Merry Christmas from Labour
Labour have left workers with another lovely christmas present. On top of the billion shortfall in the non-earners ACC account, is seems ACC also needs $1.337 billion more over the next three years for the earners account.
This is funded by almost every employee in NZ through a $1.40 per $100 levy. But Labour has left ACC so short of funds, that it needs to have the levy increased to $2.20 per $100.
What does this mean for your family? Well if both parents earn say $50,000 then that is $600 less they”ll have for Christmas next year, $700 less for the year after and $800 less for the year after that.
Have a Merry Christmas from Labour!
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
Tags: ACC, Labour
December 4th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
I’m soooo glad they got voted out. And they had the gall to run an election campaign about trust and secret agendas. From the Party behind this, the pledge card, EFA e.t.c
December 4th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
Meantime Mr Goff says that National has “inherited a healthy set of books”…
December 4th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
Useless TV One didn’t even mention this.
December 4th, 2008 at 6:50 pm
Still we must be greatful as Micky (the greatest finance minister we have ever had) has invested the stolen money in the biggest trainset a little boy could wish to get for a christmas present. Think of all the fun we will have buying more carriages and engines for it.
December 4th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
Imagine if we still owned Telecom – how quickly all that profit flowing into the nation’s coffers would pay for this – pity…
December 4th, 2008 at 7:00 pm
To be fair … I think this is less a case of “Labour mis-managed ACC” as it is a clear example that ACC is fundamentally broken.
ACC’s monopoly on accident coverage has led it to become lazy, unfocused and prone to making half-witted decisions on what things it will and won’t cover.
The sooner it’s opened up to competition the better. NOTE: I didn’t say the sooner it was privatised. Just the sooner it’s given a short sharp shock between the eyes because it has to foot it with better run competitors.
December 4th, 2008 at 7:00 pm
After it covered the big losses in Oz do you mean Ratty.
December 4th, 2008 at 7:01 pm
Ratbiter. If “we” (ie the Government) still owned Telecom it would still employ about 15,000 staff, it’d take 4 weeks to get a phone connected, and it’d make a paltry profit that probably wouldn’t cover a shortfall this size.
December 4th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
I am livid about this, what makes it worse is that the media in NZ seem determined to give the throughly corrupt Labour party a pass on it.
Where is Fran (pinko) Fran Mold on this? , the people need to know what Klark and Kullen have done to them and the levels of deceit and out and out lies they were prepared to go to in the desperate attempt to retain power.
Labour should never be allowed near the treasury benches again.
December 4th, 2008 at 7:22 pm
I take it you are talking about the same Labour Party which campaigned on its ability to bring earner ACC premiums down?
What would you expect from the party of lies and deceit? I hear they are being rebranded as the LDP.
You know, a bit like the Democratic Labor Party in Australia but without any principles.
December 4th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
Why do you think both Klarke and Kullen stepped down?
No responsibilty anymore, we just blame Goff now.
Chicken arsed yellow bellied bastards leave it for someone else.
We know they are liars, we need to stop them ever entering politics again.
Helun wil go to UN and try to fuck up the world even more.
Kullen? prob get a University job somewhere in the world and spread his filth.
And yet there are still stupid people in NZ who will vote Liarbore at the next election.
Stop the Media from being selective, get the Socialist scum out!
December 4th, 2008 at 7:33 pm
This is what happens when people let mad mongrels run the country: the mongrels eventually depart but they leave piles of stinking doggy doo behind.
Having a state monopoly on accident insurance (or anything else for that matter) is always a bad idea.
http://www.kiwipolemicist.wordpress.com
December 4th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
If we had real political journalists they would be hammering Klark and Kullen yet the left wing media seem determined to keep the legacy of Klark alive irrespective of the truth.
This maggot lied to the people of NZ for nine years, this maggot kept telling lies until the end yet the media let her get away with it.
