ACCforum: No ACC at 65 Yet still injured - ACCforum

Jump to content

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

No ACC at 65 Yet still injured Is this fair?

Poll: Is it fair to cut ACC at 65? (1 member(s) have cast votes)

Assuming the person still suffers from their injury is it right for a government to stop their ACC Payment at the age of 65

  1. Yes it fair that the government cut their ACC payments at 65 (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  2. No it is not fair that the Government stops their ACC payment (1 votes [100.00%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 100.00%

  3. I don't know (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 User is offline   Empathy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 196
  • Joined: 13-September 12

Posted 28 January 2020 - 12:35 PM

ACC simply stops your ACC payments as soon as you turn 65!
You have no rights!
There is no no discussion?
A person who has been ruled unfit for work under ACC cannot get extra work under ACC and hihgly likely cannot get work extra work under the New Zealand Super Scheme.
There is no consideration of the possibility of your ability to get extra work? And yet a non injured person could have a number of jobs when they are aged 65 and still collect the National Super Scheme.
No thought to the fact the average retire now works to 70 so maybe ACC should be paid to 70 not to 65! Remember these people have been badly injured, injured to the extent that they cant work!
A policeman or a soldier injured with PTSD gets paid for the rest of their life but a civilian injured with PTSD in the eartquake doesn't? Is this fair?
-1

#2 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1740
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 29 March 2020 - 10:47 PM

You should still get the Independence allowance and this will be the same as the Police and service personal. The police and service personal will also receive a service pension
0

#3 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10801
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 30 March 2020 - 09:57 AM

As I am only able to work about two or three hours per day fragmented throughout the day Without regard for the fact that the nature of my injuries preclude any identifiable type of work of any sort and I am not receiving ACC compensation and only receiving $280 from social welfare when my accommodation is $300 per week it goes without saying that I am not going to be able to retire At 65 or any foreseeable time up until my demise. Quite obviously the effort to work is going to cause premature death as my efforts have resulted in a continuous stream of severe accidents.
As for the legislation that prescribes 65 as being the age at which earnings compensation ceases so as to coincide with the official age of retirement.
As I am continuing to work while injured with the consequence that I do have a continuous succession of additional injuries and insurance companies will not provide insurance to those who are not fit to work it does seem that my ongoing situation is dire. It is no wonder that the ACC are imagining that I am going to be a suicide bomber. As they have convicted me of this they must be wondering about when this fanciful and fateful day will be upon them.

0

#4 User is offline   anonymousey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2420
  • Joined: 04-April 06

Posted 30 March 2020 - 10:08 AM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 30 March 2020 - 09:57 AM, said:

As I am only able to work about two or three hours per day fragmented throughout the day Without regard for the fact that the nature of my injuries preclude any identifiable type of work of any sort and I am not receiving ACC compensation and only receiving $280 from social welfare when my accommodation is $300 per week it goes without saying that I am not going to be able to retire At 65 or any foreseeable time up until my demise. Quite obviously the effort to work is going to cause premature death as my efforts have resulted in a continuous stream of severe accidents.
As for the legislation that prescribes 65 as being the age at which earnings compensation ceases so as to coincide with the official age of retirement.
As I am continuing to work while injured with the consequence that I do have a continuous succession of additional injuries and insurance companies will not provide insurance to those who are not fit to work it does seem that my ongoing situation is dire. It is no wonder that the ACC are imagining that I am going to be a suicide bomber. As they have convicted me of this they must be wondering about when this fanciful and fateful day will be upon them.


You should be utterly ashamed of yourself for insinuating &/or minimising your behaviours of attacks with again repeating such deadly threats against innocents during this crisis time Alan
0

#5 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10801
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 30 March 2020 - 01:45 PM

View Postanonymousey, on 30 March 2020 - 10:08 AM, said:

You should be utterly ashamed of yourself for insinuating &/or minimising your behaviours of attacks with again repeating such deadly threats against innocents during this crisis time Alan


What are you trying to say???
0

#6 User is offline   tommy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1965
  • Joined: 21-September 05

Posted 30 March 2020 - 02:04 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 30 March 2020 - 01:45 PM, said:

What are you trying to say???

are you once again . asking for sympathy allan ............BTW . any updates as in your backdated claims being restored ......... :lol:
0

#7 User is offline   tommy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1965
  • Joined: 21-September 05

Posted 30 March 2020 - 02:20 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 30 March 2020 - 09:57 AM, said:

