I've had enough!

[Akzle]

No, it's very few. I don't know any personally. Might be just you.
I am not happy about the amount of money I have to fork out in ACC payments but it is a fact of life in this country if you pay tax and live in mainstream society.

you have a very narrow world view, and i expect, maintain an equally narrow circle of acquaintances, you hang with homies jamming to your own tune, yo dawg.
This re-affirms your own beliefs and means you dont have to challenge them or seriously consider any alternate, innit.
Not sure if youve noticed any protests on TV, you love tv. But you probably dismiss a lot of it, because your such a fucking upstanding subject of the state, arent ya, and they protesters are jus rousing rabble.

Three word retort and back to the tv old chap. G'wan...

[Laava]

you have a very narrow world view, and i expect, maintain an equally narrow circle of acquaintances, you hang with homies jamming to your own tune, yo dawg.
This re-affirms your own beliefs and means you dont have to challenge them or seriously consider any alternate, innit.
Not sure if youve noticed any protests on TV, you love tv. But you probably dismiss a lot of it, because your such a fucking upstanding subject of the state, arent ya, and they protesters are jus rousing rabble.

Three word retort and back to the tv old chap. G'wan...

A, you are fucking ignorant.
B, but not a bad retort for a stoner living in a fantasy world

[Akzle]

"be the change you want to see in the world"

[Damantis]

what about those who dont "earn income" (or don't declare it... cashies yo)

They should probably just hang themselves. Or at the least, have their cock slammed in a door.

[Akzle]

They should probably just hang themselves. Or at the least, have their cock slammed in a door.

oh darling. You need a hug.

[swbarnett]

IMO you're taking it from the wrong tax, I'd put it wholly on the GST, that way everyone pays working or not regardless of age. Everyone can use it why not everyone pay for it?

In principle I agree with you.

However, then we get in to the philosophical discussion on the fiscal efficiency of too many taxes. Personally I'd scrap GST. It's a band-aid solution to a complex problem (that of the rich evading tax) that costs heaps in administration.

Also, low-income earners pay a far greater percentage of their income as GST than the rich. This is hardly fair.

[swbarnett]

well it is, in that if youre swapping cash for stuff, and youre not telling the jrd, the appropriate levy wouldnt be paid, innit.

I can see how it seems that way. However, tax evasion is a wider issue and not directly related to ACC funding. It needs to be tackled separately.

[Winston001]

When are people going to get it that ACC is NOT insurance in the normal sense. It is a scheme that was originally designed to spread the cost of accidents across the whole population with NO FAULT attributed to the accident "victims".

I'm afraid you are mistaken. ACC for much of its existence was called the Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act and was an insurance scheme from the beginning in 1974.

The confusion arises from Sir Owen Woodhouse's 1967 Royal Commission report which recommended no fault and universal coverage. That is actually what we got 7 years later.

OT for a moment, Sir Owen later conducted a similar Commission in Australia but ACC was too radical for them.

The Royal Commission envisaged a taxpayer funded scheme but Parliament after chewing it over for 5 years ultimately decided on a tax/user-pays hybrid. At that time (which I remember) Norman Kirk's government wanted to move to a total accident/sickness comp scheme.

Then came the 1973 oil shock plus Britain joining the Common Market and NZ was in a very bad financial situation.

Sickness compensation evaporated and honestly I mourn that to this very day. So much distress in later years could have been avoided.

[Winston001]

The ACC scheme today is unique throughout the world. And IMHO we are much better served by it then the civil litigation everyone else uses.

ACC has five funding requirements:

1. Employers pay a percentage of wages calculated by industry. Farmers, scaffolders, and forestry pay the highest amount.

2. Wage earners pay 1.45% which is $1.45 per $100 of earnings.

3. 10 cents per litre on petrol but not diesel.

4. Motor vehicle levies.

5. Funding of past claims which extend 50+ years into the future. It's a type of bottomless pit. This is the big one. Logically a fund is built up to cover future costs, but on the other hand our children could pay the increased levies instead. Just as they do with the old age pension.

Every way this can be analysed, its insurance.

[Voltaire]

ahh yes. the penis mightier than the sword.
i hope it makes you feel better, because it's unlikely to achieve anything.

good. thanks and fuck yourself.


you realise how many people put shit on internets, for free? people who work collaboratively, for the benefit of anyone and everyone, for free?

because if you don't realise that, there's a good chance you're a cunt. an ignorant cunt.

you realise a lot of the next generation doesn't want to play the money game? you realise that the sand castles are falling, and that people are waking up to the bullshit you've been bought up to believe?

enter, stage left: ocean.

[Ocean1]

you realise a lot of the next generation doesn't want to play the money game? you realise that the sand castles are falling, and that people are waking up to the bullshit you've been bought up to believe?

enter, stage left: ocean.

Stage left? Fuck off, nothing of any value whatsoever ever arrived from that direction.

[Scuba_Steve]

In principle I agree with you.

However, then we get in to the philosophical discussion on the fiscal efficiency of too many taxes. Personally I'd scrap GST. It's a band-aid solution to a complex problem (that of the rich evading tax) that costs heaps in administration.

Also, low-income earners pay a far greater percentage of their income as GST than the rich. This is hardly fair.

See I'd again go another way & scrap income tax. The problem with GST is like ACC in that it's not the component itself that's the problem it's the way it's being run that's the problem.
If GST was THE tax there'd be no problem with it, the fact it's being used instead as a way to extort more tax (mostly for no reason) is the problem

[swbarnett]

Every way this can be analysed, its insurance.

Maybe that's what it has become but it should have never been allowed to. ACC is of benefit to all so all should pay what they can. The only was to do this fairly is out of income tax.

I still maintain that ACC is not, in principle, an insurance scheme. Even if that is what it's been bastardised into. Any changes to ACC funding need to move it toward what it is supposed to be.

[swbarnett]

See I'd again go another way & scrap income tax. The problem with GST is like ACC in that it's not the component itself that's the problem it's the way it's being run that's the problem.
If GST was THE tax there'd be no problem with it, the fact it's being used instead as a way to extort more tax (mostly for no reason) is the problem

The problem with GST that I see is that the lower your income the greater percentage of it you spend just to get by. Therefore the poor pay a far greater percentage of their income in GST than do the rich. At least income tax is higher for those that are more able to pay.

[Akzle]

The problem with GST that I see is that the lower your income the greater percentage of it you spend just to get by. Therefore the poor pay a far greater percentage of their income in GST than do the rich. At least income tax is higher for those that are more able to pay.

you know how tax dodging works, right? you know that would only work for honest men, and that fuckall of them wear suits.