The man is a total arse wipe and unfortunately his tardme millions have got him a buy in to the old boys club. Think he should take his 'econmics' and stick them where the sun don't shine.
I didn't think!!! I experimented!!!
prostitution eh... respec. You fit in well.
What these guys are proposing, meeting at our expense, is to levy those who can't afford it off the road and make ACC stretch itself to the point where it can't afford to look after us (they're already turning people away with existing and recurring injuries )... they'll call it choice and we'll all, well some of you, will lap it up because it suite your agenda being the serial non-crasher that you are. I guess you may as well reap the benefits, coz you deserve it, until the costs push you off the road too... but fairs fair, you'll have your choice... why should you care what the probable fallout will be.
I didn't think!!! I experimented!!!
The problem with this is that 1) Would it be a fixed charge for all workers - therefore possibly turning people away from working if they have to pay 5k regardless of what job they are in, or a percentage of earnings amount, which is what happens at the moment, which then means that if people earn more, they pay more (which I'm not entirely against) but then on the flip side, people who don't work (quite a large percentage of the NZ greater population) wouldn't pay any levy - that would include ?a majority of people over 65, people under the age of 14, and a lot of rich people/rich people's family, all of who can and one may argue are more likely to hurt themselves and therefore require ACC.
Are we al talking about ansurance policy that the worst riders wont even pay for.
Those who are prepaired to ride a bike with no rego wont think twice about riding without cover.
Guess they will just die on the side of the road if not insured though.
Going to cost me alot. Ill have to get a policy for my wife aswell seeing as she likes to come for a ride also.
Is it just me or will the cost of living keep going up faster than income untill we will all be sold as slave labour to a third world sweat shop.
I have evolved as a KB member.Now nothing I say should be taken seriously.
Very true. You're right, it would have to be a percentage of wages thing and yes there would be those who would end up not paying (the same who don't already?). I wouldn't mind paying more either, after all I have a single bike to rego each year, but it would allow those who have multiple motorcycles to be levied once as they seem to want. It would be interesting to find out how many people don't pay their rego that could and work. After all, you wouldn't be able to dodge your rego if it was straight off your wages. It would also be interesting to find out how many people who are unemployed do pay their rego... and to that end find out how close those 2 figures would be to cancelling each other out. If the total bill is $10 billion per year and there are 2 million of us working, then your figure of 5k would seem to be about right. I probably pay about a half of that, maybe a bit more, for my bike, car and earners levy etc... On the face of it it's a shitload more than I currently spend, but it would cover everyone for any sport etc...
I'd be interested to find out how much of that 5k would be offset by the employers levy, the fuel levy, any other levy that's out there and taking into account the usual surplus that's invested to cover, er, er, er, whatever that surplus goes into covering? I'd love to know what my end bill would be before signing up for a scheme proposed by a bunch of economists and political brown noses that could turn out to have quite serious downsides for plenty of people... which could, by default, lead to prices going up as more and more people leave ACC for private insurers or just stop paying for rego because it costs too much.
I wonder if that analysis has been undertaken?
I didn't think!!! I experimented!!!
aye, it's just you... grab yer tin foil hat quickly. It's been happening for decades. The top earners get fuckloads of cash and then cumulative income/wealth is divided by the working population to make is seem like all of our salaries are rising (the report says so, so it must be true). That means we can afford to pay more ACC and should damn well be able to afford private insurance. You should be ashamed of yourself for thinking such stupid thoughts
I didn't think!!! I experimented!!!
Quote Jan 2020 Posted by Katman
Life would be so much easier if you addressed questions with a simple answer.
Almost every change of government since the inception of ACC began their tenure of office claiming ACC was broke or struggling due to abusive claims etc!
That has been the main cause for the tinkering and interference but as you say, it always gets exposed to having money invested every which way!
ACC in it's original concept would be OK if it was free of political interference every three years IMHO.
To counter your first statement, of varying risk, Woodhouse concluded that you can not weight up just one side of the ledger, what the cost of an activity is that someone undertakes without also considering the other side of the ledger, what that person brings/pays to the community as a whole. His final conclusion after investigating it was that the cost of a scheme that considered the net contribution of an individual was so great (administration cost) that it was cheaper to go to a no-fault scheme.
Woodhouse had always recognized it would be very easy to create a scheme that was too expensive to run. He solution was always that the level of cover provided must be able to be paid for by the funds coming in. If it becomes more expensive, you reduce the level of cover to what the people can afford. Woodhouse said cuts should begin with less essential treatments, to preserve essential cover for those really in need.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks