ACCforum: Weekly compensation - ACCforum

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Weekly compensation

#1 User is offline   Rickster 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 5
  • Joined: 01-April 18

Posted 02 October 2018 - 12:25 AM

Just a simple question to anyone who knows the truth about whether or not ACC is correct in saying that regardless off the circumstances a self employed persons weekly compensation ends on the day they turn 65?
0

#2 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 9123
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 02 October 2018 - 10:49 AM

View PostRickster, on 02 October 2018 - 12:25 AM, said:

Just a simple question to anyone who knows the truth about whether or not ACC is correct in saying that regardless off the circumstances a self employed persons weekly compensation ends on the day they turn 65?


As I am also concerned about self-employed persons losing ACC entitlements at the age of 65 I likewise concerned about what actual coverage I have to compensate earnings compensation given the fact that I am working while still injured and at greater risk into my retirement years. Does this mean that if we are not covered for earnings compensation we have the right to sue those who cause and injuries?
0

#3 User is offline   Empathy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 193
  • Joined: 13-September 12

Posted 02 October 2018 - 11:44 AM

I would have thought that it was illegal to fire a person just because they turned 65?
0

#4 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7530
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 04 October 2018 - 10:28 AM

View PostEmpathy, on 02 October 2018 - 11:44 AM, said:

I would have thought that it was illegal to fire a person just because they turned 65?


Empathy

The ACC do not fire us at 65. They simply change from one income to the other and it is the entities that do the cutting off one and changing to the other. The only thing that we have to do is to find out what disabilities we are allowed and put forward the paperwork to prove what we have paid for each item in the past year, this allow the Superannuation people to work out what our total income from them will be. You will be pleasantly surprised at the amount it comes too. In some peoples case it will be more than the ACC.

must go it is chiro for me.

Mini
0

#5 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 9123
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 04 October 2018 - 10:41 AM

View PostMINI, on 04 October 2018 - 10:28 AM, said:

Empathy

The ACC do not fire us at 65. They simply change from one income to the other and it is the entities that do the cutting off one and changing to the other. The only thing that we have to do is to find out what disabilities we are allowed and put forward the paperwork to prove what we have paid for each item in the past year, this allow the Superannuation people to work out what our total income from them will be. You will be pleasantly surprised at the amount it comes too. In some peoples case it will be more than the ACC.

must go it is chiro for me.

Mini


Mini I am sorry to say that you are fundamentally wrong and thus misleading.
Earnings related compensation under the accident compensation scheme as a replacement or offset for the capacity to earn. Watch the instigator of this thread is concerned with is that the legislation we must a person no longer capable of earning simply because they have reached the age of 65 which means they are no longer eligible for earnings compensation. This leaves the individual in the wilderness in the same way as a person reaching the age of 65 with an employer having a policy of dismissing anyone who reaches the age of 65.


Adding to the problem is that we are now on a scaled rate of entitlements to a retirement pension from this point on which also leaves the person not entitled to earnings compensation and not entitled to a pension either until they reach a yet older age than 65. As a person might still be contributing to the ACC scheme they find themselves compensating without entitlement of that scheme which I'm sure would be unlawful in New Zealand except for the fact that we do not have a Constitution to protect us from such anomalies within the law. Although the United Nations might raise a protest in this regard they have no power whatsoever to improve our situation.

From my point of view there seems to be a need to change the law whereby earnings compensation is paid until a person is no longer capable of earning but for their injuries continues to be paid after 65. This will require lobbying government to change the law in this regard.

0

#6 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7530
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 04 October 2018 - 03:08 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 04 October 2018 - 10:41 AM, said:

Mini I am sorry to say that you are fundamentally wrong and thus misleading.
Earnings related compensation under the accident compensation scheme as a replacement or offset for the capacity to earn. Watch the instigator of this thread is concerned with is that the legislation we must a person no longer capable of earning simply because they have reached the age of 65 which means they are no longer eligible for earnings compensation. This leaves the individual in the wilderness in the same way as a person reaching the age of 65 with an employer having a policy of dismissing anyone who reaches the age of 65.


Adding to the problem is that we are now on a scaled rate of entitlements to a retirement pension from this point on which also leaves the person not entitled to earnings compensation and not entitled to a pension either until they reach a yet older age than 65. As a person might still be contributing to the ACC scheme they find themselves compensating without entitlement of that scheme which I'm sure would be unlawful in New Zealand except for the fact that we do not have a Constitution to protect us from such anomalies within the law. Although the United Nations might raise a protest in this regard they have no power whatsoever to improve our situation.

From my point of view there seems to be a need to change the law whereby earnings compensation is paid until a person is no longer capable of earning but for their injuries continues to be paid after 65. This will require lobbying government to change the law in this regard.


Well lobby the govt then Thomas. don't waste time if you not satisfied and know of a way in which to have your needs met. When I turned 65, I could hardly hold a pen so who would want to hire me. And why would I want to work when I still have ACC to deal with. If you are only doing four hours of 'work' a day. One hour for every hour allowed on Drs cert. That would be 20 hours weekly taxed at 33% and superannuation. But that would take away from your disability allowance. So I have two problems if I worked now that is loss of my disability allowance at some extent and having to find a job in earn any wages. Being over 65 and disabled is not exactly fun, so I really I don't see anything other than a hobby, would be all any govt department could expect of people in this situation. So if self employed are treated differently I haven't heard of it and many of my family and friends are in that situation but it is not something we bother talking about. It is so insignificant.

Mini
0

Share this topic:


Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users