Non-payment of ACC levies: how do you reckon this will end?

[Winston001]

If insurance companies build a fund to cover long term claims, and are so good at it, why are the papers full of cases of them fighting tooth and nail to not pay out claims in Christchurch?

Also, AMI failed and had to be bailed out by the taxpayers. Prior to that it was Western Pacifc Insurance who went belly up.

Fair comments.

1. To the best of my knowledge insurance companies are required by law to build a "float" - that is to protect policy holders.

Here is an interesting explanation of how it works - http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworst...one-paragraph/

2. Insurers in Christchurch are nervous of continuing earthquake damage - they don't want to repair a home only to see it further damaged next week. And that has happened - there have been at least 3 serious quakes and arguments arise.

That is no comfort to home owners though and I'm sure the insurers have been deliberately delaying to wear people down. Bastards.

3. AMI failed because they concentrated on Christchurch. Nobody ever expected a disaster this bad. By comparison FMG is a NZ insurance company with policies in Christchurch (and elsewhere) and it has not failed.

[Winston001]

No private Insurance company has ever held its liability in reserve. Once operating budget is covered they "reinvest" money they don't have. That's been revealed and nailed to the mast of capitalist economic failure over and over. Why do supposedly educated people fail to grasp the inherent problem with that approach Winston?

At a simple level you are correct. Insurance companies do not have a giant piggy bank in the back office. Neither do banks.

Both businesses collect money and then invest it through loans or other assets.

Nevertheless those loans/assets are held to repay customers claims which makes them reserve funds.

[rastuscat]

I'm with you on that one Swarfie, untill a few months ago i had four bikes, my work ute and my private car. All of which i was paying ACC levies on and on top of that was the ACC levy on my anual income. That's paying seven times for the one person. This to me is theft and was obviously designed by a fuckwit.:

Just thought you'd be interested in the definition of theft.

[219Theft or stealing
(1)Theft or stealing is the act of,—
(a)dishonestly and without claim of right, taking any property with intent to deprive any owner permanently of that property or of any interest in that property;

Sorry, ACC levies don't qualify as theft.

As much as you and I don't like it, it's legal, and the law.

Not to say that you have to agree, just to say that it's not theft.

[swbarnett]

Just thought you'd be interested in the definition of theft.

[219Theft or stealing
(1)Theft or stealing is the act of,—
(a)dishonestly and without claim of right, taking any property with intent to deprive any owner permanently of that property or of any interest in that property;

Sorry, ACC levies don't qualify as theft.

As much as you and I don't like it, it's legal, and the law.

Not to say that you have to agree, just to say that it's not theft.

Technically you are correct. However, defining something in law does not make it right. There is some serious dispute about ACC's "claim of right" on moral grounds.

[Zedder]

Fair comments.

1. To the best of my knowledge insurance companies are required by law to build a "float" - that is to protect policy holders.

Here is an interesting explanation of how it works - http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworst...one-paragraph/

2. Insurers in Christchurch are nervous of continuing earthquake damage - they don't want to repair a home only to see it further damaged next week. And that has happened - there have been at least 3 serious quakes and arguments arise.

That is no comfort to home owners though and I'm sure the insurers have been deliberately delaying to wear people down. Bastards.

3. AMI failed because they concentrated on Christchurch. Nobody ever expected a disaster this bad. By comparison FMG is a NZ insurance company with policies in Christchurch (and elsewhere) and it has not failed.

My first question was rhetorical. However, I know how insurance companies work, or in the case of the ones who failed in their duty over Christchurch, don't work. They are meant to know their business. They've been raking in the money for years, got it wrong and are not only deliberately not paying out but are also now charging fixed sum insurance, the premiums for which in most cases have doubled, all over New Zealand.

As for AMI, they got it really wrong and to make matters worse then went crying to the Government.

Furthermore, I read an article where one company is gloating over making much more money out of the NZ situation. In short they are scum.

[Robbo]

Just thought you'd be interested in the definition of theft.

[219Theft or stealing
(1)Theft or stealing is the act of,—
(a)dishonestly and without claim of right, taking any property with intent to deprive any owner permanently of that property or of any interest in that property;

Sorry, ACC levies don't qualify as theft.

As much as you and I don't like it, it's legal, and the law.

Not to say that you have to agree, just to say that it's not theft.

