Older vehicles = increased ACC levy?

[davebullet]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/marlborough-express/news/2563171/Older-vehicles-could-bear-brunt-of-ACC-levy

Ok - so its cages... but could they extend that motorbikes as well? We've already had a 20% increase over last year (license fee from 1/7/09 now approx $321) .

[merv]

I think its about time the person was levied and not the vehicles and then we could be rated on our own risk factor, no claim bonus or whatever like happens with insurance now.

So if our household currently has a zillion vehicles no matter what age and no claims, it is plain ridiculous that we are penalised so heavily as we can only ride/drive one each at a time.

The levy could link to driver's licence. Far too simple for the bureaucrats huh!

[bogan]

I think its about time the person was levied and not the vehicles and then we could be rated on our own risk factor, no claim bonus or whatever like happens with insurance now.

So if our household currently has a zillion vehicles no matter what age and no claims, it is plain ridiculous that we are penalized so heavily as we can only ride/drive one each at a time.

The levy could link to driver's license. Far too simple for the bureaucrats huh!

good idea, but I don't see it happening unfortunately. Worthwhile remembering older vehicles can get cheaper insurance, couple of firms that offer cheap insurance cos they know those with classics take care of them, so it may balance out.

[Hitcher]

Surely "safety" or "risk" lies in the nut behind the wheel, rather than in the vehicle being driven or ridden?

How often is vehicular failure the primary cause of an accident, rather than driver/rider error?

This is bureaucratic nonsense. If ACC and other agencies don't want older vehicles on the road, bring in compulsory emissions testing. That will get rid of many in short order. It's also more sensible than this latest nonsense.

[p.dath]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/marlborough-express/news/2563171/Older-vehicles-could-bear-brunt-of-ACC-levy

Ok - so its cages... but could they extend that motorbikes as well? We've already had a 20% increase over last year (license fee from 1/7/09 now approx $321) .

I don't know, how about the $1.5 billion shortfall we have?

[YellowDog]

IMO - Getting old and unsafe vehicles off the road is a good idea.

However there are many very well maintained and fully resored classics on the road. It would be unfair to descriminate against these.

[sil3nt]

Stick the ACC levy onto driver licenses that have to be renewed each year. You can only operate one vehicle at a time!

I find it funny how the nation is in debt yet our "leader" is worth 50 odd million and we still pay him $300,000 a year but thats another topic entirely.

[merv]

Yep we're all mainly on the same tack, levy the licence not the vehicles.

[Viscount Montgomery]

The tin-pots are gonna legislate the life out of motorbikes, by 2011 you'll be applying 2 weeks in advance for a 24 hour/185 kilometre riding permit. 24 hours or 185 kilometres, whichever comes first, extra kilometres will be charged accordingly. You'll also be queuing at the postshop buying mileage at 58 cent per kilometre if requiring the over 1528 kilometre per year permits which will be issued strictly on a limited basis and if you've got any sort of traffic record, speed tickets etc.. well, you know you can damn well forget about doing anymore than fifteen hundred and twenty fucken kilometres a year on a motorbike. The opinions of the non-motorcycling public must be taken notice of. ACC'll be mortgaging your arses and regos are gonna be a standard $65.95 per month per person per vehicle per year. And anyone with the cheek to own more than one motorbike is gonna be copping some more really really steep charges on top..

[JMemonic]

And this comical idea makes up the so called shortfall how, every unregistered vehicle makes a mockery of the current system as it is.

Ok lets base this on the ratings system sure great idea, how many vehicles sold here have 5 stars, and here is the kicker how many vehicles on the road currently had 5 stars in their day but due to altered standards now dont ???\

ACC is working to a degree, but how about getting all the stealing useless assholes who are robbing the system blind, no more payouts to prisoners, there are lots of options for saving money, like how about every foreign visitor to NZ has to pay a levy to cover ACC, or they are no longer covered by it an have to take private insurance.

[Deano]

Stick the ACC levy onto driver licenses that have to be renewed each year. You can only operate one vehicle at a time!


Agree with that.



I find it funny how the nation is in debt yet our "leader" is worth 50 odd million and we still pay him $300,000 a year but thats another topic entirely.

WTF ? What does that have to do with the price of fish in China ?

And wasn't he going to donate his salary to charity ? Or was that just a rumour ?

