This would change the game wrt ACC levies

[aroberts]

This would be fairer. Wonder how they could introduce it and still charge more for Motorcycles.

I see Gerry Brownlee seems to support it.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/motoring/news/article.cfm?c_id=9&objectid=10825825

[hayd3n]

there would be enough with this system to give us all a flat rate they would make so much more $$ this way and yes a far fairer system

[swbarnett]

WTF is wrong with taking ACC costs out of the general tax take? No inequities and no huge administration costs.

Afterall, isn't it the whole point of ACC that getting someone back on their feet is of benefit to the entire populace? If the entire populace benifit then why should the entire populace pay?

[eliot-ness]

there would be enough with this system to give us all a flat rate they would make so much more $$ this way and yes a far fairer system

Fairer for whom? Car and bike owners yes, bikers especially could find it much to their advantage, but what about the guy with a gas guzzling Merc? he could find himself paying three times as much for the same mileage as the mini car owner or the average bike rider. Then there's the boaties, who probably use more fuel per kilometer than most drivers, or the fishing fleet owners who are big users of diesel fuel. Making them exempt from the charges could be difficult if not impossible.
I reckon there will be a lot of complaints if this idea ever gets of the ground.

[FJRider]

Afterall, isn't it the whole point of ACC that getting someone back on their feet is of benefit to the entire populace? If the entire populace benifit then why should the entire populace pay?

They all pay in the way of various taxes. Taxes other than the levy's added to registration fee's .... for those that don't own a vehicle.

[steve_t]

Definitely fairer. Not totally fair but fairer. This gets rid of the penalty for bikers that own multiple bikes yet can only ride one at any given time. I guess it's not good for you lot that ride around with your regos on hold though :chase:

[Meanie]

Fuck paying ACC
We pay them enough as it is. Bring on private insurance

[Kickaha]

Fuck paying ACC
We pay them enough as it is. Bring on private insurance

I'd be willing to bet that's going to make our current ACC levy look cheap

[MSTRS]

When the 'debate' was raging on here about the proposed increase/s to ACC, this was amongst the suggestions put forward as a viable alternative. I happen to support this one 100%. The only motorists that will get out of paying will be the drive-offs...but they prolly don't pay a rego under the current system anyway.
Best thing about it? You only pay when you use your vehicle...or should I say, you pay up front (like now) when you purchase fuel, but as long as you are not using the fuel, your ACC/rego is not ticking down to zero.

[whowhatwhere]

Sounds great to me. Would be good to have an idea of how many cents per litre we're talking here.

[MSTRS]

Sounds great to me. Would be good to have an idea of how many cents per litre we're talking here.

Earlier calculations suggested it would be in the nature of 20c per litre. 10c per litre is already levied on petrol - which is why diesel vehicles attract a higher rego.

[pete-blen]

Then there's the boaties, who probably use more fuel per kilometer than most drivers, or the fishing fleet owners who are big users of diesel fuel. Making them exempt from the charges could be difficult if not impossible.



You don't really think fishing boats/fleets pay road user charges in the fuel cost..Do yer??
Theres NO road user charges on diesel fuel at the mariners if you get from the re-fueling jettys..
The petrol pumps on the re-fueling jettys would prob be the same if this system came in..


((mined you with the amount of brain dead pratts the get into trouble in boats..It could be used to help
pay for search & rescue...))

