We have been pushing it hard in Central Otago!

[NighthawkNZ:Me]

Well no. As has been pointed out several times, ACC employment levies are calculated on risk. Just because it hasn't happened in the past doesn't obviate differential motorvehicle levies now.

So why do I have to subsidise Athletics $1,033,000, Badminton $961,000, Basketball $3,715,000, Boxing $813,000, Bungey Jumping $62,000, Cycling $10,447,000, Kick-boxing $148,000, Mountaineering $969,000 Parachute jumping $553,000, Skateboarding $3,027,000, Skiing $8,004,000, Netball $11,496,000 Roller Skating $396,000, Rollerblading $89,000, Water Skiing $2,872,000. The list goes on.

I do not do any of these sports... they actually have a higher risk of injuiry... notice the above does mention not have the rugby or league... and they are up round 50mil and 40mil

ACC paid $439,507,000 for injury claims that resulted from an accident at home. Should there be an ACC levy based on the size of your house or family? and or the number of children you have?I mean where does it stop.

This is just a circular arguement errr discussion.

At the end of the day ACC isn't going broke... it made more than enough 4.5b to cover claims at 1.7b and that has been steady for the last couple of years. It now has 11b in the bank, and banked 1b last year... the system as it is is working and no changes need to be made at all it should be Status Quo. So what if we are not fully funded by 2014... i don't care if it takes another 20years.

There will always be cross subsidising hell we are all subsidising cyclists... but they are covered by the ACC from PAYE , but out of those 567active claims how many are kids... then the circular arguement parents should pay more for the riskof their kids.

If you target one group target them all... anfd put a levy on it... so then what is the point of my PAYE levy. Which also covers me for anything I do as a citizn, including, driving, riding, or snowboarding...

There is no way to work out how much motorcyclists pay truly pay to ACC and the average New Zealander doesn't care about the semantics of what pile the money comes from especially if the person or group has put money into all the piles.

[NighthawkNZ:Me]

You have kept taking the shots at cyclists. You are now on ignore.

Please feel free to kill my southern rider profile too as I will not be back.

meh... what ever... good on yah...

[Winston001]

So why do I have to subsidise Athletics $1,033,000, Badminton $961,000, Basketball $3,715,000, Boxing $813,000, Bungey Jumping $62,000, Cycling $10,447,000, Kick-boxing $148,000, Mountaineering $969,000 Parachute jumping $553,000, Skateboarding $3,027,000, Skiing $8,004,000, Netball $11,496,000 Roller Skating $396,000, Rollerblading $89,000, Water Skiing $2,872,000. The list goes on.

Because there is a simple existing structure to collect work related levies. PAYE, and annual invoices to employers. There is no equivalent structure to grab sports/home levies.

At the end of the day ACC isn't going broke... it made more than enough 4.5b to cover claims at 1.7b and that has been steady for the last couple of years. So what if we are not fully dunded by 2014... i don't care if it takes another 20 years.

Fair point and its certainly a valid argument - except it looks like no-one in Parliament thinks that way.

I know you are just letting out your frustrations and many others will agree with you.

[NighthawkNZ:Me]

Because there is a simple existing structure to collect work related levies. PAYE, and annual invoices to employers. There is no equivalent structure to grab sports/home levies.

My PAYE still covers me for riding a motorcycle last year it was around 2g + 252 from rego + fuel..

As I have said before there will never be a fair system unless we drop every levy we pay at present and introduce a levy for being HUMAN, and even that won't be fair.

[dipshit]

So why do I have to subsidise Athletics $1,033,000, Badminton... blah blah blah...

You sound like a 5 year-old that is going "waaaaa... Timmy got more ice cream than me.... waaaaa"

Give it a rest.

[NighthawkNZ:Me]

You sound like a 5 year-old that is going "waaaaa... Timmy got more ice cream than me.... waaaaa"

Give it a rest.

been saying the same thing about you as well...

[davereid]

You either accept the Woodhouse principles, or you accept user pays. But the ACC want to have a bob each way. Woodhouse for most but user pays for motorcyclists.

Absolutely.

ACC use the word "Risk". But they don't actually apply it. If they did, drivers that do low mileages, or have an excellent driving record would pay less than drivers who crash all the time.

When ACC use the word "risk" they mean they have divided up ACC accounts, into smaller user groups, and they can see that some of those user groups cost more than others.

This leads them to assert that this group has higher "risk", and therefore that group should be charged a higer premium.

But the "charge those to whom the costs lie" argument is actually an argument for the abolition of the ACC system.

As bikers, our problem is not one of "subsidy", "fairness", or "risk". Our problem is that we are separately accounted for, as a small group.

Lets say for example, that we kept on reducing the size of the group we account for, so we can charge "fairer and fairer" premiums, based on "Risk", or at least the account cost for that subset of account holders.

Lets reduce it to a size of 1, the individual.

Then we can charge a really fair premium, with no subsidy from anyone.

You fall over, you get hurt, we fix you, and we charge all the costs of your fix up. (Plus heaps for our management of it.)

Of course, then you dont actually have insurance, do you !