Some of you spend a lot of time bitching about what is being done to turn the tide of ACC increases, but I have yet to see much from the bitchers other than bitching about what's right and wrong.
Me? I prefer proactive.
Just tonight, after reading some of the whimpy responses to the mall protests I had another thought.
So I put it on paper (electronic) and sent it off.
What have YOU done tonight, to further the cause? Fuck all, I expect.
Anyway. Below is yet another submission to a NGG (Non Gov Group), the Employers and Manufacturers Association. EMA.
To Mr Alisdair Thompson.
CEO
EMA
Dear Sir,
As I am sure you will agree, Employer/Employee ACC levies are iniquitous.
My perceptions of these iniquitous nature of ACC levies are as follows.
1. They are in complete contradiction with the original aims of ACC because the current method of levy has an inherent notion of fault due to the variations in levy as determined by industry-type. Yet this method of determination fails to recognise the risk presented by each worker when he she is not at work.
For example, a forestry worker pays a huge levy compared to a dunny cleaner.
Yet, outside work-hours the dunny-cleaner may be involved in an extreme sport, and thus become a significant risk, while the forestry worker may lead a dull and boring private life and thus presents no specific non-work related risk.
2. Beneficiaries of all types, including superannuitants, pay no ACC source levy at all thus they are free-loading off the rest.
3. Unemployed children and students pay no ACC yet they are significant
recipients of ACC largesse (as they should be).
4. Tourists pay no ACC yet are beneficiaries of the ACC system.
5. Only registered road-users pay two extra, targeted levies. On via registration, the other via a fuel levy.
6. Seventy eight percent of all ACC claims were non-work-related.
7. Employers are the only group required to spend their own money to account for ACC levies.
The point being made in the above is that ACC liability is not being evenly shared by the inevitable recipients.
Evenly can be read in two distinct contexts. Firstly, variable employee levies are based upon assessed risk, not income levels, therefore the risk-determined levies are uneven because low-income earners are frequently employed in high-risk jobs.
Secondly, employee levies are work-based and ignore and employee’s extra-curricular activities….The forestry-worker/dunny-cleaner aparadigm.
Now allow me to bring your attention to extra ‘targeted’ levies. In fact there is but one and it is upon only all registered road-users, via registration and fuel tax. Yet pedestrians and cyclists are exempt from this extra tax. Yet cyclists are the third highest claimants of ACC (as road users).
Off-road vehicle users; who represent a significant claim proportion, go about their extra-curricular fun bereft of age-limits, warrants of fitness, registration, demanded safety equipment, licence, and just for drill, given they mostly use private land, can career here and there pissed as fiddler’s bitches, without attracting sanction.
It is noteworthy that ‘all’ Registered Road Users, who also pay ACC from source income, were recipients of less than 10% of the total ACC claims made in the last financial year. In other words ninety percent of all claims were made by accident victims ‘not’ engaged in road use.
And so businessmen are paying employee levies, direct vehicle registration levies, and fuel levies to ACC, yet their employees are costing ACC around 22% of the total ACC cost.
Beyond that is the issue of multiple vehicle ownership by employees.
Given that every direct cost against an employee’s income is a source of force directed at employers to increase that income, the cost to an employee to register multiple vehicles is currently onerous. Yet the National Government seek to increase this pain.
How does an employee make this pain go away? Simple. He demands a wage increase.
Then we have the multiple vehicle owning employee who owns a car, a motorbike, and a campervan. He can use only one at any one time, thus his risk is contained in the one, yet he pays three lots of ACC levy.
This extra ‘targeted’ levy is demonstrably unfair, unreasonable, and undemocratic and one which is inflicted upon registered road-users for but one simple and very cynical reason; which is, they can because only registered road users are so easily identifiable.
And for employers, this ‘specifically’ targeted tax represents a huge cost against business
The solution.
As noted above, some pay no ACC levy at all, while others pay through the nose. And, adding insult to injury, registered road-users and employers are further penalised.
I respectfully recommend the following as a fitting solution, and ask your opinion on this solution.
1. That GST be raised by 2.5%. Such tax to be levied for a specific targeted use.
2. That the sum of that increase be used to pay all current and future ACC costs, and also a significant sum be used to pay for specific, physical and theoretical driver education programmes.
3. That all ACC levies from source income, and road-user charges (both via registration and fuel levy) be removed.
In this way the burden of ACC costs are spread across all persons who spend any amount regardless of the source of their spending power, and will, sooner or later draw on ACC for surcease.
And, further, all will have more to spend in our economy and, of course ACC administration costs will be significantly diminished.
It is widely recognised that the National Government wishes to privatise ACC. What will such cost employers and employees?
The answer is, the cost will be huge. Many will not be able to afford what will become an insurance scheme. Many small employers will be forced out of business because they cannot afford to pay what will be a vast increase in private insurance levies. All larger employers will be required to add the extra costs to their operating costs and thus both local and exporting employers will suffer from diminished sales from high required income.
But most onerously; when ACC is privatised into an accident ‘insurance’ scheme, the door to litigation will be held wide open.
Next Steps.
It seems clear to me that the National Government must be halted in its track toward privatising ACC.
Furthermore, the ACC levy system must be forced to change to what is essentially a poll-tax system (increased GST).
In that way, all pay a contribution according to their net dispersible income and, further, with the removal of employee levies, employers can pay more (they simply shift the current levies into employee income. Employers no longer pay fuel-levies.
Employees no longer pay the targeted levies when they register a vehicle, or use one.
That provides the engine room of economics with more fuel; ergo, the entire work-force will have more to spend, while those who contribute nothing will have a little less.
Action.
If the foregoing falls upon a willing eye then the next steps require the EMA to bring it’s massive strength to bear as a lobby to parliament to achieve two ends. The first being the introduction of a general GST levy to cover ACC, while the second is to stop the National Government from privatising ACC.
I take this opportunity to thank you for your attention in this instance and look forward to your reply.
Yours faithfully
David Peppiatt
So what have you done, tonight; to further the cause?
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by dpex
Bookmarks