As I am only able to work about two or three hours per day fragmented throughout the day Without regard for the fact that the nature of my injuries preclude any identifiable type of work of any sort and I am not receiving ACC compensation and only receiving $280 from social welfare when my accommodation is $300 per week it goes without saying that I am not going to be able to retire At 65 or any foreseeable time up until my demise. Quite obviously the effort to work is going to cause premature death as my efforts have resulted in a continuous stream of severe accidents.
As for the legislation that prescribes 65 as being the age at which earnings compensation ceases so as to coincide with the official age of retirement.
As I am continuing to work while injured with the consequence that I do have a continuous succession of additional injuries and insurance companies will not provide insurance to those who are not fit to work it does seem that my ongoing situation is dire. It is no wonder that the ACC are imagining that I am going to be a suicide bomber. As they have convicted me of this they must be wondering about when this fanciful and fateful day will be upon them.

Are you as in the\ social welfare payement and the 3 odd hours per day work input . are you allan . living in deficit . of incomes or not
0

#8 User is offline   tommy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1965
  • Joined: 21-September 05

Posted 30 March 2020 - 02:28 PM

View Posttommy, on 30 March 2020 - 02:20 PM, said:

Are you as in the\ social welfare payement and the 3 odd hours per day work input . are you allan . living in deficit . of incomes or not

as superannuation status is looming .allan shortly . which will will equate to as in your singular position be as in the vincity of 450 dollar s plus accommodation etc that will be your entitlements of a nz citizen . with the ability if one chooses to work in a payed environment ............ accept your lot allan .
0

#9 User is offline   anonymousey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2420
  • Joined: 04-April 06

Posted 30 March 2020 - 02:50 PM

Apologies to Empathy who may be trying to highlight a discrimination issue here and I do not mean to go offtopic from my reply to Alan etc

My 0.02c POV is that in theory I like your idea ... and yep I know some superannuitants taking home a high pay packet as well as blocking younger employees from advancing etc However unfortunately it seems some of these folks are working for their ongoing overseas holidays and to keep kiwisaver going .. but unfortunately it seems they also would not do any voluntary unpaid work even if they are fit for it with their free time unless its a directish OBE game etc

In practice my concern would be that trying to get ACC to operate differently to the MSD Superannuation might open the door to a slippery slope ... where the pension is also shifted to 70 years etc I probably would see that means testing the pension could also evolve ... and that this might hit some ACC claimants if they are already in receipt of Independence Allowance along with assets, gold cards etc etc

View PostAlan Thomas, on 30 March 2020 - 01:45 PM, said:

What are you trying to say???


I have disregarded the opening material as it is all self absorbed and can be remedied with various options ... and unfortunately I simply do not believe your quoted WINZ income figures ... and of course payments will change & improve as soon as you get the pension Alan ...

View PostAlan Thomas, on 30 March 2020 - 09:57 AM, said:

... It is no wonder that the ACC are imagining that I am going to be a suicide bomber. As they have convicted me of this they must be wondering about when this fanciful and fateful day will be upon them.


This is the offensive disgraceful comment which shows me that you still have no regard for innocents ...
0

#10 User is offline   tommy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1965
  • Joined: 21-September 05

Posted 30 March 2020 - 03:16 PM

 Empathy, on 28 January 2020 - 12:35 PM, said:

ACC simply stops your ACC payments as soon as you turn 65!
You have no rights!
There is no no discussion?
A person who has been ruled unfit for work under ACC cannot get extra work under ACC and hihgly likely cannot get work extra work under the New Zealand Super Scheme.
There is no consideration of the possibility of your ability to get extra work? And yet a non injured person could have a number of jobs when they are aged 65 and still collect the National Super Scheme.
No thought to the fact the average retire now works to 70 so maybe ACC should be paid to 70 not to 65! Remember these people have been badly injured, injured to the extent that they cant work!
A policeman or a soldier injured with PTSD gets paid for the rest of their life but a civilian injured with PTSD in the eartquake doesn't? Is this fair?

yes they do stop your payements . as you mentioned . and one has to work around that stoppage in advance . to then when changes may be administered .
0

#11 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10801
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 30 March 2020 - 04:43 PM

 tommy, on 30 March 2020 - 02:20 PM, said:

Are you as in the\ social welfare payement and the 3 odd hours per day work input . are you allan . living in deficit . of incomes or not


You are off topic.

This topic is about whether or not earnings compensation should continue beyond the age of 65 while having regard for claimants who either wish or need to continue working.

