Non-payment of ACC levies: how do you reckon this will end?

[swarfie]

I'm with you on that one Swarfie, untill a few months ago i had four bikes, my work ute and my private car. All of which i was paying ACC levies on and on top of that was the ACC levy on my anual income. That's paying seven times for the one person. This to me is theft and was obviously designed by a fuckwit. As one person i can only do one task at a time and certainly can't do my job and ride four bikes and drive two vehicles at once.
The system needs to be calculated for one person only and to cover you for all activities to be considered fair.
As i have been paying ACC since it was introduced and never had a claim i should be entitled to a No Claims Bonus each year also.

IT SUCKS Robbo...and I forgot to mention the two cages I pay the levy on as well. I'm an employee so can't even claim any of this shit back on my taxes , which are outrageous as well.....not getting off my high horse or nowt ...just saying is all

[swbarnett]

When it's risk based costing/charging then it is insurance.

That's what the current government has made it.

As mentioned earlier, the Work Account has a portion of risk based costing just like the motorcycle segment of the Vehicle Account.

The original principle was to have some risk assessment across industries but not to the level of the individual. Personally I think even that wen't too far. We fund the treatment of desease out of the general tax take, it is illogical that the costs associated with injuries sustained from an accident are not handled in the same way.

[swbarnett]

I have always thought tax deductability.

Personal income tax is only calculated on what you are handed by your employer. Tax deductability ensures that this is also the same for businesses i.e. money you spend to run your business is not part of your businesses profit and therefore cannot reasonably be counted for tax calculation purposes.

[Zedder]

That's what the current government has made it.


The original principle was to have some risk assessment across industries but not to the level of the individual. Personally I think even that wen't too far. We fund the treatment of desease out of the general tax take, it is illogical that the costs associated with injuries sustained from an accident are not handled in the same way.

Both Labour and National have played politics with ACC and the levies.

Number two of the original five ACC principles was about injured persons receiving compensation from any community financed scheme on the same uniform method of assessment, regardless of the causes which gave rise to the injury.

[Winston001]

Add that to the other three revenue streams and it's no wonder they have a fund worth $24.6 billion as of June 30 2013.

Excellent. Its encouraging to see an arm of government succeeding when most Ministeries lurch from crisis to crisis.

Mind you, they are still short about $10 billion to be fully funded but much closer than in 2009 when ACC issues first gained our attention.

When it's risk based costing/charging then it is insurance. As mentioned earlier, the Work Account has a portion of risk based costing just like the motorcycle segment of the Vehicle Account.

ACC maintain 2019 is the year for self sustainabilty to fund any current claims for the next 100 plus years. This is despite the fact 94% of claimants are rehabilitated in under nine months and 78% regained independence within 12 weeks.

True but the longterm disabled are usually seriously injured and expensive to look after. It is sensible rational and wise to build a fund to help these people.

Or...we could trust future governments to look after them. Yeah right.

Both National and Labour changed the rules for elderly people's rest home care, requiring them to pay their own costs. That never used to happen and suddenly a whole generation of powerless elderly New Zealanders suddenly found themselves stripped of their savings.

A fully funded ACC is the best guarantee injured people will get long term support. Nobody not even the Greens would tamper with that.

[Zedder]

Excellent. Its encouraging to see an arm of government succeeding when most Ministeries lurch from crisis to crisis.

Mind you, they are still short about $10 billion to be fully funded but much closer than in 2009 when ACC issues first gained our attention.



True but the longterm disabled are usually seriously injured and expensive to look after. It is sensible rational and wise to build a fund to help these people.

Or...we could trust future governments to look after them. Yeah right.

Both National and Labour changed the rules for elderly people's rest home care, requiring them to pay their own costs. That never used to happen and suddenly a whole generation of powerless elderly New Zealanders suddenly found themselves stripped of their savings.

A fully funded ACC is the best guarantee injured people will get long term support. Nobody not even the Greens would tamper with that.

You probably think it's also excellent they passed a law to reduce payouts for things like hearing loss, claim injuries are pre-existing conditions to avoid payouts, overcharge and contravene the original Woodhouse principles etc.

They aren't short of money, in fact they recently recommended to Government they reduce levies to the tune of $300 million. If we're really lucky, we might get that little election incentive I wrote about earlier...

[James Deuce]

Bullshit Winston. ACC run at a massive profit. They only have to fund the next year's crop of accidents and disability, they have no need to adopt a funding model accepted as prudent by the Insurance industry but never adhered to by any private insurance company ever, hence the repeated cycle of boom and bust followed by a diminished population of those who can be considered middle class.

ACC was never supposed to be the profit centre that it is and it was supposed to help people with long term repercussions for "accident damage". It doesn't. The moment you are discharged from them you are never ever given any further help for further complications that arise from the accident. These are ALWAYS put down to normal deterioration expected of a pre-existing condition. So go fuck yourself loser.

I'm sick to death of the Tory element in society reducing people to stats. You can all suck my balls. Pain is real, suffering is real, the fallout of the financial destruction of one family is horrific and no one gives a fuck, because sanctimonious dickheads like you have sold the crock of shit that is, "They must have done something wrong to end up like that".