He could most likely easily make more money as an investor than PM anyway, and with less stress and risk to his reputation.
He's either in it for the power (pretty cynical) or genuinely believes he can make a difference.

[BiK3RChiK]

Damn ACC Levies! Besides paying ACC on motor vehicles you pay ACC out of your wages and then for business owners they get stung huge ACC levies on their profits. ACC should be for those injured by someone else and all the bludgers/ self abusers should be users pays!

[scumdog]

Surely "safety" or "risk" lies in the nut behind the wheel, rather than in the vehicle being driven or ridden?

How often is vehicular failure the primary cause of an accident, rather than driver/rider error?

.

No, no, you got it wrong - they don't care what/who's at fault - all they care about is how badly hurt you get.

And older cars hurt you more when you crash.

[Grahameeboy]

Damn ACC Levies! Besides paying ACC on motor vehicles you pay ACC out of your wages and then for business owners they get stung huge ACC levies on their profits. ACC should be for those injured by someone else and all the bludgers/ self abusers should be users pays!

You are in NZ now dear.

With work ACC it's a good idea...Employers should provide some kinda accident insurance

[Grahameeboy]

No, no, you got it wrong - they don't care what/who's at fault - all they care about is how badly hurt you get.

And older cars hurt you more when you crash.

Older cars kill easier so save cost of rehab surely

[Paul in NZ]

Fuck this for a game of soldiers...

This is about the stupidest thing I have ever heard of. Utter complete bullshit.

Look - I have an older car, a 1993 corolla wagon getting on 250,000 km and yes, no stinking air bag or bugger all else amd amazingly I still stagger a minimum of 500km a week.... week in week out, reliably, economically and cheaply. Its a complicated as a brick and dead cheap n easy to maintain myself (well most things)

If they want to put ACC levies up - put them up for the pricks than are identified as causing accidents and reduce them for those that don't much like an insurance company would.

The ONLY people that will win out of this are the bloody car dealers and importers who i would suggest this anti kiwi battler idea came from. I really can't remember being this pissed off about anything!

[p.dath]

Surely "safety" or "risk" lies in the nut behind the wheel, rather than in the vehicle being driven or ridden?

How often is vehicular failure the primary cause of an accident, rather than driver/rider error?

This is bureaucratic nonsense. If ACC and other agencies don't want older vehicles on the road, bring in compulsory emissions testing. That will get rid of many in short order. It's also more sensible than this latest nonsense.

But don't forget that a vehicle can contribute to the severity of the accident and the more severe the accident the more it costs ACC (and us!) to rehabilitate that person.

For example, if costs a lot more on average to rehabilitate someone in a motorcycle accident than a car, because motorcycles offer less protection.

[p.dath]

The tin-pots are gonna legislate the life out of motorbikes, by 2011 you'll be applying 2 weeks in advance for a 24 hour/185 kilometre riding permit. 24 hours or 185 kilometres, whichever comes first, extra kilometres will be charged accordingly. You'll also be queuing at the postshop buying mileage at 58 cent per kilometre if requiring the over 1528 kilometre per year permits which will be issued strictly on a limited basis and if you've got any sort of traffic record, speed tickets etc.. well, you know you can damn well forget about doing anymore than fifteen hundred and twenty fucken kilometres a year on a motorbike. The opinions of the non-motorcycling public must be taken notice of. ACC'll be mortgaging your arses and regos are gonna be a standard $65.95 per month per person per vehicle per year. And anyone with the cheek to own more than one motorbike is gonna be copping some more really really steep charges on top..

As you know, trucks already pay by the km. The system has already been looked at for cars (the idea being the more km's a car does the more it has used the road), however the cost to administer it was found to be greater than the benefit, and hence the status quo remained.

It will be the same case for motorcycles.

[p.dath]

Damn ACC Levies! Besides paying ACC on motor vehicles you pay ACC out of your wages and then for business owners they get stung huge ACC levies on their profits. ACC should be for those injured by someone else and all the bludgers/ self abusers should be users pays!

ACC is not charged based on profit. ACC is deducted from an employees wages, and is based on their occupation and the amount of money they get paid.
The levies cover you for work related accidents, and for "social" accidents, like sports.

Vehicle ACC levies cover you for injuries arising from vehicles.

