I've had enough!

[swbarnett]

Firstly, company levies and road user levies are indeed risk based. Only individual income levies are based on income alone.

Exactly. This is what it has become. My point is that the former should not be the case and all ACC funding should be on a pro-rata income basis (i.e. income tax) the no-fault principle is to be adhered to.

Secondly, those with a higher "ability to pay" have already paid an exponentially higher tax on their income, why should they have to pay more again?

They shouldn't. See above.

Also, the tax on higher incomes is not "exponentially higher".

Just for clarity these are the current NZ tax rates:
up to $14,000 - 10.5%
from $14,001 to $48,000 - 17.5%
from $48,001 to $70,000 - 30%
$70,001 and over - 33%

[Ocean1]

Exactly. This is what it has become. My point is that the former should not be the case and all ACC funding should be on a pro-rata income basis (i.e. income tax) the no-fault principle is to be adhered to.

I'll refer you to the southern gentleman's history lesson above regarding ACC.

They shouldn't. See above.

So the "ability to pay" should dictate ACC contributions, but it shouldn't?

Fuck that's deep.

Also, the tax on higher incomes is not "exponentially higher".

Just for clarity these are the current NZ tax rates:
up to $14,000 - 10.5%
from $14,001 to $48,000 - 17.5%
from $48,001 to $70,000 - 30%
$70,001 and over - 33%

Yes. Numbers I'm abundantly aware of I assure you.

I'd also assure you that the above rates don't actually represent a linear relationship between income and tax, but it occurs to me I'd be wasting my soap.

[neels]

Also, the tax on higher incomes is not "exponentially higher".

Just for clarity these are the current NZ tax rates:
up to $14,000 - 10.5%
from $14,001 to $48,000 - 17.5%
from $48,001 to $70,000 - 30%
$70,001 and over - 33%

That makes me feel so much better, that paying a third of my income over 70k is not an exponential function of paying 10.5% of the first 14k.

Incidentally (and completely off topic) my teenage son no longer gets a tax rebate on his supermarket job, while John Key and his rich wanker mates drink champagne as their accountants beaver away eliminating their tax liabilities.

Anyway, still can't see how my 2 bikes sitting in the garage are attracting the same ACC levy for sitting in the garage not being ridden. At best I can only ride one of them at any given time, and in the current weather it's unlikely I'll be riding either of them, but still the paying goes on......

[swbarnett]

I'll refer you to the southern gentleman's history lesson above regarding ACC.

The history of ACC is both unfortunate and irrelevant. I'm only expressing my views on how I think it should be funded to stay in line with the spirit of the original principles.

So the "ability to pay" should dictate ACC contributions, but it shouldn't?

Why not? It dictates our contribution to every other public good paid out of the government coffers. ACC is supposed to be a public good after all.

Yes. Numbers I'm abundantly aware of I assure you.

I figured as much.

I'd also assure you that the above rates don't actually represent a linear relationship between income and tax

Of this I am also aware. However, it bears no relationship to powers of e either (mathematical definition of exponential IIRC). I was only objecting to the term being used incorrectly as a scare-mongering device.

[swbarnett]

That makes me feel so much better, that paying a third of my income over 70k is not an exponential function of paying 10.5% of the first 14k.

I'm not saying that the tax rates as they stand are necessarily what they should be. However, not that long ago the top rate was 39%. And I seem to remember it used to be higher than that again.

Incidentally (and completely off topic) my teenage son no longer gets a tax rebate on his supermarket job, while John Key and his rich wanker mates drink champagne as their accountants beaver away eliminating their tax liabilities.

I agree that this is just wrong. As is the removal of my ability to give half my income to my no earning wife for tax purposes. This would halve our tax bill.

Anyway, still can't see how my 2 bikes sitting in the garage are attracting the same ACC levy for sitting in the garage not being ridden. At best I can only ride one of them at any given time, and in the current weather it's unlikely I'll be riding either of them, but still the paying goes on......

This is exactly what I'm talking about. If ACC was paid out of the general tax take you'd be paying the same as anyone else at your income level no matter how many vehicles you own.

[Winston001]

However, what I'm trying to get at is that ACC is unlike insurance in that it is not based on a risk assessment of the individual.