Our media are fucking useless
December 4th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
This sucks balls, but the reasons for the necessary increase were:
If National was in government these past few years, how would they have avoided this stuff?
December 4th, 2008 at 7:42 pm
I have always said the bastards couldn’t run a fucking pub raffle. So much for the glorious benefits of the socialist system, they have no concept of what it actually takes to make this money but excel in handing it out. Arseholes the lot of them, I hope they suffer some horrific injuries and the ACC system is totally shot.
December 4th, 2008 at 7:42 pm
Will the new Minister of Police blame a herd of cows jumping over the moon for an unhappy Christmas?
December 4th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
Our media are fucking useless
DPF only posted this in the last couple of hours, I think, and he’s er, reasonably close to the National party itself. I think i’ll give the media another day…
December 4th, 2008 at 7:51 pm
You boys should start the Kiwiblog Party and run for election in 2011. Keep those dirty socialists out. You’d be great.
Yeah- Bam! Dennis Plant…
December 4th, 2008 at 7:53 pm
Stephen, ACC screwed up. I also blame Helen Clark and Cullen. I can remember when ACC spent 800,000.00 to advertise their so many years in service. Think it was a few years back. Why would anyone want to advertise when they are a monopoly and wouldn’t that pay for a few heart transplants? This was a wasteful decision and this is only one decision. I hate to look at all the other decisions. I heard they invested in a company that went broke the next day. I know I can multiply these two bad decisions by thousands and we now see the results. This idea of pointing the finger at medical costs is a lie. ACC is only covering up for its mistakes. Cullen allowed this to happen.
December 4th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
stephen, TV3 News had a good piece on the subject and Minister Nick Smith spoke sense about these serious matters.
December 4th, 2008 at 7:57 pm
“You boys should start the Kiwiblog Party and run for election in 2011. Keep those dirty socialists out. You’d be great.”
You should start up a “Progressive Redbaiter Obsessives” party, or KiwiBlogBlog.
December 4th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
Grant – I’m not the one spending 19 hours a day anonymously ripping into the Parties that actually put themselves out there for election and try to do something for the country!
December 4th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
You see what you get when you stop the socialists from dipping into the tax payers pockets to pay for their election campaign….
OK so what is next, ACC throws a $2.3b curve ball at the financial security of NZ – what about health and education. I recall hearing before the election that the Capital & Coast DHB was having massive issues with cash flow – how many DHB’s will be unable to pay wages by March? How many schools will be short on teachers pushing class sizes higher than they already are?
But hey, at least we own our trains, god imagine if we didn’t, how would we have survived the recession?
December 4th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
One thing is for sure, private insurance levies are going to be looking cheap compared to funding the state monopoly money black-hole we call ACC.
No wonder so many lefties think ACC is a brilliant system, they have no idea how much it really costs.
December 4th, 2008 at 8:51 pm
On the 28th of October, Maryan Street made a media release condemning what National might do to ACC. She listed all of the improvements labour had made. She also used details from a report by PriceWaterhouseCoopers to contend that our ACC system was a “world-leader.” Comparisons were made with the more expensive Australian system.
We all now know why our scheme has been so much cheaper! We are all about to pay a whole lot more…
The end of Street’s release: “National simply can’t be trusted with the ACC scheme,” Maryan Street said.”
The hypocrisy of this statement, when she knew the true situation, is unbelievable!
http://www.labour.org.nz/our_mps/maryan_street/news/28102008_labour_will_keep_acc_in_kiwi_hands_maryan_street.html
December 4th, 2008 at 8:54 pm
Gary2
The election was about trust…
Anybody who has been around long enough to see several cycles of Labour govt would have expected this sort of shit from Labour. It’s in lefties genes to be dishonest about the cost of socialist policies. Emotion costs money and socialist policies are mainly feel good emotional security blanket stuff.