[hayd3n]

Fairer for whom? Car and bike owners yes, bikers especially could find it much to their advantage, but what about the guy with a gas guzzling Merc? he could find himself paying three times as much for the same mileage as the mini car owner or the average bike rider. Then there's the boaties, who probably use more fuel per kilometer than most drivers, or the fishing fleet owners who are big users of diesel fuel. Making them exempt from the charges could be difficult if not impossible.
I reckon there will be a lot of complaints if this idea ever gets of the ground.

dont drive a merc, and plus boaties have accidents so they will be covered , 4 cents a litre increase would probably cover it for all users .
it would be a far easier system and is would be easy to manage unlike the current system which is a load of crap

[Meanie]

I'd be willing to bet that's going to make our current ACC levy look cheap

It was shit loads cheaper a number of years ago when they brought it in that we could get our own private insurance. Unfortunatly short lived when ACC and the Govt realised they wernt getting enough revenue to pay the current recipiants of ACC and they reversed it after only twelve months

[eliot-ness]

You don't really think fishing boats/fleets pay road user charges in the fuel cost..Do yer??
Theres NO road user charges on diesel fuel at the mariners if you get from the re-fueling jettys..
The petrol pumps on the re-fueling jettys would prob be the same if this system came in..


((mined you with the amount of brain dead pratts the get into trouble in boats..It could be used to help
pay for search & rescue...))

Present diesel price for marine use, Fishing boats and runabouts, is US980,50 per tonne.(1177ltrs) but maintenance costs for fishing boats is much higher than for road vehicles so no road user charges. But; try to find a place that'll supply the local fisho with cheap fuel, most of the petrol pumps closed down long ago and diesel is usually restricted to commercial users or their very close friends.

[GrayWolf]

Present diesel price for marine use, Fishing boats and runabouts, is US980,50 per tonne.(1177ltrs) but maintenance costs for fishing boats is much higher than for road vehicles so no road user charges. But; try to find a place that'll supply the local fisho with cheap fuel, most of the petrol pumps closed down long ago and diesel is usually restricted to commercial users or their very close friends.

The UK 'used' to have a sytem for 'industrial/agricultural' fuel... it had a dye added to it, so spot checks on the roadside could instantly identify any 'misuse'... that would easily cover 'commercial' fishing vessels for exemption from an ACC levy on fuel, and catch miscreants who fill up the ute/4wd/car with deisel/petrol from the jetty.
So I cant see a problem with placing the levy directly from the 'pump' at service stations, after all the majority of the cost per litre is already tax/levy set by TPTB.

[george formby]

I'd be willing to bet that's going to make our current ACC levy look cheap

I dunno. When I go back to the UK I use an online company & pay my fully comp insurance monthly. Last time it was less than $40 per month & that is a full replacement for a new equivalent to my bike, full road side assistance & repatriation from anywhere in Europe, medical costs, accomodation, mercy flights etc. That price is at the thick end too. Rego was $140 ish per year.

[Winston001]

It was shit loads cheaper a number of years ago when they brought it in that we could get our own private insurance. Unfortunatly short lived when ACC and the Govt realised they wernt getting enough revenue to pay the current recipiants of ACC and they reversed it after only twelve months

Nope.

The private insurance alternative to ACC was introduced by the National government in 1999 and - for low accident jobs (office work etc) the initial cost was cheaper. However that first year was driven by competition for new business between the insurance companies with artificially low premiums.

The new Labour government reversed the law in 2001 bringing us back to ACC (which had continued in the meantime). It was a political decision.

My private insurer, an aussie company, went bellyup a couple of years later. So much for lifelong cover!! The unlucky people on claim were left with nothing...so ACC picked it up.

[Winston001]

Sounds like a reasonable plan and its certainly been proposed here often enough. I'm surprised that the cost would be as much as 20c/litre. If the rationale is that all vehicle accidents on/off road, in the air, or at sea are covered by ACC then a blanket tax on all fuel makes sense.

Against that, part of registration goes into road safety etc which offroaders shouldn't pay for.

I do like the current system where the WOF + Registration acts as a check against vehicle ownership and validity - we don't want to lose that.

[Meanie]

Nope.

The private insurance alternative to ACC was introduced by the National government in 1999 and - for low accident jobs (office work etc) the initial cost was cheaper. However that first year was driven by competition for new business between the insurance companies with artificially low premiums.

The new Labour government reversed the law in 2001 bringing us back to ACC (which had continued in the meantime). It was a political decision.

