This would change the game wrt ACC levies

[Bassmatt]

Fair enough. So you'd be happy to heaps pay more to cover watersiders, scaffolders, mountain climbers, shearers, chainsaw wielders etc etc? You wouldn't consider they should pay more?

If these people are doing dangerous jobs where the risk of being injured and unable to work is greater than average then there wages/salary should reflect that. As we all pay a % of our work income as acc levy the extra to be paid by the rest of us should be minimal.

[Ixion]

You guys are over analyzing it.. I remember when the ACC scheme was introduced.The government needed ways to fund the scheme.

Back then all motorists paid a compulsory third party insurance premium ( yes, we had compulsory third party insurance then, it was shit, as all such schemes are) . And all employers paid a compulsory workers compensation insurance premium. Which was different from one industry to another.

Government figured " they're already paying this, they won't gripe if we make them keep paying and put the money to the new scheme"

Simple as that, nothing philosophical, just a matter if grabbing some money

[swbarnett]

??? ACC is a compensation system which pays for medical bills and rehabilitation. But most importantly it pays 80% of your wages while you are injured. The central idea of ACC is no-fault compensation.

So if you earn $14/hr you'll get paid on that scale.

If you earn $40/hr you'll get paid on that scale.

Not paid equally (compared with the dole) but entirely differently.

If ACC isn't insurance - what is it?

In the purest sense, yes, it is insurance. However, it differs from main-stream incurance in one very important aspect - it exists for the public good. A population full of healthy people that are contributing to a thriving society is of benifit to all. An individual that I don't know from a bar of soap losing their transport through lack of insurance doesn't really affect me at all.

[swbarnett]

Government figured " they're already paying this, they won't gripe if we make them keep paying and put the money to the new scheme"

Simple as that, nothing philosophical, just a matter if grabbing some money

Typical, take the easy way out instead of making it equitable.

[BMWST?]

Typical, take the easy way out instead of making it equitable.

like wacking motorcycles woith a seperate levy because we are already a seperate and ditict class of regos

[davereid]

I doubt they will do this.

They will ignore the asymptotic creep towards 3 l/100 and claim fuel taxes won't work as eventually vehicles will get 500mpg.
Crap, but thats how they operate.

They will also wring their hands and say "what about all the electric cars? they wont have to pay !"

This is also rubbish, as every house in the country will soon have smart meters and they will be able to charge different rates depending on what you run, and when.


This is a simple, reliable and sensible way of getting all the money ACC need.

It does not however create a reason to use vehicle tracking, install toll ways, it does not create or maintain an IT infrastructure, and offence / enforcement / punishment industry.

So theres no way we will do it.

[FJRider]

This is a simple, reliable and sensible way of getting all the money ACC need.

ACC already get the money they need ... otherwise they wouldn't be able to pay out for assistance/compensation as they do now. But it's at the expense of availability of funds for other goverment funded programs. They want their cake and eat it too ... (don't we all)

It's seen as a cash cow .... and they continue to milk it. And I dout if milking time will be over anytime soon.

[Winston001]

ACC already get the money they need ...

It's seen as a cash cow .... and they continue to milk it. And I dout if milking time will be over anytime soon.

Not sure what you mean Trevor: ACC stands alone. It doesn't pay dividends to the government or any money at all.

The arguments about ACC are whether it should be pay-as-you-go or alternatively, be fully funded with a substantial sum of money in the bank to meet future claims.

For example Kiwisaver and the NZ Superannuation Fund are methods of fully funding our retirement.

By comparison, the dole and DPB etc are pay-as-you-go with the money being taken from taxation each year. There is no future fund being built up to meet next years commitments.

[FJRider]

Not sure what you mean Trevor: ACC stands alone. It doesn't pay dividends to the government or any money at all.

The arguments about ACC are whether it should be pay-as-you-go or alternatively, be fully funded with a substantial sum of money in the bank to meet future claims.

For example Kiwisaver and the NZ Superannuation Fund are methods of fully funding our retirement.

By comparison, the dole and DPB etc are pay-as-you-go with the money being taken from taxation each year. There is no future fund being built up to meet next years commitments.

So ... all the money that is paid as ACC levies in rego etc .. is transferred directly TO ACC. ???

So ... if ACC (as a stand alone business on a restricted budget) finds there is not enough money in the kitty to pay your compensation (should you have another accident) do they tell you sorry ... and decline (I hate that word) your compensation ... or do ACC just dig deeper into the Goverment coffers for your payments ???

[Winston001]

So ... all the money that is paid as ACC levies in rego etc .. is transferred directly TO ACC. ???

Yes. That is what it is for.

So ... if ACC (as a stand alone business on a restricted budget) finds there is not enough money in the kitty to pay your compensation (should you have another accident) do they tell you sorry ... and decline (I hate that word) your compensation ... or do ACC just dig deeper into the Goverment coffers for your payments ???

In fact ACC did find the kitty was nearly bare, about 15 years ago from memory. The work levies jumped by about 40%.

If that hadn't happened, ACC could have borrowed the money for a short time, and/or drawn from the government. No government would have let ACC founder.

[MSTRS:Me]

In fact ACC did find the kitty was nearly bare, about 15 years ago from memory. The work levies jumped by about 40%.

Strangely enough, it was a similar story about 4 years ago. Co-incidently, both times were just after Labour lost to National in general elections.
Now - I'm not saying that Labour 'hid loses' or that National applied a bullshit accounting process...but still, ACC is a perfect political football/cash cow.

[FJRider]

Yes. That is what it is for.



In fact ACC did find the kitty was nearly bare, about 15 years ago from memory. The work levies jumped by about 40%.

If that hadn't happened, ACC could have borrowed the money for a short time, and/or drawn from the government. No government would have let ACC founder.

That's what its for ... just like the road tax in fuel costs going on the roads ...

There was a bit of juggleing of figures to make it appear that way. Depending on how they were presented to joe public. Like pre-bikeoi ...

ACC borrowing money from the goverment ...