There is not one politician in this country that is good for anything except the bonfire that we should be burning their corpses on after we've lined them up and shot them. Lawyers, financiers, insurance bastards, "employers", councilors, anyone who works at a policy or profit motivated level in society is just a bastard at heart.

[Winston001]

We fund the treatment of desease out of the general tax take, it is illogical that the costs associated with injuries sustained from an accident are not handled in the same way.

Ah but you see, we don't - and that is the tragedy highlighted by our ACC scheme.

If you have a disease, you are a sickness beneficiary.

If you have an accident, you are ACC and your wages continue. That is often a difference of $40,000 a year.

ACC began in 1973 and was adopted by NZers who were weary of Workers Compensation problems and civil litigation uncertainty. ACC was revolutionary.

In the mid 70s politicians and social progressives (with encouragement from Sweden) wanted to expand ACC to include disease and illness to everyone.

I remember it well (as an optimistic student) because it was such a logical progession from purely accident cover.

Sadly NZs fortunes changed and it never happened. Total coverage proved to be hugely expensive.

Today if you hurt your spine on a rugby field, ACC covers you. But if your spine collapses on the same field because of a medical problem, you are out of luck. Your life is destined to be an sickness beneficiary. Meanwhile your neighbour in a wheelchair is being paid his drivers wages because he was lucky enough to have an "accident".

NO NO NO NO!!!!!

ACC is NOT insurance (or at least is not supposed to be).

For better or for worse ACC is an insurance scheme. You and I might not like that but its silly to pretend otherwise. Have a look at the Accident Compensation and Insurance Act 1992.

[Winston001]

Bullshit Winston. ACC run at a massive profit. They only have to fund the next year's crop of accidents and disability, they have no need to adopt a funding model accepted as prudent by the Insurance industry but never adhered to by any private insurance company

Insurance companies (and ACC is insurance in reality) always - repeat always, build a fund to cover long term claims. FYI Warren Buffet has made a fortune understanding that and buying insurance companies. Most people don't know that but its the funds held that have enabled Berkshire Hathaway to be the most successful business in the modern world.

ACC was supposed to help people with long term repercussions for "accident damage". It doesn't. The moment you are discharged from them you are never ever given any further help for further complications that arise from the accident. These are ALWAYS put down to normal deterioration expected of a pre-existing condition. So go fuck yourself loser.

Both you and I have had serious motorcycle accidents. I have not recovered. ACC has abandoned me.

So yeah I'm a loser. Its a bitch.

[Winston001]

my arguement to them is that i am covered in my workplace by the acc levy paid through my bike license and that they are double dipping.
they say that everyone else like taxis,van couriers etc pay both,

Good on you, we need people to say enough is enough.



I think you are mistaken but what the heck, maybe you'll change things.

[Winston001]

Good onya ...I hate that I pay up to five regos (for my bikes) while I can only ride one at a time (three rego'd at the mo ) thieving pricks!

The local truckies company are complaining about ACC charges too. They have five lorries. Should they pay one registration for their five vehicles? The owner can only drive one truck at a time.

[swarfie]

The local truckies company are complaining about ACC charges too. They have five lorries. Should they pay one registration for their five vehicles? The owner can only drive one truck at a time.

Yeah right...that's really comparing apples with fruit loops. I'm sure the truck owner has drivers Winston (who incidentally he probably pays ACC levies for). That said, I do loan my bikes to a couple of Aussie mates when they are over here but it still pisses me off having to pay multiple fees. There's got to be a fairer way but then gubbermints have never been about fair. They'll always steal from those that are easiest to steal from!

[Ocean1]

There's got to be a fairer way but then gubbermints have never been about fair. They'll always steal from those that are easiest to steal from!

How else could it be? They only get to the position where they can do anything by buying votes from those who want more than they earn and paying for them by taking it from those that earn more than they have to.

A vote should cost you $1000, if you can't stump up with that then you're in no position to be deciding how public money should be spent.

[Zedder]

[QUOTE=Winston001;1130642183]Insurance companies (and ACC is insurance in reality) always - repeat always, build a fund to cover long term claims. FYI Warren Buffet has made a fortune understanding that and buying insurance companies. Most people don't know that but its the funds held that have enabled Berkshire Hathaway to be the most successful business in the modern world.


If insurance companies build a fund to cover long term claims, and are so good at it, why are the papers full of cases of them fighting tooth and nail to not pay out claims in Christchurch?

Also, AMI failed and had to be bailed out by the taxpayers. Prior to that it was Western Pacifc Insurance who went belly up.

[James Deuce]

AIG nearly destroyed the world economy in 2008. They were almost solely responsible for the GFC. They were bailed out to avoid the cascade effect that would have destroyed every insurance and banking business with a Poors and Standard rating. To single out the one financier who seems to have a human soul is disingenuous. Warren Buffet is part of the problem. His recent bumbling attempts to redeem himself notwithstanding, he helped create a financial model of investing money that Insurance companies didn't have in the hope that they would end up with the money the needed to cover the liability they held. It failed and the cycle is already starting again.

No private Insurance company has ever held its liability in reserve. Once operating budget is covered they "reinvest" money they don't have. That's been revealed and nailed to the mast of capitalist economic failure over and over. Why do supposedly educated people fail to grasp the inherent problem with that approach Winston?