My private insurer, an aussie company, went bellyup a couple of years later. So much for lifelong cover!! The unlucky people on claim were left with nothing...so ACC picked it up.

Yea i remeber it was quite a bit cheaper but then we still had to pay residual levies to ACC, you cant win so you just gotta roll with it. I can still bitch about how much we have to pay though. :facepalm:

[sootie]

I think Gareth Morgans ideas are worth a read.
Maybe a basic bike rego fee, but the ACC levy for bikers would be triggered because they had one or more bikes regoed to them, but when paid would be shown as a sticker on their driving licence.
The really fair part here would be that a biker could own a number of bikes & only pay one levy.
If you were shown as owning a bike it would be hard to avoid paying the levy.
The present system is totally unacceptable!

cheers ... sootie

[swbarnett]

The really fair part here would be that a biker could own a number of bikes & only pay one levy.
While I agree it's a step in the right direction, there's still nothing fair about it. ACC is supposed to be"no fault and yet we'd still be "at fault" (i.e. charged more) for being a motorcyclist.


And while I'm thinking of it, taking the levy from petrol is hardly fair either. Yes, the more you drive/ride, the more you're exposed. But, it is also true for most that the more you drive/ride, the better (and therefore safer) you become.



The present system is totally unacceptable!
I think this is probably the only thing about ACC that most of us (if not all) can agree on.

[sootie]

ACC is supposed to be"no fault and yet we'd still be "at fault" (i.e. charged more) for being a motorcyclist.

I have no argument with this part of your statement, and was really just pointing out some of the justice in Gareth Morgan's ideas.

Actually, I would also state that accident statistics MUST be biased against motorcyclists anyway. How can a lone, badly injured motorcyclist who can not even survey the scene properly, possibly defend himself (her) against a motorist who very likely has his own witness in the form of a passenger with him?

[Winston001]

. ACC is supposed to be"no fault and yet we'd still be "at fault" (i.e. charged more) for being a motorcyclist.

This is a common misperception. ACC levies differ widely across industries and are completely different depending upon your risk. A forestry worker pays high ACC, an insurance clerk pays the lowest amount.





And while I'm thinking of it, taking the levy from petrol is hardly fair either. Yes, the more you drive/ride, the more you're exposed. But, it is also true for most that the more you drive/ride, the better (and therefore safer) you become.


Mmmm...really? My grandad drove for 70 years...and I wouldn't want to be on the road with him. 50yr olds have eyesight and heart problems. The average person reaches a level of competence at which stage they think they are excellent at driving - being all of 25 years old. They then become complacent and blame everyone else.

[swbarnett]

This is a common misperception. ACC levies differ widely across industries and are completely different depending upon your risk. A forestry worker pays high ACC, an insurance clerk pays the lowest amount.
I said it was supposed to be "no fault". I know it isn't. Just trying to say that any levy differential goes against the fundamental pri


Mmmm...really? My grandad drove for 70 years...and I wouldn't want to be on the road with him. 50yr olds have eyesight and heart problems. The average person reaches a level of competence at which stage they think they are excellent at driving - being all of 25 years old. They then become complacent and blame everyone else.
Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant to say that those that cover a greater distance in a given time period on a regular basis will, on average, be better drivers simply because they get more practice in less time.

[Winston001]

I said it was supposed to be "no fault". I know it isn't. Just trying to say that any levy differential goes against the fundamental pri




Fair enough. So you'd be happy to heaps pay more to cover watersiders, scaffolders, mountain climbers, shearers, chainsaw wielders etc etc? You wouldn't consider they should pay more?

FYI your insurance company insists you pay more if your house is vulnerable to earthquake or fire or is difficult to rebuild. For example mine has timber paneling 50 yrs old and will cost a fortune to replace - as the insurance company pointed out.