0

#12 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10801
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 30 March 2020 - 04:45 PM

If I was retired and still working quite obviously I would be paying income tax such as PAYE in relation to my earnings generated from my work. This of course would also attract ACC payments as a contribution towards earnings compensation insurance. Quite obviously there are fundamental principles involved which are running parallel to the long-standing principle regarding no taxation without representation. One an earth would anyone pay insurance if it was never ever going to be a payment? Ludicrous.
0

#13 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1740
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 30 March 2020 - 08:20 PM

 Alan Thomas, on 30 March 2020 - 09:57 AM, said:

As I am only able to work about two or three hours per day fragmented throughout the day Without regard for the fact that the nature of my injuries preclude any identifiable type of work of any sort and I am not receiving ACC compensation and only receiving $280 from social welfare when my accommodation is $300 per week it goes without saying that I am not going to be able to retire At 65 or any foreseeable time up until my demise. Quite obviously the effort to work is going to cause premature death as my efforts have resulted in a continuous stream of severe accidents.
As for the legislation that prescribes 65 as being the age at which earnings compensation ceases so as to coincide with the official age of retirement.
As I am continuing to work while injured with the consequence that I do have a continuous succession of additional injuries and insurance companies will not provide insurance to those who are not fit to work it does seem that my ongoing situation is dire. It is no wonder that the ACC are imagining that I am going to be a suicide bomber. As they have convicted me of this they must be wondering about when this fanciful and fateful day will be upon them.



We all know what you are and like to claim. You can at any time return as a people person and collect a large amount of money from people for doing nothing.

That is not the issue here.

It's about Government employees along with Government servants keep collecting there pension even when there is a loss of earnings. ACC keep paying into there pension schemes.

Claimants should have the same right have a kiwi saver and have ACC contribute to that.
0

#14 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10801
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 31 March 2020 - 10:08 AM

 doppelganger, on 30 March 2020 - 08:20 PM, said:

We all know what you are and like to claim. You can at any time return as a people person and collect a large amount of money from people for doing nothing.

That is not the issue here.

It's about Government employees along with Government servants keep collecting there pension even when there is a loss of earnings. ACC keep paying into there pension schemes.

Claimants should have the same right have a kiwi saver and have ACC contribute to that.


Do you have any evidence that the government is paying into pension schemes for government workers?

Are you aware of any ACC legislation concerning your claims of fact?

0

#15 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1740
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 31 March 2020 - 10:08 PM

 Alan Thomas, on 31 March 2020 - 10:08 AM, said:

Do you have any evidence that the government is paying into pension schemes for government workers?

Are you aware of any ACC legislation concerning your claims of fact?


Here is the orginal Act which included things like Pensions to be included in earnings