December 4th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
Here is my theory on all of this:
1. Labour thought they had a certain win with what they thought they had on Key with the H-fee.
2. They thought it was a safe bet to promise to cut ACC levies. Then after the election they inform the public that their officials have just given them all this dire information on ACC.
3. They then have justification in their mini-budget to scrap the decreases and replace them with increases in ACC levies, what they knew all along they were going to have to do.
If I am correct about this, they must have been shitting themselves when the H-fee screw-up blew up in their faces.
December 4th, 2008 at 9:06 pm
The opulent offices that the ACC lease in all our major cities must cost a bloody fortune. Their offices are more grandiose than the big insurance companies.
House them in Portacoms – that’ll cut them down in self opinion and put a shitload of money back to be spent where it is needed .
December 4th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
Not to worry – Our Hero Mr John Key can fix all of this with his super powers!
No doubt Rodney the Yellow is sharpening his hatchet in readiness for his role in the task right now…
PS: Don – great idea! punish the ACC workers, so all the good ones leave for something better. That’ll really help to get ACC back on track…
December 4th, 2008 at 9:13 pm
Ratbiter
You really are a twat. Look it’s bloody obvious for anyone except the most myopic partisan people – ACC is a pile of crap and it’s just part of the socialist “state monopoly = good” agenda.
Show me a single monopoly business (private, public or state owned) that operates in an ongoing cost effective manner.
December 4th, 2008 at 9:23 pm
“Anybody who has been around long enough to see several cycles of Labour govt would have expected this sort of shit from Labour. It’s in lefties genes to be dishonest about the cost of socialist policies. Emotion costs money and socialist policies are mainly feel good emotional security blanket stuff”
The security blanket has run out of money to give to those who are welfare dependant.
Time to start working.
I can not get a job? sorry but NZ needs people who are willing to work, not too lazy to work.
I like Asians, they work because they have never known welfare.
I detest the lazy (want a handout poeple)
Oh yes, the Asians are ahead of the so called Indigenous.
Socialists think everyone should pay tax for them to tell us how to pay more tax.
The taxpayer who works in anything other than Government, wants to know where the wasted tax goes.
December 4th, 2008 at 9:38 pm
Ratboy, scuttle off back to the substandard and play with little stevie and tane. LOL!
December 4th, 2008 at 9:46 pm
@burt-
Are you serious. I just need to provide a single monopoly which operates in a cost effective manner? How about any industry which exists in a natural monopoly? In regards to State owned Enterprises, I do not believe there is a universal answer. In some fields I think they are much better but at the same time in others I would rather have private companies take care of it.
As for this ACC situation, regardless of who is at fault I do agree it is quite an ironic development considering their campaign of ‘trust’. Such a problem should not of escaped the responsible minister, yet there was no mention of extra funds needed for ACC from anyone in government.
December 4th, 2008 at 9:51 pm
Rip the guts out of ACC. It’s time for total privatisation of this blackhole for money. Give us some choice & competition.
December 4th, 2008 at 9:58 pm
reddeath26
I asked: Show me a single monopoly business (private, public or state owned) that operates in an ongoing cost effective manner.”
You said:
But you did not provide a single example. So Yes, I’m still serious.
December 4th, 2008 at 10:03 pm
kisekiman
I’d totally agree with that on one condition. An insurance element is introduced into welfare, a weekly allowance that abates to zero benefit with the median wage as the threshold. Now with this in place, nobody can’t afford accident insurance. How much they need and what is covered is the next issue.
Insurance needs to be more specific. For example; I love to hoon on my mountain bike, why should people who can’t afford a mountain bike be contributing toward that risk I assume riding mine? I’d take the ‘Mountain bike cover’ option on my insurance policy, it’s a cost to factor into mountain biking. The question is – if quality mountain bikes went up by $1,000 would existing mountain bikers expect tax payers to wear the cost increase?
December 4th, 2008 at 10:09 pm
“Rip the guts out of ACC.”