[p.dath]

Fuck this for a game of soldiers...

This is about the stupidest thing I have ever heard of. Utter complete bullshit.

Look - I have an older car, a 1993 corolla wagon getting on 250,000 km and yes, no stinking air bag or bugger all else amd amazingly I still stagger a minimum of 500km a week.... week in week out, reliably, economically and cheaply. Its a complicated as a brick and dead cheap n easy to maintain myself (well most things)

If they want to put ACC levies up - put them up for the pricks than are identified as causing accidents and reduce them for those that don't much like an insurance company would.
...

If you could predict who was going to cause a car accident then we could stop accidents happening altogether, so I guess that wont be happening.

You have missed one point. There are two major contributing factors, the number of accidents, and the average cost to rehabilitate those that have an accident.
Motorcycles and older vehicles tend to cause more serious accidents - those that require more money to fix those who were injured.

[BiK3RChiK]

ACC is not charged based on profit. ACC is deducted from an employees wages, and is based on their occupation and the amount of money they get paid.


Oh yes it is! I just got my bill. And based on my occupation it increases or decreases according to how much money I've made in my business during the financial year.

I still think Users should pay:angry:

[Oakie]

Yep we're all mainly on the same tack, levy the licence not the vehicles.

And you'd probably find your ACC levies go up unless you have 3 or more vehicles. To illustrate, take just motorbikes as an example :

Say ACC needs $15 million per year to cover all bike related injuries.
There are 70000 bikes registered in NZ (just a figure plucked out of thin air)
So $15mil divided by 70,000 = $214.28 per bike

Change the system to ACC levy per person instead of per bike and guess what. The cost of accidents doesn't go down but the number of contributors goes down. The sum is now
$15 mil divided by (lets say) 40000 individual bikers.
The result is an now an amount payable per person of $375 per person

It's a win for those with more than one bike but a loss for the majority of riders who only have one bike.

[rainman]

If they want to put ACC levies up - put them up for the pricks than are identified as causing accidents and reduce them for those that don't much like an insurance company would.


Amen brother. I'm pissed off that I'm paying increased premiums, at least partially because of boy racers both of the 4 and 2 wheeled variety.


As you know, trucks already pay by the km. The system has already been looked at for cars (the idea being the more km's a car does the more it has used the road), however the cost to administer it was found to be greater than the benefit, and hence the status quo remained.

How so? They already have the systems + software etc for trucks. They already take an odo reading at every WOF. They already have the mechanism to send out diverse demands for payment, and can collect money etc. What's missing?

[p.dath]

Amen brother. I'm pissed off that I'm paying increased premiums, at least partially because of boy racers both of the 4 and 2 wheeled variety.



How so? They already have the systems + software etc for trucks. They already take an odo reading at every WOF. They already have the mechanism to send out diverse demands for payment, and can collect money etc. What's missing?

The system used for trucks is designed to be a certain size. It would need to be scaled up massively to handle the number of cars - that is assuming it can be scaled up, otherwise a full replacement would be needed.

When they looked at it, the net cost was more than the return.

[Bradz]

Yet more taxes.... already paying to much acc

[p.dath]

Yet more taxes.... already paying to much acc

Well they did decide not to proceed, and stick with the flat ACC cost per vehicle, to avoid a "tax" (aka, ACC) increase.

[Ixion]

Well, isn't *that* an exciting selection


CARS WITH FIVE-STAR SAFETY RATINGS:
Fiat 500 (Pop 3 door hatch) 2008. Score: 34.91/37; Cost: From $26,990
Skoda Superb 2009. Score: 34.75/37; Cost: From $51,990
Kia Soul 2009. Score: 33.11/37; Cost: From $29,990
Hyundai i30 GLS 5-door hatch 2009. Score: 32.54/37; Cost: From $29,490

ignores, of course, the fact that anyone who would want tod rive one of those "five star" cars would almost certainly be a 'one star" driver.

[davebullet]

If the gubbermint was really serious, they'd legislate against having cars below crash rating X or older than year Y on the road. They wouldn't do that of course because they'd shorten their gubberminting life expectancy somewhat. So... what they can do is find another way to milk the motorist for their overdrafts, whilst claiming reductions in ACC costs, saving lives etc...

