its not fair that cyclists cost more than bikers but pay nothing.

ACC are just picking on bikers because they are planning on eliminating us by taxation.

The "fair" rate doesn't exist. Everyone should pay the same.

[Katman]

Perhaps what we should be fighting for is..........

Initially - the immediate canning of the current increase proposal...........

Followed by - a full review as to ways of introducing a fairer system of apportioning cost to all ACC users.

[Pixie]

What are you fighting for?When it is easier to be a good kiwi and bend over and say"yes please"

[k2w3]

In the immortal words of Chip Diller to Doug Neidermeyer..."Thank you Sir, may I have another".

[Pixie]

I personally am really farked of with the motorcyle levy increase, but am also worried with the cuts to survivor victims of sexual abuse etc


Its all bullshit

Everyone wants a slice of the fuckin' pie.
How about you get basic medical treatment,no income support ,no physio ,no fuckin' counselling because a bee almost stung you (it came so close you could feel the wind as it flew past).

No income support means you don't malinger and go back to work asap.If you want income protection you get insurance.
If you are psychologically damaged by your experience,start a fuckin' group.

[NighthawkNZ:Me]

R if change is to be made it should be made on an equitable basis.

thats just it, changes don't need to be made... it just means it will take longer to than 2014 to become a fully funded system


I agree... if we are to change it need to be fair... and under a no faults all motorised vehicles on the road pay the same

[NighthawkNZ:Me]

Perhaps what we should be fighting for is..........

Initially - the immediate canning of the current increase proposal...........

Followed by - a full review as to ways of introducing a fairer system of apportioning cost to all ACC users.

yes dropping all ACC levys and introducing a levy for being a human.

[Ender EnZed]

I'm sure there's something wrong with sticking it all on income tax but what exactly is that? (Other than: its a way harder target than motorcyclists)

[Skyryder]

Mate...no offence ..but you need to shake your head ...your eyeballs are stuck... read Sir Owen's comments on how a 'no blame' ACC regime has degenerated into a 'shaft who's easiest' scheme whose latest proponent is a lame conservative lightweight spoon who came back from stress leave too early. Do you see the biggest drainers of the fund - sport's people - paying their share therough theor national governing bodies? Do you see people with back injuries and women (who suck more out of ACC than guys) paying moe than others. No mate.... you don't. As the shirt says ' easy target'...We're already paying too much,. for fux sake!

sad em the the pioneer founder of the ACC d

Yep right on. Those that rort ACC the most are not those that are injured but the profesionals. I had some polyps taken out of my 'snore.' a few years back. One was done through the public health system and a follow up operation for the same thing was done privatley. All the specialists fees were paid by ACC. In other words if the job had been properly there would only have been the need for one op. But no there were two.
And this was common with this surgeon and problably others too.

Skyryder

[Winston001]

... read Sir Owen's comments on how a 'no blame' ACC regime has degenerated into a 'shaft who's easiest' scheme

Sir Owen Woodhouse delivered a widely respected and seminal report which led to the ACC Act 1972. It was a revolutionary piece of law. It still is.

Times change. Attitudes change. Differential levies sit comfortably with user-pays. Furthermore ACC already charges differential levies and I can't understand why no-one mentions that. Try being a shearer and see what your levy is.

Finally - no fault = no blame. It does not mean no risk. If you or I are in a high risk category then social equity suggests we pay something extra, even if it isn't the full cost.

[Brian d marge]

Im going on the Sickness benefit due to Depression caused by a non work related injury

Not being able to ride me bike due to ACC

Stephen

[Brian d marge]

Sir Owen Woodhouse delivered a widely respected and seminal report which led to the ACC Act 1972. It was a revolutionary piece of law. It still is.

Times change. Attitudes change. Differential levies sit comfortably with user-pays. Furthermore ACC already charges differential levies and I can't understand why no-one mentions that. Try being a shearer and see what your levy is.

Finally - no fault = no blame. It does not mean no risk. If you or I are in a high risk category then social equity suggests we pay something extra, even if it isn't the full cost.

but the five principles don't change

are you saying that my wife being in a high risk position ,,,The home , should pay ACC ( well her cooking my cause a bit of strife )

User pays only really benefits those who can afford to pay

ACC on large capacity's

I can afford to pay it , I am alright .... but its not a place where i want to raise my kids

A "me" orientated society

I am going the community approach and socially berate those who linger on Dole or who don't save , etc

Stephen

[NighthawkNZ:Me]

Sir Owen Woodhouse delivered a widely respected and seminal report which led to the ACC Act 1972. It was a revolutionary piece of law. It still is.

Times change. Attitudes change. Differential levies sit comfortably with user-pays. Furthermore ACC already charges differential levies and I can't understand why no-one mentions that. Try being a shearer and see what your levy is.

Finally - no fault = no blame. It does not mean no risk. If you or I are in a high risk category then social equity suggests we pay something extra, even if it isn't the full cost.

if we start finger pointing at one group least finger point at all the other groups...

If we want to go down the finger pointing game, then lets do that.

• Cyclist cost $12,573,000 yet there is no extra ACC levy to be on the road as a road user.

• Pedestrians ACC payout - $24,494,000, ACC own stats show only 1 or 2 motorcycles were involved with predistrians... since the only levy pedestrians pay is ACC in PAYE (and that is only if they are working) then car drivers should be lumped with this.

• Why should I pay for every sports injuiry when I don't play a sport. Sports people should pay an ACC levy to cover their injuiries.

• Why should I pay for every kid that has a injuiry when I don't have any kids or want any kid/s. Parents of children should pay more ACC to cover their children than those that don't.

• Why should I pay for any drunk driver, rider or pedistrian or cyclists injuries.

• Why should I pay for the Cop doing a U-Turn in front of motorcyclists or the tourist the took out a group of motorcyclists on a charity run.

• Why should I pay for the two cases of drunken car surfing, both cases that has happened lately.

• Why should I if I get hit by a car that cuts the corner, or didn't see (or look) when its plainly their fault.

• Why should I have to pay for other peoples stupid actions...

Why should I pay... because we are in a "No faults system" yet there seems to be a lot of finger pointing, and blaming "you cost X amount of dollars... we are not paying that but will pay the lawyer to proof other wise... " ACC is not really a No Faults system it never has been...

First and formost ACC is not broke and not lossing money, it never has been despite Nick Smith’s bureaucratic bullshit.

ACC had more than enough money to pay all claims last year, ACC is not broke or loosing money and has 11b in the bank and bank 1b last year (during a recesion)

The only reason for these increases is they (gooberment) want to get it fully funded by 2014 (which in theory is a good idea) I personally don't care if it takes another 20 years... instead of the proposed date of 2014.

During this transission levies will keep going up and up when in reality they don't really need too.