103 CALCULATION OF EARNINGS
103(1) For the purposes of this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, the term “earnings”, in relation to any person, means all his earnings as an employee as determined in accordance with this section and all his earnings as a self-employed person as so determined.
103(2) For the purposes of this Act, the expression “earnings as an employee” includes—
(a) Any wages, salary, allowances (including allowances of any of the kinds referred to in section 89 of the Land and Income Tax Act 1954), holiday pay, overtime pay, long-service leave pay, bonuses, gratuities, extra salary, commissions, directors' fees, honoraria, emoluments, or remuneration of any kind paid or payable (whether at piece rates or otherwise and whether in cash or otherwise) to any person in respect of or in relation to the employment of that person as an employee, not being—
(i) A lump sum payment (other than accrued holiday pay or accrued long-service leave pay) made to any person by way of bonus, gratuity, or retiring allowance on the occasion of any termination of employment of that person as an employee, whether such termination is by reason of retirement from employment as an employee, or of redundancy, or any other circumstance whatever; or
(ii) Any payment made to any person by way of superannuation, pension, or annuity in respect of the past employment of that person, or of any other person of whom that first-mentioned person is or has been the wife or husband or a child or dependant; or
(iii) Any commission, retainer, or other amount which is paid or payable (whether in cash or otherwise) to a person who, under subsection (2) or subsection (3) of section 2 of this Act is deemed to be an employee, by any person who under that subsection (2) is deemed to be the employer of that person or under that subsection (3) is deemed, in respect of the doing of the work or the rendering of the services referred to in that subsection (3), to be the employer of that first-mentioned person and who makes or is liable to make the payment in that capacity:
(B) An amount equal to 80 percent of the aggregate of the commission and any retainer and any other amount whatsoever paid or payable (whether in cash or otherwise) to any person who, under subsection (2) of section 2 of this Act, is deemed to be an employee, by any person who under that subsection is deemed to be the employer of that person and who makes or is liable to make the payment in that capacity:
© An amount equal to 90 percent of any amount paid or payable (whether in cash or otherwise) to any person who, under subsection (3) of section 2 of this Act, is deemed to be an employee, by any person who under that subsection is deemed to be the employer of that person, in respect of the doing of the work or the rendering of the services referred to in that subsection and who makes or is liable to make the payment in that capacity,—
but does not include—
(d) Any allowance paid or payable (not being an allowance paid or payable to a person who is deemed under subsection (2) or subsection (3) of section 2 of this Act to be an employee, by a person who under that subsection (2) or subsection (3), as the case may be, is deemed to be an employer of that first-mentioned person) to the extent to which that allowance is, pursuant to a determination made by the Commissioner of Inland Revenue under section 90 of the Land and Income Tax Act 1954, exempt from income tax; or
(dd) Any allowance of the kind referred to in section 88C of the Land and Income Tax Act 1954; or
(e) Any amount which is paid or payable by an employer, being or purporting to be remuneration for services rendered by an employee and allocated to a person or persons other than that employee in accordance with subsection (1) of section 106 of the Land and Income Tax Act 1954, whether or not it is deemed, pursuant to subsection (2) of that section, to be a dividend paid to that employee; or
(f) Any amount (not being an amount which under section 105 of this Act is deemed to be a dividend) which under section 139 of the Land and Income Tax Act 1954 is deemed to be a dividend paid by a company to any person and deemed to be received by that person as a shareholder of the company; or
(g) Any amount which, under section 105 of this Act, is deemed to be a dividend received by a person from a company for which he provides services and in which he is a shareholder; or
(h) Where subsection (4) of section 2 of this Act applies, any fees, allowances, bonuses, gratuities, commissions, emoluments or remuneration of any kind paid or payable (whether in cash or otherwise) by the company, in respect of the services of the director in his capacity as director, to a firm, body, or institution of which that director is a member or employee; or
(i) Any amount derived by any person as an employee which would otherwise be taken into account in calculating earnings as an employee under this subsection, but which is derived from employment outside New Zealand and is derived otherwise than from employment by virtue of which that person has cover under the earners' scheme in respect of personal injury by accident outside New Zealand; or
(j) Any payments of which no account shall be taken in accordance with section 62 of this Act; or
(k) Any compensation as defined in section 2(1) of this Act, or any compensation payable under the Workers' Compensation Act 1956; or
(l) Any earnings in respect of which no levy is payable by reason of section 64(2) of this Act; or
(m) Any payment made by an employer in respect of which he is reimbursed by the Commission under section 113(4C) of this Act, to the extent that the Commission is, by reason of such reimbursement, relieved and discharged from liability to pay earnings related compensation which otherwise would be payable by the Commission to the employee.
History
S 103(2)(l) amended and s 103(2)(m) inserted by No 71 of 1974, s 4, effective 1 April 1974.
S 103(2)(dd) inserted and para (g) and (k) amended by No 113 of 1973, s 39(1) and s 39(2)(a) and (B), effective 1 April 1974 (refer SR 1973/290, reg 2).
103(3) For the purposes of this Act, the expression “earnings as a self-employed person”, in relation to a self-employed person, means so much of the assessable income (as determined under and for the purposes of the Land and Income Tax Act 1954) of that person as is beneficially derived by him from the carrying on by him of a business; but does not include income so derived to the extent to which that income consists of—
(a) Income from dividends (as defined in section 4 of the Land and Income Tax Act 1954), not being income derived by that person from the carrying on by him of the business of dealing in shares; or
(B) Income from interest or from any premium or like revenue arising from a debt, not being income derived by that person from the carrying on by him of the business of lending money or of a business in the course of the conduct of which financial accommodation is regularly given to customers; or
© Income from rents, fines, premiums, or other revenues (including payment for or in respect of the goodwill of any business, or the benefit of any statutory licence or privilege) derived by that person as the owner of land from any lease of, or licence relating to, the land (including any chattels included in the lease or licence), not being income derived by that person from the carrying on by him of the business of—
(i) Operating an hotel, motel, motor camp, hostel, convalescent home, private hospital, or boarding house; or
(ii) Hiring premises in conjunction with the provision of goods and services thereon where the hiring of the premises is for the sole or principal purpose of enabling the provision of those goods and services; or
(d) Income from the lease or bailment of livestock; or
(e) Income from the grant or renewal, or from the sale or other disposition, of any right relating to—
(i) The operation of any mine or quarry; or
(ii) The extraction, removal, or other exploitation of any standing timber or of any natural resource; or
(iii) The taking in any other manner of profits or produce from land; or
(f) Income from any easement affecting land; or
(g) Income from payments of any kind made as consideration for—
(i) The sale or other disposition of, or the use of, or the right to use, any copyright, patent, design or model, plan, secret formula or process, trade mark, or other like property or right; or
(ii) The supply of scientific, technical, industrial, or commercial knowledge or information (but not including any services which are rendered as a means of enabling the application or enjoyment of such knowledge or information); or
(h) Income derived by that person from a partnership or joint undertaking where that person does not render personal services to a substantial degree in the carrying on of the business of the partnership or joint undertaking; or
(i) Any share or interest in income derived by that person as a beneficiary under any will, trust, or settlement, not being a share or interest referred to in subsection (4) of this section; or
(j) Income which is neither derived from New Zealand (as defined in section 2 of the Land and Income Tax Act 1954) nor deemed for the purposes of the Land and Income Tax Act 1954 to be derived from New Zealand (as so defined); or
(k) Any compensation as defined in section 2(1) of this Act; or
(l) Any earnings referred to in paragraph (l) of subsection (2) of this section:
Provided that, for the purpose of assessing earnings for the payment of compensation, any income of a person allowed by any provision of the Land and Income Tax Act 1954 to be spread back or apportioned to a financial year earlier than that in which the income was derived shall not be included in the earnings of that person for any financial year other than that in which it was derived, if the application to the Commissioner of Inland Revenue for the spread-back or apportionment was made subsequent to the time of the accident in respect of which earnings related compensation is or is to be claimed.
History
S 103(3) substituted by No 113 of 1973, s 39(3), effective 1 April 1974 (refer SR 1973/290, reg 2).
103(4) For the purposes of subsection (3) of this section, in the case of a person to whom paragraph (B) of the definition of the expression “self-employed person” in section 2(1) of this Act applies, any income referred to in that paragraph shall, to the extent of that person's vested beneficial share or interest in that income, be deemed to have been derived by him from the carrying on by him of a business.
History
S 103(4) substituted by No 113 of 1973, s 39(3), effective 1 April 1974 (refer SR 1973/290, reg 2).
103(5) Every reference in this section to the carrying on of a business by a person shall be read as a reference to the carrying on of that business by that person either alone or together with another person or other persons.
History
S 103(5) substituted by No 113 of 1973, s 39(3), effective 1 April 1974 (refer SR 1973/290, reg 2).
103(6) Nothing in this section shall restrict subsection (8) of section 60 of this Act.
History
S 103(6) inserted by No 113 of 1973, s 39(3), effective 1 April 1974 (refer SR 1973/290, reg 2).
History
S 103 effective 1 April 1974 (refer SR 1973/290, reg 2).