I'd wager I drive my old banger accord more carefully, because it doesn't have ABS, doesn't have airbags etc... Sure research overseas says occupants are more likely to survive crashes with less injuries in a modern car... but those same drivers are more distracted (gadgets), drive faster (traction control) and brake later (ABS)... are those driving habits safer?

Driver and mileage based ACC is the right way to go.

[p.dath]

Well, isn't *that* an exciting selection



ignores, of course, the fact that anyone who would want tod rive one of those "five star" cars would almost certainly be a 'one star" driver.

I have a Holden V8 Commodore SS. I'm just in the process of trading it in for a new Ford Fiesta. The Ford Fiesta has a 5 star NCAP rating.

I'm trading my Holden in because I can't afford to maintain it anymore. I love it very much, but I need to live within my means.

[p.dath]

If the gubbermint was really serious, they'd legislate against having cars below crash rating X or older than year Y on the road. They wouldn't do that of course because they'd shorten their gubberminting life expectancy somewhat.
...

Of course, if you can't legislate those cars off the road you could always increase the taxes for them so people can't afford to keep them on the road ...

Same result. Just different PR.

[rok-the-boat]

This idea is total tosh, bollox, garbage. The WOF test should, legally, ensure that older vehicles are SAFE. Are they implying that older vehicles are dangerous? That wouled mean their own WOF test is bogus. Do they have any statistics that prove it? I doubt it - they just want our $$$. I am dead set against it. It is just another stealth tax.

[rok-the-boat]

I just read a few more other posts - I can't believe some seem to support the idea. You must be nuts. And to say an 'older' crash costs more is ridiculous - they just scrap the car. New cars crashing at 10kph can cause thousands of dollars of damage. If the damage exceeds the low total value of the old car then ... end of story. Wake up. Keep our costs down.

[pete376403]

Yeah but - ACC doesn't pay any of the cost of repairing / replacing the vehicle, so that doesn't come into it. ACC is only about repairing the occupants.

I guess that once rego reaches a certain level, people just won't bother registering. Or WoF-ing, or insuring (if they do at all), so the only revenue the govt will get is from traffic tickets. Which these people won't pay anyway

[p.dath]

I just read a few more other posts - I can't believe some seem to support the idea. You must be nuts. And to say an 'older' crash costs more is ridiculous - they just scrap the car. New cars crashing at 10kph can cause thousands of dollars of damage. If the damage exceeds the low total value of the old car then ... end of story. Wake up. Keep our costs down.

ACC has nothing to do with the damage done to the vehicle. It's to do with paying for the person to return to a normal life after having an injury.

When you have an accident in a car that is less safe, you tend to sustain worse injuries. Just like if you have an accident on a motorcycle you tend to have worse injuries than if you have an accident in a car. Hence motorcycle ACC premiums are higher.
All they are saying is that if you have an accident in a safer 5 star rated car, then it costs ACC (and that means you and me) less money to get you back to a fit and healthy state.

[scumdog]

ACC has nothing to do with the damage done to the vehicle. It's to do with paying for the person to return to a normal life after having an injury.

When you have an accident in a car that is less safe, you tend to sustain worse injuries. Just like if you have an accident on a motorcycle you tend to have worse injuries than if you have an accident in a car. Hence motorcycle ACC premiums are higher.
All they are saying is that if you have an accident in a safer 5 star rated car, then it costs ACC (and that means you and me) less money to get you back to a fit and healthy state.

As I said in post #13, more or less...

[Ocean1]

I think its about time the person was levied and not the vehicles and then we could be rated on our own risk factor, no claim bonus or whatever like happens with insurance now.


Surely "safety" or "risk" lies in the nut behind the wheel, rather than in the vehicle being driven or ridden?

You're obviously both labouring under the misapprehension that ACC funding is driven by some logical extension of market forces. It is, of course driven by the single policy set designed to extract the most cash from each respective demographic.

Which is why any move to levy older cars more won’t happen, the citizens who own older cars mostly can’t afford to pay more. Neither can those who make a habit of injuring themselves, so the usual insurance rules regarding correct risk costing are also a non-starter.

Any noise about higher levies applied to “sports” vehicles, however, would get my attention…

[merv]

You're obviously both labouring under the misapprehension that ACC funding is driven by some logical extension of market forces.

