Originally Posted by
R Sole
This exceprt from a response from ACC to my submissions:
"Q: Why doesn’t ACC collect levies from those who participate in sporting and other recreational activities, instead of just targeting motorcyclists?
A: ACC currently collects levies for non-work injuries from earners and from the Government. To date ACC has not been able to establish a cost-effective mechanism for levying high-risk, non-work activities, but there is on-going work in this area.
Note:
• The current ACC Earner levy proposals would collect $1,120 from a $40,000 wage earner to fund high-risk and other non-work injuries – far more than the proposed motorcycle levy.
• Professional sportspeople already pay significant levies (up to $8,000 per year) based on their earnings."
However, a motorcyclist who is earning $40,000 a year will still be paying $1,120. The ACC levy is not an insignificant amount compared to that.
Originally Posted by
R Sole
Here is another stupid quote from their reply (hows this for governmentese?):
"Issue raised:
ACC is moving away from the no-fault principle in proposing increased levies for motorcycles. Motorcyclists are being penalised when car drivers are often at fault.
Answer: ACC is not moving away from a no-fault basis. ACC does not relate costs to accident cause, or try to assign fault. The proposed levy increases merely reflect the higher costs of treating/rehabilitating motorcyclists who are injured. This does not mean that your potential for having an accident is not taken into account when the levies are calculated. The information from the Ministry of Transport1 shows that over the same distance travelled motorcyclists are 18 times more likely to be killed or injured than occupants in a car.
The only information concerning fault is collected by NZ Police when they examine crash scenes. This information shows that in 26% of attended crashes the motorcycle is the only vehicle and in a further 25% the motorcyclist is primarily responsible for the crash. The proposed levies collect around 21% of the $302 million ACC estimates will be required to pay for the injuries sustained by motorcyclists in 2010/11."
So they are not allocating fault, and charging us for close to our full costs regardless of fault, while at the same time removing our ability to sue to reduce our costs when its not our fault. We are fucked every which way we move.
We should insist on the right to sue to reduce our costs, or demand equal costs for all. Bring on privatisation then.
Of course they are moving away from a no-fault basis. They are effectively saying "Shame on you for getting hurt - and we don't care who's fault it is!". What I mean is that they are placing the blame with the person getting injured - that's no different from saying that they are at fault.
It's all just bulshytt anyway.
Originally Posted by
Anathem
Bulshytt: (1) In Fluccish of the late Praxic Age and early Reconstitution, a derogatory term for false speech in general, esp. knowing and deliberate falsehood or obfuscation. (2) In Orth, a more technical and clinical term denoting speech (typically but not necessarily commercial or political) that employs euphemism, convenient vagueness, numbing repetition, and other such rhetorical subterfuges to create the impression that something has been said. (3) According to the Knights of Saunt Halikaarn, a radical order of the 2nd Millennium A.R., all speech and writings of the ancient Sphenics; the Mystagogues of the Old Mathic Age; Praxic Age commercial and political institutions; and, since the Reconstitution, anyone they deemed to have been infected by Procian thinking. …
It is preferential to refrain from the utilisation of grandiose verbiage in the circumstance that your intellectualisation can be expressed using comparatively simplistic lexicological entities. (...such as the word fuck.)
Remember your humanity, and forget the rest. - Joseph Rotblat
Reply With Quote
will just add the quote to the flyer
Bookmarks