Ah but it is. If you are a shearer or forestry worker the ACC levy on your earnings is five times as high as an office worker. However you don't know that because your employer has to pay that risk-weighted levy.

k.

Incidentally (and completely off topic) my teenage son no longer gets a tax rebate on his supermarket job, while John Key and his rich wanker mates drink champagne as their accountants beaver away eliminating their tax liabilities.

Yeah that seemed a petty move to me too.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. If ACC was paid out of the general tax take you'd be paying the same as anyone else at your income level no matter how many vehicles you own.

I agree. Add 50c/litre to fuel. Simple and job done.

[russd7]

I agree. Add 50c/litre to fuel. Simple and job done.

that still means that as motorcyclists we are still subsidising cyclists and skiers and rugby players etc etc for their injuries as well, and yes i know that most of those people also own and drive cars but so do i so based on that argument i should also not be paying ACC on my bike regos as i only ride them for recreation.

[unstuck]

Ah but it is. If you are a shearer the ACC levy on your earnings is five times as high as an office worker. However you don't know that because your employer has to pay that risk-weighted levy.



.

Unless it is an open run.

[swbarnett]

Ah but it is. If you are a shearer or forestry worker the ACC levy on your earnings is five times as high as an office worker. However you don't know that because your employer has to pay that risk-weighted levy.

No it isn't. I used the word "individual" very deliberatly. Yes, there are disparities between industries (something that I think goes against the core principles of what ACC is supposed to be).

I agree. Add 50c/litre to fuel. Simple and job done.

How high do you want the inflation rate to go? This is why I would rather see the ACC cost come out of income tax. Increase the price of fuel and watch the price of everything that goes anywhere near any form of transport (except maybe bicycle couriers) go through the roof.

[Winston001]

that still means that as motorcyclists we are still subsidising cyclists and skiers and rugby players etc etc for their injuries as well, and yes i know that most of those people also own and drive cars but so do i so based on that argument i should also not be paying ACC on my bike regos as i only ride them for recreation.

Well no. Skiers rugby players etc, all of us pay a tiny levy on our incomes of 1.45c/$. Sod all but that covers non-work non-vehicle accidents.

[swbarnett]

Well no. Skiers rugby players etc, all of us pay a tiny levy on our incomes of 1.45c/$. Sod all but that covers non-work non-vehicle accidents.

I ride a bike for recreation (as well as for basic transport). Why should I pay a fuel levy for my recreation when the horse rider etc. doesn't?

[Winston001]

I ride a bike for recreation (as well as for basic transport). Why should I pay a fuel levy for my recreation when the horse rider etc. doesn't?

LOL ya kiddin right? Horses don't levitate to riding destinations, instead their owners pay large sums of money for floats and 4wd to tow yadda yadda etc. Even high country horses (not many left) get rides from time to time. In fact I'd guess that horsey people pay over the odds on petrol tax. A very expensive hobby.

[swbarnett]

LOL ya kiddin right? Horses don't levitate to riding destination, instead their owners pay large sums of money for floats and 4wd to tow yadda yadda etc. Even high country horses (not many left) get rides from time to time. In fact I'd guess that horsey people pay over the odds on petrol tax. A very expensive hobby.

Yes, but they're paying to get to were they partake in their hobby but not while they partake in it.

If I take a bike to a track day on a trailer I not only pay the same as the horse rider does to get there but I also pay while I'm riding.

[eelracing]

Some interesting fact & figures regarding Rugby and Football ACC claims nationwide for the last two years.

Football Injuries + cost:
2012 - 35,355 $26,353,484
2013 - 38,487 $28,598,582

Rugby injuries + cost:
2012 - 59,086 $62,829,684
2013 - 64,280 $67,133,311

Golfers and Lawn Bowlers are rumoured to be even higher.

[RJC]

I ride a bike for recreation (as well as for basic transport). Why should I pay a fuel levy for my recreation when the horse rider etc. doesn't?

I've got two motorbikes, the missus has a horse, we both snowboard and mountainbike. I figure it balances out.

And if you think acc levies on rego is expensive, I know some people in business that are required to have special insurance for missing debt repayments due to a motorcycle incident. It's eye watering.