Not at all, just say its about bloody time it was. I know that in my demographic I've been a very cheap member of it and wish I could be charged accordingly.

[MaxB]

ACC has nothing to do with the damage done to the vehicle. It's to do with paying for the person to return to a normal life after having an injury.

When you have an accident in a car that is less safe, you tend to sustain worse injuries. Just like if you have an accident on a motorcycle you tend to have worse injuries than if you have an accident in a car. Hence motorcycle ACC premiums are higher.
All they are saying is that if you have an accident in a safer 5 star rated car, then it costs ACC (and that means you and me) less money to get you back to a fit and healthy state.

I think the real story is that modern cars make severe accidents more survivable and this will cause ACC treatment costs to skyrocket and some poor bastards will have to pay these extra costs. This is already happening.

ACC are remarkably short of facts, just rhetoric. They neglect to mention that 20 years ago when cars were deadly pro rata treatment costs were lower than today. More people were killed outright ending ACC obligations to them. Also the number of actual donors has decreased and the number of wheelchair bound accident victims has increased over this period.

Yep as horrible as it is safer cars means more people with lifetime care requirements that the average joe has to pay for.

[Beemer]

IMO - Getting old and unsafe vehicles off the road is a good idea.

However there are many very well maintained and fully resored classics on the road. It would be unfair to descriminate against these.

Exactly - my Corvette is 32 years old but it's been well maintained and isn't a piece of shit! Check out some less than 10 years old cars and see if any of them are in as good nick. The majority of the other's half's bikes are from the 1980s and they are in far better condition than some of the fairly new bikes you see on the road.

They keep going on about compliance costs if they taxed the driver rather than the vehicle but that's what IRD does so I can't see any difference. As those who earn more money pay more tax, so should those who crash more or who are involved in more accidents should pay more. I've been driving for 25 years and riding for more than 10 and in that time I've had one speeding ticket and two minor fender benders - one I backed into another vehicle and the other I hit one that stopped suddenly on a bridge - no motorcycle crashes, no car crashes, no drink driving offences, etc. But my car is 32 years old so I must be a terrible risk...

[mossy1200]

With three times the amount of off road bikes than on road in NZ when you go to hospital and fill in nature of accident is motorcycle even though it was motox fall it lifts the acc claims against bikes pushing the rego up for road bikes.Road bike subsidize motox accidents.Hence the higher acc content of bike regos.Not really fair on those with road bikes.

[Ocean1]

I think the real story is that modern cars make severe accidents more survivable and this will cause ACC treatment costs to skyrocket and some poor bastards will have to pay these extra costs. This is already happening.

ACC are remarkably short of facts, just rhetoric. They neglect to mention that 20 years ago when cars were deadly pro rata treatment costs were lower than today. More people were killed outright ending ACC obligations to them. Also the number of actual donors has decreased and the number of wheelchair bound accident victims has increased over this period.

Yep as horrible as it is safer cars means more people with lifetime care requirements that the average joe has to pay for.

All true, and all known to ACC, (their policy analysists do occasionally produce some output). Remarkably absent from public debate, though, 'cause the facts don't quite support the desired policy objective...

Another wee point. Older cars ain't nescessarilly inherently more dangerous. I'd argue that improvements in safety, (making accidents more survivable), are more or less exactly balanced by improvements in handling and horsepower, making average accident impact speeds higher.

By way of illistration; Try as I might, (and I tried as hard as most) the amount of trouble I could possibly encourage my 100E Prefect into was only just barely enough to induce tolerably transient trauma.

[davereid]

New Zealand has a long way to go yet.

Licencing your Falcon in Queensland will cost you $1000, and you will need 3rd party cover as well.

Singapore will sting you $5000 for your company vehicle - thats for the rego. You will also need 3rd party insurance.

But before you buy the car, you need a "certificate to buy". The government issues these every month, and you bid for them at auction.

These kind of charges show how much G'mint can pluck from the motorist if they wish.

[davebullet]

Well if they legislate this shit, I'll just not license my vehicle. I think the fine ($400?) will only occur once every 2 - 3 years (since I rarely park my car where it can be inspected and ticketed. Just found me a way to reduce my licensing fee but still contribute to society.

[steve_t]

Well if they legislate this shit, I'll just not license my vehicle. I think the fine ($400?) will only occur once every 2 - 3 years (since I rarely park my car where it can be inspected and ticketed. Just found me a way to reduce my licensing fee but still contribute to society.

