KEY POINTS:
I have been putting it off, but this week I must pay my ACC levy. It is $887. This seems like a lot given that I am not abseiling to clean skyscraper windows but working part-time from home writing the odd story. A typical white-knuckle day at work
involves lying on my sofa with a hand-crocheted mohair blankie and my laptop reading the Daily Mail online.
I wonder if I could set up my own captive insurance company. Certainly, self-insuring seems like an appealing option. If I put aside $887 every year for the next five years surely I would have enough to cover me in the unlikely event I fell 10cm off the sofa. I did briefly consider contacting ACC to question how they calculated the premium - cutely, it has gone up as my income has gone down. However, my experiences of dealing with this arm of government have not been encouraging thus far.
Last year I paid my premium using internet banking. This was not easy as I had to ring them up to get the bank details - they refuse to put this on the invoice although surely it must be a popular way of paying bills these days. After I had paid it I received a letter saying I still owed the money. When I rang their call centre they told me to ignore the letter. Next, I received a letter from some debt collectors. This time when I rang ACC's call centre they rummaged about and uncovered the till-now unknown fact I had two levies, one for me and one for my company (both for the same amount, hence the confusion) and I had only paid one. I immediately paid the other and thought the matter had been resolved, until I received a letter from ACC with a cheque saying I had paid double what I owed and they were sending half the money back. Argh.
I couldn't face explaining ACC's own error to them so I just tore up the cheque and figured we were square - bad idea, since it led to a another round of debt collector letters. Come to think of it, I am just hoping that the $887 is all I owe and there isn't another premium lurking.
Speaking of work, what about that slug-a-bed John Key? What a loafer. At least that's what Helen Clark implied last week when the National party leader dared to take a couple of days off. We have some quite peculiar hang-ups about holidays in this country. My father's idea of a break was to take some time off from his job to re-tile the roof of the house, build a fence and fix the plumbing. So I came late to the idea of taking the kind of vacation where you sip pina coladas, but have been a quick study.
Still, I remain puzzled at the great family holiday swindle. Schoolchildren have about eight weeks' holiday per year but employees have about four. How is that supposed to work if you don't have grandparents to look after the little blighters? It is funny that Clark criticises the Opposition's work ethic when her Government has presided over a period of such poor productivity growth - running at what economists describe as the ``alarmingly low' rate of 1 per cent per year from 2000 to 2006. Clark might be working harder, but the rest of us aren't. Hell, why bother when ACC will only want more?
deborah@coneandco.com