ACC levy protest action

[Bend-it]

Correct.

I can also rent out the two houses I am not living in. Therefore using the services that I would not use while not living in them.

And I can allow my son and g/f to use my car and second bike at same time I use one bike my self.

*can* does not equate to *did*... I could kill someone doesn't mean I did kill someone, does it??

Tenants pay the rates indirectly through rent. And you still pay rates even if the house is untenanted because you still have road frontage which gets maintained, power lines, water and services maintenance etc. Correct.

ACC IS NOT for services, how many times must I type this?? Can you read it?

If a family member wants to use my vehicle, then they should have their own ACC assessment that includes "occassional use of dad's car" or something like that, and pay the premium associated with that.

[bent12]

How else would you describe a nurse/doctor mending a broken motorcyclists. A premium is payed based on risk, enthusiasticly adopted and manipulated by insurance people, the acc scheme is supposed to embody old fashioned notions of equality and ability to pay.

[Conquiztador]

*can* does not equate to *did*... I could kill someone doesn't mean I did kill someone, does it??

Tenants pay the rates indirectly through rent. And you still pay rates even if the house is untenanted because you still have road frontage which gets maintained, power lines, water and services maintenance etc. Correct.

ACC IS NOT for services, how many times must I type this?? Can you read it?

If a family member wants to use my vehicle, then they should have their own ACC assessment that includes "occassional use of dad's car" or something like that, and pay the premium associated with that.

- Just for you I will swap "can" for "have the right to". Now read it again.
- You have the right to not connect your house to the water, power and services, but you will still be charged the rates if you decide not to.
- Thank you for your concern re my reading ability. Insurance is what you are talking about. You have the option to not buy one leaving you to gamble that you will save the money as you will never need it. ACC takes this option away from you. It is compulsory for all. Like rates on a house. No options. You pay rates if you use the "service" or not. Like ACC.
- The current system is set up so that ACC is not paid by the individual but by the employer, the compulsory vehicle license. And the reason is obvious. Fill a car with boy racers. One has a paid up ACC. Others not. At an accident all are injured. Who gets "serviced"?

[Bend-it]

We pay for insurance, insurance companies then pay for the services we may or may not receive... that step in between makes all the difference.

I completely agree with your 2nd point. It should be either:
- People who participate in riskier activities pay more or
- Premiums based on ability to pay, which it mostly is currently.

The proposed changes make it based on ability to pay, UNLESS you're a motorcyclist, in which case, WE WILL SCREW YOU!!! MUAHAHAHAH!!!

[terbang]

If a family member wants to use my vehicle, then they should have their own ACC assessment that includes "occassional use of dad's car" or something like that, and pay the premium associated with that.

I already have that. Its called insurance...

[Bend-it]

- Just for you I will swap "can" for "have the right to". Now read it again.
- You have the right to not connect your house to the water, power and services, but you will still be carged the rates if you decide not to.

Really? Can you decide not to connect up services? I suppose you could... and if you did, you're right, you *should* pay discounted rates... if you don't then there's something wrong with the system, which doesn't make it right somewhere else.

- The current system is set up so that ACC is not paid by the individual but by the employer, the compulsory vehicle license. And the reason is obvious. Fill a car with boy racers. One has a paid up ACC. Others not. At an accident all are injured. Who gets "serviced"?

Eh? So the boy racer with one car and 4 mates run the risk of 5 injuries but pays $200+ , and the biker with 2 bikes, a car and no mates runs the risk of 1 injury, but pays $1,700+ and this sounds right to you?

[Bend-it]

I already have that. Its called insurance...

Car insurance doesn't cover injuries, just car damage. ACC covers injuries...

But I agree with you, ACC is just health insurance in the case of accidents, which NZ health insurance don't generally cover because everyone's covered by ACC. Either that, or they top up shortfalls after the ACC payout.

[Conquiztador]

The proposed changes make it based on ability to pay, UNLESS you're a motorcyclist, in which case, WE WILL SCREW YOU!!! MUAHAHAHAH!!!

When applying for a loan for a motorbike it is considered a "luxury item" a "toy". We might agree or disagree with that. (Many use bikes as their way of daily transport). But as a result a owner of a bike is considered to have a "recreational" vehicle. Something that is "not needed" for daily living but for enjoyment. I suspect that this is behind some of the thinking when the 600cc+ bikes have a much higher proposed ACC levy. If a bike is purchased as a cheap transport, then a smaller one will do the job. As soon as you get a bigger bike it is because you "want" one not because you "need" one.

