You pricks are costing us taxpayers too much money

[Old Steve]

"But the most costly claims are for the older riders because they're on the open road, they're going faster, they earn more so their compensation claims are higher."

But aren't those higher earning riders paying more tax? So the money is going into the Govt coffers by some means, even if its not direct to ACC through the vehicle and fuel levies.

On the Prorider Silver course I did, we were told that younger sports bike riders had the higher incidence of crashes on a % basis, followed by scooter riders.

Its only the earning power of older riders which distorts the ACC payments, small proportion of crashes but compensation for large earnings.

And this older rider did do six months on a LAMS bike, 20 months even, and a 250 cc cruiser as well.

[Ocean1]

In my view it is an exercise in victim blaming. The next step is pogroms, book burnings and lynchings.

My questions also revolve around why: why is this in the news now? whose agenda does it promote?


I will nail my colours to the mast here and declare a bias: I loathe this current government. But the point is: the idea of ACC is that it is a "no fault"s system and we as a country have spent a large amount of time and effort and money to develop it and nurture it. Singling out groups (as this does) is to undermine the principles of that system.

The interesting thing to me is that rugby (followed by netball) costs the country the most in sports injuries every year by a long way: but is it singled out in that way? of course not.

Fuckers. All of them.

Does anyone who rides a bike on the road and who gets injured have much of a claim to victimhood?

And I think the motivation for past and probably this latest pogrom is cost related, not "class" related.

Policy by accountant. The sort mash-up not acceptable by left or right.

[Chancebmx25]

Fuck y'all. Time to ban MURDERCYCLES.


http://www.newshub.co.nz/nznews/midd...#axzz46dcRciDu

did you leave your Vagina at home?

[Duncan74]

Is the ACC component of bike registration used to cover renumeration loss?

I rather thought that it would be the employer and employee levies, which are relative to earnings. Not, I hasten to add that I think rich pricks should automatically be expected to pay more, they do so almost across the board wrt value received in return.

And let's not forget that ACC was set up to cover everyone, regardless of the ability to pay. Or does that feature only cover those that can't pay?

I thought that too (would be from the earnings component), but it's not. For motor vehicle accidents then it's all from the ACC part of the rego. The opposite to the concept of the rich being expected to pay more is that those on lower salaries are actually subsidising the cover for those on higher salary. As the cover we get as individuals is limited to 80% of wages, then someone on, let's say $130k who pays their motorcycle ACC levy is getting a lot better 'value' than someone earning $60k. Most insurance is charged as a function of risk and benefit.

Earners’ Account

Levies are paid to the Earners’ Account by everyone in the paid workforce. If you’re an employee, your earner’s levy is deducted from your gross pay along with your PAYE tax. If you’re self-employed, we send you an invoice.

This account covers claims for people in paid employment who are injured outside of work, eg on the sports field or at home, unless the injury is related to a motor vehicle accident on a public road (these injuries are covered by the Motor Vehicle Account).

[Voltaire]

In my view it is an exercise in victim blaming. The next step is pogroms, book burnings and lynchings.

My questions also revolve around why: why is this in the news now? whose agenda does it promote?


I will nail my colours to the mast here and declare a bias: I loathe this current government. But the point is: the idea of ACC is that it is a "no fault"s system and we as a country have spent a large amount of time and effort and money to develop it and nurture it. Singling out groups (as this does) is to undermine the principles of that system.

The interesting thing to me is that rugby (followed by netball) costs the country the most in sports injuries every year by a long way: but is it singled out in that way? of course not.

Fuckers. All of them.

I'm for a bit of book burning get rid of all those books about cars and motorcycles that I drag from house to house.

I'm not a big fan of the current Govt, but given the choice of what else is on offer.

The current system of National and Labour date back to the 1930's, its about time they got the same treatment everything else has got in modern times.

Why the fuck do we pay the opposition to sit there and bleat for 3 years.... just have MP's, we vote for them on line and the top 50 become the Govt, much like the X Factor but

without the talent.

Rugby will cost a lot long term with alzheimer's.