I'd suspect that if they don't do it at the same time, they'll later realise that people aren't relicencing their cars due to the cost and they'll make the fine more. I'll put my money on $800
It's pretty retarded. As someone else said, it's the people who can't afford to upgrade their car every few years that will end up being charged the most!

[p.dath]

Well if they legislate this shit, I'll just not license my vehicle. I think the fine ($400?) will only occur once every 2 - 3 years (since I rarely park my car where it can be inspected and ticketed. Just found me a way to reduce my licensing fee but still contribute to society.

It will be more than that, as you wont be able to get a WOF once the vehicle becomes de-registered (after 12 months), and that means you wont be able to get insurance.

[Ixion]

Y'put the rego on hold. You can get a WoF for a rego on hold just fine. In fact, if you couldn't you'd not be able to take it off hold.

[popelli]

ACC has nothing to do with the damage done to the vehicle. It's to do with paying for the person to return to a normal life after having an injury.

When you have an accident in a car that is less safe, you tend to sustain worse injuries. Just like if you have an accident on a motorcycle you tend to have worse injuries than if you have an accident in a car. Hence motorcycle ACC premiums are higher.
All they are saying is that if you have an accident in a safer 5 star rated car, then it costs ACC (and that means you and me) less money to get you back to a fit and healthy state.

great argument but who is causing the accidents ?????

for a long time bikers have argued that many of their accidents have been cuased by idiot cage drivers and you present an argument that costs should be apportioned according to the victims mode of transport rather than apportioning costs by the mode of transport used by the person causing the accident

[mossy1200]

great argument but who is causing the accidents ?????

for a long time bikers have argued that many of their accidents have been cuased by idiot cage drivers and you present an argument that costs should be apportioned according to the victims mode of transport rather than apportioning costs by the mode of transport used by the person causing the accident

When you go to hospital with moto x accident and they fill in motorbike accident it pushes bike regos up.3 off road to every onroad bike in NZ.
The road rego pays for all the accidents including trail bikes.Fair?

[Ixion]

That way round will work in favour of older vehicles.

If I , in my 20 year old Pajero, built of cast iron, and bridge girders and weighing several ton, hit you, in your tinfoil class five airbagged whatsit, then (provided I am well belted up as I always am) you will decidedly come off worst. Air bags and electronics diggerydoos or not.

have y' ever seen the result of a modern tinfoil car hitting an old clunker (SUV, Xclass Falcon, H class Holden etc). The modern one just crumples up like a used tissue. Air bags ain't going to help when y' legs are still in what's left of the driver's compartment, and y' heads in what used to be the boot. The old girl might have a bent bumper.

Which is bad news for you of course. But if ACC is based on the vehicle being driven by the person who gets hurt, then old ones should be cheap.

[steve_t]

That way round will work in favour of older vehicles.

If I , in my 20 year old Pajero, built of cast iron, and bridge girders and weighing several ton, hit you, in your tinfoil class five airbagged whatsit, then (provided I am well belted up as I always am) you will decidedly come off worst. Air bags and electronics diggerydoos or not.

have y' ever seen the result of a modern tinfoil car hitting an old clunker (SUV, Xclass Falcon, H class Holden etc). The modern one just crumples up like a used tissue. Air bags ain't going to help when y' legs are still in what's left of the driver's compartment, and y' heads in what used to be the boot. The old girl might have a bent bumper.

Which is bad news for you of course. But if ACC is based on the vehicle being driven by the person who gets hurt, then old ones should be cheap.

New cars crumple in the front (and rear) by design aka Crumple Zones. It absorbs energy so less is transferred to the rest of the car. The passenger compartment is supposed to be a 'cage' that's hard(er) to penetrate. Heaps of these 5 star safety rated cars have knee airbags for front occupants also.... still not gonna help when a 2 tonne pajero smashes you front on but better than a heap of older jap cars. The Subaru engine is supposed to be pushed under the car as it gets smashed front on... can't be sure how well that works tho:innocent:
Sux for the Holden Commodore owners up til the latest 2009 models that only got 4 star ratings cos Holden couldn't be bothered putting a front passenger seatbelt warning light :blink:

[Forest]

I think its about time the person was levied and not the vehicles and then we could be rated on our own risk factor, no claim bonus or whatever like happens with insurance now.

