A quick $66,899,590 maybe?

**mashman** · 27th March 2010, 22:29

How do you fancy a quick $66,899,590?

According to the IRD website, the ACC Employee Levy is $1.70 per each $100 earned.

However, there is a maximum limit to that: $106,473. Making the levy payable: $1,810.04

For arguments sake, let's say that there are 10000 people in NZ that earn more than $500,000

Wouldn't it make sense to raise the levy ceiling to say $500,000

So $500,000 - $106,473 = $393,527 * 0.017 (levy) * 10,000 people = $66,899,590

Change a parameter in a compute program et voila?

Why not?

**Slyer** · 27th March 2010, 22:31

Because then you might as well just increase taxes?

**mashman** · 27th March 2010, 22:46

My point is. Some people already pay this tax on their full salary... why should there be a limit?

**Quasievil** · 28th March 2010, 07:13

My god Mash who is ya daddy Cullen ??

**mashman** · 28th March 2010, 08:24

Originally Posted by Quasievil

My god Mash who is ya daddy Cullen ??

I don't really know what Cullen is like (not been here long enough) and as such, can't see what the problem is with the solution proposed? It generates cash for investment quickly and with next to no effort...

**peasea** · 28th March 2010, 08:34

Originally Posted by mashman

It generates cash for investment quickly and with next to no effort...

That sounds like the perfect solution to my own fiscal dreams.

**davereid** · 28th March 2010, 08:40

Originally Posted by mashman

According to the IRD website, the ACC Employee Levy is $1.70 per each $100 earned.
However, there is a maximum limit to that: $106,473. Making the levy payable: $1,810.04
For arguments sake, let's say that there are 10000 people in NZ that earn more than $500,000

Earnings Related Compensation is the reason.

If one of those $500,000 earners has an accident, they currently qualify for 80% of the $106K income ceiling. If they payed ACC on their entire income, they would quite rightly expect 80% of their entire income, ie $400k P.A.

That would gobble up quite a lot of minimum adult wage earners ACC payments !

**mashman** · 28th March 2010, 08:53

Originally Posted by davereid

Earnings Related Compensation is the reason.

If one of those $500,000 earners has an accident, they currently qualify for 80% of the $106K income ceiling. If they payed ACC on their entire income, they would quite rightly expect 80% of their entire income, ie $400k P.A.

That would gobble up quite a lot of minimum adult wage earners ACC payments !

Thanks Dave.

This is where the costs are incurred. What's wrong with being "means" tested for the mount of support/money you really need? After all ACC is a "community" insurer. If you're going to give the DPB folk assistance based on what they need (i.e. financially constrained to the minimum), surely you'd do the same when paying out ACC income payments to ACC claimants if payout value was an issue?

**Oscar** · 28th March 2010, 09:08

Originally Posted by mashman

How do you fancy a quick $66,899,590?

According to the IRD website, the ACC Employee Levy is $1.70 per each $100 earned.

However, there is a maximum limit to that: $106,473. Making the levy payable: $1,810.04

For arguments sake, let's say that there are 10000 people in NZ that earn more than $500,000

Wouldn't it make sense to raise the levy ceiling to say $500,000

So $500,000 - $106,473 = $393,527 * 0.017 (levy) * 10,000 people = $66,899,590

Change a parameter in a compute program et voila?

Why not?

Simple reason - there is a maximum amount that ACC will pay in the event of injury.

**Grasshopperus** · 28th March 2010, 10:58

Hey why stop there? Why not just nationalise all foreign assets in NZ, that'd be billions of $$ for free!

But seriously, what you're talking about is adding yet another disincentive to being a productive worker. The more productive you are the more you earn and while you can argue about what constitutes 'productive', being paid $500,000 a year by someone means you are obviously doing something that people want and value (@ $500,000 per year).

We should be encouraging people to earn more (be more productive)

**mashman** · 28th March 2010, 21:47

Originally Posted by Grasshopperus

Hey why stop there? Why not just nationalise all foreign assets in NZ, that'd be billions of $$ for free!

That day will never come?

Originally Posted by Grasshopperus

But seriously, what you're talking about is adding yet another disincentive to being a productive worker. The more productive you are the more you earn and while you can argue about what constitutes 'productive', being paid $500,000 a year by someone means you are obviously doing something that people want and value (@ $500,000 per year).

We should be encouraging people to earn more (be more productive)

Pulease tell me that's a piss take? That sounds like a statement a dictator would make: "We should be encouraging people to earn more (be more productive)"... yeah, cause we all get a fair share of the financial cake...

Financial Incentives... bonuses... hands up how many people, outside of management positions, actually get bonuses these days, or incentives to work? Honeslty, I'm curious... I venture 0.01% of the KB population... and to add insult to injury, beer is going up again, outwith GST... somebody think about the beer...

**Coldrider** · 28th March 2010, 21:56

Originally Posted by mashman

financial incentives... Bonuses... Hands up how many people, outside of management positions, actually get bonuses these days, or incentives to work? Honeslty, i'm curious... I venture 0.01% of the kb population...

me me me me me