[Duncan74]

Some more 'facts'. Not sure if they do add context, or simply more points on which to hang any particular narrative you wish...

http://www.transport.govt.nz/assets/...rcycles-15.pdf

From Figure 10, those aged 45 years and older travel furthest per rider per year, with the largest amount of travel on the open road. For this age group, 81 percent of their travel is on the open road.

So travel more - and risk is generally a function of distance travelled (time exposed to danger). The problem noted in the report is that much of the data comes from the household travel survey that is only a record of two days activity, and with 'leisure' a key reason for motorcycling then the chances are that many regular motorcyclists responding didn't happen to ride on either of those two days.

So a lot of the data ends up skewed towards the kids going to school - short trips, local, lower speed urban environments.

From :- http://www.transport.govt.nz/assets/...rcycles-15.pdf

Then look at figure 2. I'm sure there must be something else, but aside from "Long way round" being aired at the start of that rise, then it's pretty dramatic.

Final thought. Based on the license class of rider in crash data, then I'm tempted not to get my full and stay on restricted. Seems safer....

[slofox]

Doesn't apply to me 'cause I'm not middle-aged. I'm old. And earn fuck all.

[swbarnett]

In other taxation systems then the income related tax would offset the increased payouts, but as ACC is on vehicles, then the only way you could attempt to proxy that would be to charge ACC levy based on value of bike

There's a much simpler way. Take all ACC funding from income tax.

[Ocean1]

I thought that too (would be from the earnings component), but it's not. For motor vehicle accidents then it's all from the ACC part of the rego. The opposite to the concept of the rich being expected to pay more is that those on lower salaries are actually subsidising the cover for those on higher salary.

That makes some sort of bazar sense, not only is the one tax which can easily be reconciled to the benefits accrued to the tax payer... not.

But it reverses the normal trend and taxes those earning less the same as rich pricks.

[Spearfish]

That makes some sort of bazar sense, not only is the one tax which can easily be reconciled to the benefits accrued to the tax payer... not.

But it reverses the normal trend and taxes those earning less the same as rich pricks.

Is it going to be hard to get upset paying the same ACC as a "rich prick" for the same cover to do the same thing if you want to pay as little as a car rego in a level no fault playing field?

[neels]

So what it's really saying is that people who are successful and have high incomes, and have therefore been making a significant tax contribution and paying considerable ACC levies in addition to the specific one also attached to their choice of recreation, cost ACC the most money when they are legitimately entitled to have their income covered after an accident.

The point being?

Let's go after the rich horsey riding people next, they're well up the list of ACC costs, and don't even pay a specific levy for their choice of recreation......

[Duncan74]

Is it going to be hard to get upset paying the same ACC as a "rich prick" for the same cover to do the same thing if you want to pay as little as a car rego in a level no fault playing field?

Thing is, and I say this as someone on the receiving side of this equation, the higher earners get MORE from the ACC than the lower income. From memory it's capped about 130k, but you get 80% of income on ACC. So for the same $250 per year ACC contribution, people with bigger incomes get more benefit.

However. Having lived in the UK where with no ACC and compulsory insurance, then the cost of insurance was prohibitive for many people in relation to choice of vehicles. As a student I was quoted UKP2500 per year 3rd party for a ford sierra worth about that.

[scumdog]

Luckily I'm past middle-age.


Just!

[JimO]

i suspect motorcyclists numbers will dwindle as the old born agains off themselves on their bikes there wont be a influx of young fellers to take their place because the young fellers can buy a cheap turbo subaru to hoon in where as back in my day we couldnt afford a car and first transport was a road legal trail bike, followed by a string of bigger and faster road bikes until children/work/poverty forced us to stop riding until they bugger off leaving us $$$ to spend on 2 wheels

[Swoop]

In my view it is an exercise in victim blaming. The next step is pogroms, book burnings and lynchings.

My questions also revolve around why: why is this in the news now?

Simple. No pointy-ball games currently being played to amuse the moronic masses.

did you leave your Vagina at home?

Since you are new here, your sarcasm detection ability has still to leave its vagina.