Privatise the non-earners account?
December 4th, 2008 at 10:22 pm
Stephen
Good luck getting any commercial activity excited about a large debt that is growing.
Change is required, it’s obvious and anyone who argues with that needs to answer why Labour didn’t disclose this before the election.
December 4th, 2008 at 10:31 pm
The ACC is in trouble within as well with many branch’s staff close to mutiny according to some of my customers.
The money thing could be sorted quickly by charging every adult cyclist the same ACC levy the poor motorist is charged and limiting ACC coverage to NZ residents only.
December 4th, 2008 at 10:40 pm
MT_Tinman, funny you mention this, when cyclists are howling for ordinary motorists to pay even more for them to ride over the Harbour Bridge.
December 4th, 2008 at 10:42 pm
Mt_Tinman
That is not a silly idea, how do you collect it? A cycle registration perhaps? LTSA could add bicycles to it’s motor vehicle registry.
Seriously, this is the reason a universal one size fits all no fault scheme is not working. How would you possibly expect one monopoly administration to efficiently (in the consumers best interest) administer as user pays one stop shop insurance business.
December 4th, 2008 at 10:57 pm
ThinkBig
I suspect a lot of the cyclists going over the harbour bridge also own a moter vehicle. They are paying for the road usage, they are just using less than you (and producing less carbon) and they are also very fragile compared to a bus or a car. Admittedly they are not paying petrol or diesel taxes.
December 4th, 2008 at 11:06 pm
Yes, imagine. Not that it’s at all relevant to this post, but nice try at deflection by trying to attribute all the blame for this country’s woes at the National government of the 1990s.
We’ll put aside for a moment, ratbiter, that Labour has had one of the longest economic summers in New Zealand history, and all you have to say is “Oh, but National sold Telecom!”
There’s a teeny tiny flaw in that argument though, Ratbiter. Telecom was sold in June 1990. Helen Clark was the Deputy Prime Minister. Roger Douglas hadn’t been Finance Minister for two years. It was during the Fourth Labour Government.
December 4th, 2008 at 11:13 pm
Tim Ellis
The other flaw in that argument is that when Telecom was sold it was a bleeding money pit. Connections took ages, local tolls were expensive, exchanges were outdated (poor line quality) and it was in a shambles. I think Ratbiter knows that one size fits all state monopolies, like any other monopoly, do this. But he’s deflecting because most people now only know telecom as it is today – privatised, more efficient than it was, and profitable.
December 4th, 2008 at 11:13 pm
Burt,
The fact that they are fragile is exactly why they should pay an ACC levy. They are choosing to go and share the road with two tonne vehicles when all they have is two wheels and a frame beneath them. Of course, a non-no fault system would turn around and say ‘What the hell did you expect?’, but I think it would be much more reasonable to require cyclists to pay ACC levies, because I’m sick of paying more for petrol so they can fall of their bikes.
December 4th, 2008 at 11:15 pm
Typical socialists, run everything into the ground and buy useless shite like the train-set, then bugger off leaving it to the right to fix up. No wonder Helen and Michael whipmed out to sit on the back benches.
December 4th, 2008 at 11:19 pm
Oh, whilst we are on the topic of Telecom, which bunch of assholes destroyed shareholder value?? It used to trade at over $6 now it hovers around $2, and that is thanks to our beloved Labour Party and its regulators. C*@*s
December 4th, 2008 at 11:21 pm
ThinkBig
Motorcyclists pay more ACC levies, they also cause less grief to the general travel of motor vehicles. If we want a state run monopoly to sort this out then we need a universal cycle ownership tax or ACC forms to complete every year with adjusted policies as required. Oh, we could also have a bit more choice to make that a bit easier. It really is no bother in the electronic age to pay a few different providers for a few different services.