[ckai]

Mmmm...really? My grandad drove for 70 years...and I wouldn't want to be on the road with him. 50yr olds have eyesight and heart problems. The average person reaches a level of competence at which stage they think they are excellent at driving - being all of 25 years old. They then become complacent and blame everyone else.

Couldn't agree more. Driving skill, it seems, is like a bell curve. Less face it, the older everyone gets, the worse everyone seems to drive. As you pointed out, complacency is the kicker.

[swbarnett]

Fair enough. So you'd be happy to heaps pay more to cover watersiders, scaffolders, mountain climbers, shearers, chainsaw wielders etc etc? You wouldn't consider they should pay more?
Yes, I'd be happy to pay my fair share pro rata based on my income. That's why it should all be funded straight out of income tax.


FYI your insurance company insists you pay more if your house is vulnerable to earthquake or fire or is difficult to rebuild. For example mine has timber paneling 50 yrs old and will cost a fortune to replace - as the insurance company pointed out.
Of course you'd pay more to insure a house that's more expensive to rebuild. But ACC is not insurance (or at least shouldn't be).

[swbarnett]

Couldn't agree more. Driving skill, it seems, is like a bell curve. Less face it, the older everyone gets, the worse everyone seems to drive. As you pointed out, complacency is the kicker.
While very true, age had nothing to do with my original point. Someone that only does a couple of miles a day is not going to pick up the same skills as someone that travels the length of the country on a weekly basis.

[Winston001]

But ACC is not insurance (or at least shouldn't be).

??? ACC is a compensation system which pays for medical bills and rehabilitation. But most importantly it pays 80% of your wages while you are injured. The central idea of ACC is no-fault compensation.

So if you earn $14/hr you'll get paid on that scale.

If you earn $40/hr you'll get paid on that scale.

Not paid equally (compared with the dole) but entirely differently.

If ACC isn't insurance - what is it?

[Bassmatt]

Fair enough. So you'd be happy to heaps pay more to cover watersiders, scaffolders, mountain climbers, shearers, chainsaw wielders etc etc? You wouldn't consider they should pay more?


If these people are doing dangerous jobs where the risk of being injured and unable to work is greater than average then there wages/salary should reflect that. As we all pay a % of our work income as acc levy the extra to be paid by the rest of us should be minimal.

[Ixion]

You guys are over analyzing it.. I remember when the ACC scheme was introduced.The government needed ways to fund the scheme.

Back then all motorists paid a compulsory third party insurance premium ( yes, we had compulsory third party insurance then, it was shit, as all such schemes are) . And all employers paid a compulsory workers compensation insurance premium. Which was different from one industry to another.

Government figured " they're already paying this, they won't gripe if we make them keep paying and put the money to the new scheme"

Simple as that, nothing philosophical, just a matter if grabbing some money

[swbarnett]

??? ACC is a compensation system which pays for medical bills and rehabilitation. But most importantly it pays 80% of your wages while you are injured. The central idea of ACC is no-fault compensation.

So if you earn $14/hr you'll get paid on that scale.

If you earn $40/hr you'll get paid on that scale.

Not paid equally (compared with the dole) but entirely differently.

If ACC isn't insurance - what is it?
In the purest sense, yes, it is insurance. However, it differs from main-stream incurance in one very important aspect - it exists for the public good. A population full of healthy people that are contributing to a thriving society is of benifit to all. An individual that I don't know from a bar of soap losing their transport through lack of insurance doesn't really affect me at all.

[swbarnett]

Government figured " they're already paying this, they won't gripe if we make them keep paying and put the money to the new scheme"

Simple as that, nothing philosophical, just a matter if grabbing some money
Typical, take the easy way out instead of making it equitable.

[BMWST?]

Typical, take the easy way out instead of making it equitable.


like wacking motorcycles woith a seperate levy because we are already a seperate and ditict class of regos

[davereid]

I doubt they will do this.