[Conquiztador]

Eh? So the boy racer with one car and 4 mates run the risk of 5 injuries but pays $200+ , and the biker with 2 bikes, a car and no mates runs the risk of 1 injury, but pays $1,700+ and this sounds right to you?

No. Never said the current proposal is fair. My point was that having ACC attached to the license would not work.

[Bend-it]

When applying for a loan for a motorbike it is considered a "luxury item" a "toy". ..... As soon as you get a bigger bike it is because you "want" one not because you "need" one.

Higher premiums for V8s as opposed to 1.6l corollas then?

In fact, higher premiums for anything above 1.6l, and 8 valves, and 100hp. Tell ya what... if you wear a neck tie, you'll get charged extra, and you really don't need coloured shirts, that's just an extravagance and will attract a luxury tax. White shirts, black pants and 1.6l corollas for everyone then... a grey jersey in winter.

No. Never said the current proposal is fair. My point was that having ACC attached to the license would not work.

Agree... And that's what we're protesting. The current proposal is bollocks, in fact, even worse that the previous one, 'coz at least that one was halfway consistent. I'm not advocating attaching it to the license either.

[Indiana_Jones]

When applying for a loan for a motorbike it is considered a "luxury item" a "toy". We might agree or disagree with that. (Many use bikes as their way of daily transport). But as a result a owner of a bike is considered to have a "recreational" vehicle. Something that is "not needed" for daily living but for enjoyment. I suspect that this is behind some of the thinking when the 600cc+ bikes have a much higher proposed ACC levy. If a bike is purchased as a cheap transport, then a smaller one will do the job. As soon as you get a bigger bike it is because you "want" one not because you "need" one.

Well that has nothing to do with what happens should one fall off.

But on that note, in theory we'd all be on FX125's.

Now I run a 'big' bike and i know there's accociated costs in doing so. but at least with the private insurance I have for it, I can say fuck off to one company and get a better deal with another.

-Indy

[Conquiztador]

I won't ride for this.

I hate the increases as much as the next biker. And I have more than one bike + a car (or two...).

But you have all missed what is going on. Yes, Labour made us all beneficiaries. They are by no means perfect. So you all went and voted for change... Well it is coming. The country is now being run like a business. And it is a business in financial crisis. Billions in deficit, and going deeper.

So, like with any business, there is only two ways to fix it:
1. Increase income.
2. Cut costs.

And that is what this is about. There is a bunch of guys/gals that have been told: "Cut the costs and find some more money. Don't make it to obvious, but do what it takes."

So they are looking at all and every spending: Education (Closing of schools, end of funding for courses), Hospitals, Police (you remember the selling of cars and stations?)ACC, even subsidies to the MP's (rent subsidies, overseas flights). And there are cuts. Or if not possible, then increases in fees.

So get used to it. This is just the beginning. In my chrystal ball I can see:
- 20 hour free ECE being cut or reduced.
- WINZ subsidies for After School care/ holiday programmes reduced or cut
- More education subsidies cut
- Family tax credit cut
- Simplyfying IRD and cutting administration
- Increase of road tax, petrol tax, all sort of "luxury" tax.
Etc.

No. I do not like it. Not a bit. But what is the option? To have a country go bankrupt like a 3'rd world country...

So sadly there is nothing we can do. The decisions are already made.

I still stand behind my quote.

BUT I have changed my mind re the protest ride. I be there. Reason is simple: I come from a country that was next to Soviet Union, now next to Russia. Propaganda was (is) big in Russia, people actually believed all the crap that they were fed. Living in Finland we knew that it was crap, but there was no way to tell them. The Soviet Government was in charge of all media and if you started telling ppl the truth you were in jail before you could say Vodka.

No, we are not there, we are far away from it. But when the government is using our money to tell us that we are wrong (the current ACC against bikers adds) my neck hairs stand up.

See ya in Welly!

[carver]

All the regular ride events around all the regions become protest rides to parliament / MP's offices / through main roads, until further notice.

All multi bike traffic holds up every week.

who the fuck are you to tell us what to do?