It’s simple logic really, should cyclists pay a specific levy or should we have a one size fits all system. If it’s not one size fits all then is ACC the answer? Motorcycles pay elevated ACC levies compared to cars. A lot of motorcycle owners have both a motorcycle and a car. So they are paying two separate levies but can only operate one of them at any one time. Some motorcycle owners have more than one motorcycle but can only ride any one of them at any one time. This is the problem in insuring the product rather than the user.
December 4th, 2008 at 11:23 pm
Rich Prick;
Do not forget that a ‘faceless civil servant’ leaked the details of the plans to unbundle, yet despite being tracked down by the media, he was never punished. Imagine how much ordinary Mum and Dad investors have lost off portfolios nationwide thanks to one man. Still, the fact that this was all forgotten very quickly was symbolic of what sort of culture we had under Labour, and how much of a shit they really gave about ordinary New Zealanders.
December 4th, 2008 at 11:28 pm
Burt,
Sure, insuring the product may not be perfect, but if you had to set a flat rate for everyone, no matter if they decided to sit at home, take up BASE jumping, ride bikes inbetween cars recklessly, then a lot of people would be paying extra because other people like to do stupid stuff and can always fall back on everyone else to pick up the tab.
Sure, it’s not perfect, but if I own a car and a bike, I’m a million times more safer in my car. Yet the ACC levy I pay on petrol goes to pay someone else who chooses to go out and take that risk. They’re essentially robbing Peter to pay Paul, except I’m Peter and Paul is a dolt in a colourful skin tight jersey. I honestly wouldn’t mind paying for people to BASE jump, because that’s badass, but cycling is really just musical theatre on wheels, and it’s only entertaining when there’s a huge pile-up. But then it’s not so funny, because I’m picking up the tab.
December 4th, 2008 at 11:36 pm
Here is how National ought to trade out of the ACC situation. It sould say Labour fucked up. Non-earner account beneficiaries, you have to wear this because you are the only stakeholders who do not tend to pay a cent, get used to long lines at A&E. Taxpayers you may have to take a hit but not nearly as much as that other lot. That said you get tax deductions for personal responsibility like medical and accident insurance.
Now, those who have paid for private medical and accident insurance without the benefit of a tax deduction will always be first in line for public treatment (but you will go private anyway for the better service, and that’s your free choice). But because Labour never gave you a tax deduction you have paid twice so you should always be at the front of the line if you choose to go public. Those who have never paid go to the back of the line. And are invoiced. Simple.
December 4th, 2008 at 11:36 pm
ThinkBig
Cheers for paying a share of my mountain biking costs, your a gem. Oh BTW, your inner city carpark costs would fall considerably if more people hiked across the bridge on bicycles.
I’m assuming that if we put you in charge of ACC there would be a raft of user pays initiatives? If so tell me again why a universal no fault state monopoly now becomes a user pays insurance business and the monopoly model stays?
December 4th, 2008 at 11:40 pm
ThinkBig, I was referring to the destruction of private property vis-a-vis the unbundling of the local loop which Telecom rightly owned and Labour took away, without compensation. That was an asset rightly owned by a company I have shares in and it destryed a private proerty right and my shareholding. Mugabe did the same thing with white-owned farms. Its called Nationalisation.
December 5th, 2008 at 12:11 am
RP;
Nothing good came of the whole affair.
Burt;
I’m not saying I have the answer, and I appreciate people who genuinely cycle to reduce traffic. Other recreational, impedious cyclists I am not so kind towards.
December 5th, 2008 at 1:41 am
oh the outrage.
How is this labour’s fault? Is the compensation being paid to injured workers too high? Or should employers being paying more?
Perhaps we should just scrap ACC and have compulsory employer insurance against legal compensation claims along the US lines?
Some how I don’t think you are going to enjoy blogging in government, DPF.
[DPF: I’m loving it in fact. You seem to be the one having problems coping. Labour’s fault is in covering up the blowouts. And you also seem to not realise this latest blowout is in the account funded by employees – nothing to do with employers. So as I said $800 a year less for a double income family)
December 5th, 2008 at 2:50 am
Dear natural(ly unrepresented) party :
Labour has failed in a number of areas.