If you were knowledgeable you would know that the PSA is available to all Government employees and they also arrange the pension schemes.

ACC employees also get a pension after 25 years as in there employment contract.
0

#16 User is offline   tommy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1965
  • Joined: 21-September 05

Posted 06 April 2020 - 05:35 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 30 March 2020 - 04:43 PM, said:

You are off topic.

This topic is about whether or not earnings compensation should continue beyond the age of 65 while having regard for claimants who either wish or need to continue working.

what are your reasons allan it should continue .
0

#17 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10801
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 06 April 2020 - 08:12 PM

Doppelgänger government pensions are not earnings and as such have no connection whatsoever to ACC earnings compensation.

This is the old story that I've been trying to get through in as much as income such as return on investments such as ordinary investments or guaranteed retirement pensions is not the same thing as earnings. When a company or country pays a pension as a result of someone paying into a pension fund which is in turn invested as a form of investment. The whole value of earnings are calculated at the time of earnings. This means that the principal has been part of the earnings up which earnings compensation would be paid but the interest on that amount invested on behalf of the employee is in fact a return on investment.

I read through your postings but could not find anything in the legislation you posted to support your way of thinking. If there is something I must perhaps you could highlight that please.

0

#18 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10801
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 06 April 2020 - 08:12 PM

View Posttommy, on 06 April 2020 - 05:35 PM, said:

what are your reasons allan it should continue .


I don't understand what you have posted.
0

#19 User is offline   tommy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1965
  • Joined: 21-September 05

Posted 07 April 2020 - 04:12 PM

 Alan Thomas, on 06 April 2020 - 08:12 PM, said:

I don't understand what you have posted.

where are you to date as in your ;lost entitlements being restored allan ....as in in your entitlements to super annuation . is near. correct tommy otherwise
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