Hi Rastus, No doubt that your legal definition of theft is correct, but from my point of view to collect from someone seven times for the same service is thieving in my eyes. If i was to operate my business like that i would soon be done for theft or corruption. Take for example the levy difference between a 250cc bike and a 1000cc bike. A rider can sustain the same injuries on either bike so why the difference. This was obviously thought of by some idiot who knows jackshit about motorbikes. Also, a pushbike rider who does'nt own any vehicles and only pays an ACC levy on his earnings, has the same level of cover as i do for a fraction of the cost.
I wholly agree with the concept of ACC but the collection of levies has to be fairer.

[MSTRS:Me]

I wholly agree with the concept of ACC

So do we all. Trouble is, the reality is ACC has changed to the point where any concept it started with is now irrelevant

[MSTRS:Me]

Today if you hurt your spine on a rugby field, ACC covers you. But if your spine collapses on the same field because of a medical problem, you are out of luck.

Not quite. You are thinking of yesterday...
I think you will find that today if you hurt your spine playing rugby, ACC will do their utmost to deny cover on the basis that was a medical problem that caused the so-called injury.

[Swoop]

Just thought you'd be interested in the definition of theft.

[219Theft or stealing
(1)Theft or stealing is the act of,—
(a)dishonestly and without claim of right, taking any property with intent to deprive any owner permanently of that property or of any interest in that property;

Sorry, ACC levies don't qualify as theft.

So... Multiple charging for the same "sevice" is perfectly legal?

I remain happily contributing to the ACC fund for ONE person.
The vehicles over and above the ONE, will remain unregistered.


The sooner that ACC becomes related to the individual human being operating any vehicle, the better. Quite simple really.

[mashman]

All levies are paid for from a single source. Earnings. Sliding scale that fucker.

[Robbo]

The sooner that ACC becomes related to the individual human being operating any vehicle, the better. Quite simple really.

And that's it in a nutshell Swoop. If mere mortals like us can comprehend this then why the hell cant these wankers(overpaid experts) that
designed this totally unfair system understand it. I guess our taxes pay them such huge salaries that they just don't give a shit.

[Winston001]

My first question was rhetorical...I know how insurance companies work, or in the case of the ones who failed in their duty over Christchurch, don't work.

As for AMI, they got it really wrong and to make matters worse then went crying to the Government.

Just to clarify the AMI situation because someone up thread referred to a government bailout. That implies some big business got away with government money.

Nothing could be further from the truth. AMI was a mutual insurance company - basically a co-op. It was owned by the policy holders. FMG is also owned by policy holders. There are no shareholders, no listing on stock exchanges, no big business involved.

If the government had not stepped in to fund AMI then thousands of Christchurch people wouldn't be arguing about insurance delays today. They'd have no insurance at all. Gone. This was no gift or subsidy.

[Zedder]

Just to clarify the AMI situation because someone up thread referred to a government bailout. That implies some big business got away with government money.

Nothing could be further from the truth. AMI was a mutual insurance company - basically a co-op. It was owned by the policy holders. FMG is also owned by policy holders. There are no shareholders, no listing on stock exchanges, no big business involved.

If the government had not stepped in to fund AMI then thousands of Christchurch people wouldn't be arguing about insurance delays today. They'd have no insurance at all. Gone. This was no gift or subsidy.

AMI was first bailed out by the government/taxpayer then sold to IAG. The taxpayers ended up footing a $254 million dollar bill and IAG paid $380 million for the company.

The fact is AMI, just like South Canterbury Finance incidently, was badly run and carried out risky growth strategies among other unsustainable operations.

[Winston001]

AMI was first bailed out by the government/taxpayer then sold to IAG. The taxpayers ended up footing a $254 million dollar bill and IAG paid $380 million for the company.

The fact is AMI, just like South Canterbury Finance incidently, was badly run and carried out risky growth strategies among other unsustainable operations.

Yep, well said, bling. I do know the general details.

The thing is people in Christchurch who insured with AMI are still covered but only because the government was merciful.

[MSTRS:Me]

I think the reason why it is higher for bigger bikes is because mid life crisis bikers buy them and think they can ride as well as they did 25 years ago and come to grief as the power of big bikes today is much higher.

Nope. It is higher because 'big' bikes are generally owned by people with 'big' incomes. Therefore accidents cost ACC more than for 'little' bikes. Meanwhile, back in the real world, the fuckers have double-dipped (again). Earnings-related levies are far higher for people with 'big' incomes. Strange, that.
You see, there are 4 funds. Work, leisure, motor, non-earners. But have a vehicle injury and the motor fund obviously pays for earnings loss as well. Hence the double-dipping.