They will ignore the asymptotic creep towards 3 l/100 and claim fuel taxes won't work as eventually vehicles will get 500mpg.
Crap, but thats how they operate.

They will also wring their hands and say "what about all the electric cars? they wont have to pay !"

This is also rubbish, as every house in the country will soon have smart meters and they will be able to charge different rates depending on what you run, and when.


This is a simple, reliable and sensible way of getting all the money ACC need.

It does not however create a reason to use vehicle tracking, install toll ways, it does not create or maintain an IT infrastructure, and offence / enforcement / punishment industry.

So theres no way we will do it.

[FJRider]

This is a simple, reliable and sensible way of getting all the money ACC need.



ACC already get the money they need ... otherwise they wouldn't be able to pay out for assistance/compensation as they do now. But it's at the expense of availability of funds for other goverment funded programs. They want their cake and eat it too ... (don't we all)

It's seen as a cash cow .... and they continue to milk it. And I dout if milking time will be over anytime soon.

[Winston001]

ACC already get the money they need ...

It's seen as a cash cow .... and they continue to milk it. And I dout if milking time will be over anytime soon.

Not sure what you mean Trevor: ACC stands alone. It doesn't pay dividends to the government or any money at all.

The arguments about ACC are whether it should be pay-as-you-go or alternatively, be fully funded with a substantial sum of money in the bank to meet future claims.

For example Kiwisaver and the NZ Superannuation Fund are methods of fully funding our retirement.

By comparison, the dole and DPB etc are pay-as-you-go with the money being taken from taxation each year. There is no future fund being built up to meet next years commitments.

[FJRider]

Not sure what you mean Trevor: ACC stands alone. It doesn't pay dividends to the government or any money at all.

The arguments about ACC are whether it should be pay-as-you-go or alternatively, be fully funded with a substantial sum of money in the bank to meet future claims.

For example Kiwisaver and the NZ Superannuation Fund are methods of fully funding our retirement.

By comparison, the dole and DPB etc are pay-as-you-go with the money being taken from taxation each year. There is no future fund being built up to meet next years commitments.

So ... all the money that is paid as ACC levies in rego etc .. is transferred directly TO ACC. ???

So ... if ACC (as a stand alone business on a restricted budget) finds there is not enough money in the kitty to pay your compensation (should you have another accident) do they tell you sorry ... and decline (I hate that word) your compensation ... or do ACC just dig deeper into the Goverment coffers for your payments ???

[Winston001]

So ... all the money that is paid as ACC levies in rego etc .. is transferred directly TO ACC. ???

Yes. That is what it is for.


So ... if ACC (as a stand alone business on a restricted budget) finds there is not enough money in the kitty to pay your compensation (should you have another accident) do they tell you sorry ... and decline (I hate that word) your compensation ... or do ACC just dig deeper into the Goverment coffers for your payments ???

In fact ACC did find the kitty was nearly bare, about 15 years ago from memory. The work levies jumped by about 40%.

If that hadn't happened, ACC could have borrowed the money for a short time, and/or drawn from the government. No government would have let ACC founder.

[MSTRS]

In fact ACC did find the kitty was nearly bare, about 15 years ago from memory. The work levies jumped by about 40%.



Strangely enough, it was a similar story about 4 years ago. Co-incidently, both times were just after Labour lost to National in general elections.
Now - I'm not saying that Labour 'hid loses' or that National applied a bullshit accounting process...but still, ACC is a perfect political football/cash cow.

[FJRider]

Yes. That is what it is for.



In fact ACC did find the kitty was nearly bare, about 15 years ago from memory. The work levies jumped by about 40%.

If that hadn't happened, ACC could have borrowed the money for a short time, and/or drawn from the government. No government would have let ACC founder.

That's what its for ... just like the road tax in fuel costs going on the roads ...

There was a bit of juggleing of figures to make it appear that way. Depending on how they were presented to joe public. Like pre-bikeoi ...

ACC borrowing money from the goverment ... :killingme