1) They failed to disclose a substantial liability (over 2 billion dollars over 3 years counting both the earners and non-earners funds) on their pre-election fisical update, inspite of doing so being in the spirit of fisical responsibility. They may have found a loop hole to escape legal punishment, but will be punished regardless in the court of public oppinion regardless. Their actions have disrupted the new government’s formulation of policy during an economically precarious time (presumably with the intent to gain political advantage); they have thus sought to benefit at the detrement of the country.
2) They have failed to match acc payouts with sufficinet inflow of revenue over their term in government. Now whether you want to suggest reduced payouts, more employer contribution, more employee contribution as a response is irrelevant. Instead of accumulating the liability, they should have implemented some policy to make acc sustainable.
December 5th, 2008 at 7:01 am
Looks like Clark and Cullen had their own BBQ first and decided to let Goff be the chump to take all this heat. How funny. Goff must be fuming at having to defend this appalling lack of management by Street and Cullen. And it will get worse. The Ministerial inquiry is going to throw sunlight over their complicity and Goff is going to have to continue to front it.
hahahahahaha
Clark and Cullen must now be frontrunners for the worst Govt in NZ history.
December 5th, 2008 at 7:23 am
To Natural Party of misGovernment: You asked – How is this labour’s fault?
I’ll refer again to Maryan Street’s media release – you can find it on Labour’s website. It says: “The Labour-led Government has made a number of improvements to the ACC scheme over the past nine years, including to its structure, its accessibility and the cover it offers New Zealanders,” Helen Clark said. “This year Labour’s improvements to the ACC scheme included increasing the cover it offered to older people, to over 400,000 seasonal and part-time workers, and to people suffering mental injury after witnessing a traumatic event at work.
Very obviously, Labour has increased the cover, but has not ensured that the levies have kept pace. If ACC was an insurance company, they would be in more than a spot of bother!
As I have pointed out earlier, Street and Clark released comments stating all was well with ACC weeks after they had the full facts of problem, and months after they were made aware that there was a problem. This is more than misleading – it is outright lies.
If you wish to see them as innocent bystanders in this mess, then go to Labour’s own website and read what they themselves have to say. Thank goodness the voters realised this election was about trust and voted correctly!
December 5th, 2008 at 7:24 am
Goff said the books labour handed over to the new government were sound. You could see the anger in his face. I don’t think he even believed what he had said. Ten years of deficit to come that Cullen left and now this? Perhaps John Key won’t have a choice but to lower the salaries of bureaucrats and fire around 9000 of them. This way I don’t have to dig deep in my pockets and sacrifice my childrens welfare for this mess Cullen and Clark left us with.
December 5th, 2008 at 7:55 am
aka Thieving lying Labour KARNTS.
December 5th, 2008 at 8:23 am
Reading between the lines it looks like the non-earners scheme has been used to park a few folk off the welfare rolls.
It’s also obvious that Labour et al are trying to deflect the “opening up to competition” debate into one about privatisation. Whatever arguments apply to natural monopolies (and they should be arguments about regulation not ownership) they don’t apply to an insurance scheme, universal or otherwise.
December 5th, 2008 at 8:28 am
Burt:
I’m not disagreeing with the majority of your points, but would you consider Microsoft to be a monopoly? Technically they have competitors, but in reality the majority of the world runs on Windows. And they’re operating in an on-going and (presumably) cost effective manner.
December 5th, 2008 at 8:44 am
Let’s just hope that the New Year brings some other good news, perhaps indictment of Clark & Cullen on fraud charges maybe ?
December 5th, 2008 at 8:50 am
Pascal
I wouldn’t quite call Microsoft a monopoly.
Microsoft might have massive market share but consumers still have a choice. There are plenty of people who do not use Microsoft for their desktop or their servers. Can you imagine how expensive Microsoft products would be if they were the only allowable desktop and server products? What sort of product quality would you expect if (by law) there was no other choice? How would you expect customer service to be if you had no other choice?
December 5th, 2008 at 9:19 am
I hate our ACC system. The concept is fine, but the execution is ratshit. That includes the utter waste of my money that is obvious to anyone who was or is working for that organisation.
For the third year in a row, ACC have arbitrarily changed my company workplace classification, on each occasion to one with a higher levy rate. One year I went from a ‘provider of business services’ to a ‘restaurant operator’… and then two other classifications until they got it back to what is was in previous years.
My business has shelled out more then $50k in ACC related costs in 8 years with only my wife and me as employees. ACC is a stealth tax rort in a competition vacuum. That has to change.
December 5th, 2008 at 9:27 am
No word of this blowout in MSM this morning. TV3 had a mention last night but didn’t play it up like they would the news of Don Brash’s love life.
Instead we get “Cullen probably knew…” about the first shortfall in a headline. Probably? Oh fuck off you snivellng lying high school level media.
Where’s the one who was shrieking this last year over being called a liar? Gone to ground? Pain too much to bear?
December 5th, 2008 at 9:33 am
Are the accounts in the red for ACC.
NO
So you are talking about future amounts , winning an election has consequences
December 5th, 2008 at 9:43 am
JVH – same for the BNZ eh? Problems & failings of a government’s own making, and which might detract from re-election being deliberately hidden… and these are somehow the future Govt’s problem?!? You whimpering socialists have obviously had ethics bypasses.
As for ‘consequences’, campaigning on ‘Trust’ when clearly your party is lying and corrupt beyond modern-day comparison does have consequences: You were shown the door… and just as well.
December 5th, 2008 at 10:06 am
How about this for a rort.
A business acquaintance employed a German man who was in the process of applying to live here in NZ. The guy turns out to be unsuitable for his job.(not good at customer service.) Now wants to put him off but is advised by the Mans lawyer he should put him on ACC until he gets residence. Bad back and all that stuff.
Naturally the answer is no so now he is stuck with an employment problem.
December 5th, 2008 at 10:14 am
Wrote to Nick Smith last night and suggested that earners ACC be treated just like Kiwi saver and be shown separately on pay sheets. This would make it transparent and people would see what they are paying. It might also encourage people to dob in the cheats.
Has the bonus that the tax rates could be lowered (or Raised based on tax and not acc.) Similarly Acc rates could be raised to meet needs and not be considered tax with all the garbage that goes with that.
There is a precedent in both Kiwi saver and in vehicle acc.
Once we achieve that then we can do the same for medical.
Next after that we could allow people to choose their own providers as we do with Kiwisaver.
And of course it( the ACC ) could be implemented with the next lot of tax cuts because all it requires is a separate calculation on each pay sheet and another line on the form to IRD. They are already paying ACC so no drama there.
If you think this is a good idea email Smith and English in support.
December 5th, 2008 at 10:19 am
And I see the Prefu was signed by both Cullen and the Secretary to the Treasury. Both should be sacked for fraud and misleading the public.
December 5th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
Burt, I hear what you are saying. But when you are saying “plenty” do you mean the 2 odd percent of desktop computer users that Linux peaked at? I don’t know what Apple’s market share is, admittedly, but I would not wager any sum of money on it being overly large. Have a read here to see some of the numbers and do a spot of research on this.
It might not be a pure monopoly, like ACC, but it is still effectively a monopoly. As far as I’m concerned at least
December 6th, 2008 at 11:22 am
Pascal
Microsoft have a very large share of the desktop market however the server market is a little different.
http://leb.net/hzo/ioscount/data/r.9904.txt
If you look at the number of choices of server OS in that list it’s ridiculous to call Microsoft a monopoly.