So if our household currently has a zillion vehicles no matter what age and no claims, it is plain ridiculous that we are penalised so heavily as we can only ride/drive one each at a time.

The levy could link to driver's licence. Far too simple for the bureaucrats huh!

The problem with that model is that the household will just put all of the vehicles under a single person's name.

[Pixie]

Damn ACC Levies! Besides paying ACC on motor vehicles you pay ACC out of your wages and then for business owners they get stung huge ACC levies on their profits. ACC should be for those injured by someone else and all the bludgers/ self abusers should be users pays!

ACC should be dumped.

Anybody who supports it is a wanker.

[p.dath]

ACC should be dumped.

Anybody who supports it is a wanker.

I support ACC.

[Disco Dan]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/marlborough-express/news/2563171/Older-vehicles-could-bear-brunt-of-ACC-levy

Ok - so its cages... but could they extend that motorbikes as well? We've already had a 20% increase over last year (license fee from 1/7/09 now approx $321) .

What a load of b*ll*cks.

I happen to be able to get 50mpg out of my car - emissions level still remains within tolerances set by factory manual which came out in 1969. The car is now 27 years old (1981). I know brand new cars and bikes that have far higher emissions and mpg's than me.

Then add into the equations the metal thickness - older cars used much thicker steel and much heavier subframes than 'modern' cars. A modern car will crumple like paper and become written off, then dumped on a big pile of other wrecked cars. Older cars - same ding can be repaired, the same car stays on the road for years...

27 years so far is pretty bloody good in my books.

[Ixion]

The problem with that model is that the household will just put all of the vehicles under a single person's name.

That's no problem. When y' pay the ACC levy y' get a certificate saying *you* have paid.

So, if all the vehicles are under one name and only *you* drive any of them, no problem. Cop stops y'; lets see y' certificate (or ,maybe you have to put in the window like a parking voucher). "Here it is orificier".

But , if someone else (y' missus as it might be) drives one of them and gets stopped she's in the poo. Cos she can't produce a certificate in *her* name.

[MarkH]

What a load of b*ll*cks.

I happen to be able to get 50mpg out of my car - emissions level still remains within tolerances set by factory manual which came out in 1969. The car is now 27 years old (1981). I know brand new cars and bikes that have far higher emissions and mpg's than me.

Then add into the equations the metal thickness - older cars used much thicker steel and much heavier subframes than 'modern' cars. A modern car will crumple like paper and become written off, then dumped on a big pile of other wrecked cars. Older cars - same ding can be repaired, the same car stays on the road for years...

27 years so far is pretty bloody good in my books.

Ecologically it makes sense to keep a car for as long as possible (the impact on the ecology of building a new car is quite high) and for that matter it is better for the environment to build smaller lighter vehicles like motorcycles.
But that is not what the ACC levy on your car or bike Rego is about - it is about the cost of injuries (hospital, rehab, etc) and older cars are worse than newer cars for protecting the occupants. Bikes are worse still and therefore cost even more for their ACC levy.

I am currently trying to find a second job before I go broke due to not earning enough on my first job. As soon as that is sorted then I will decide if I need a car at all - if not then I'm selling it. It is too bloody dear to reg both the car & the scooter and the car has only done 600kms in the last 10 months (making rego costs even worse on a per km basis).

[Renegade]

I simply dont bother rego my bike anymore, it is never parked anywhere that will get parking warden attention and ive never been stopped by the cops in 4yrs riding so the $200 fine is worth it for, plus if the cop was to issue it i would ask for compliance to give me 14 days to get the rego which they can do and YOU SHOULD ask for it if stopped, cop still gets the quota and you get off the fine!!

This has saved me some $$ and i just dont care about those who cry foul over me not paying, i have medical insurance so F-off moaners.

What others have said about acc levies being unfair is true, rugby players should be stung an acc levy wouldnt you think??

Im sick to death of being screwed out of every last cent and getting nothing in return.

[davebullet]

New Zealand has a long way to go yet.

Licencing your Falcon in Queensland will cost you $1000, and you will need 3rd party cover as well.

Singapore will sting you $5000 for your company vehicle - thats for the rego. You will also need 3rd party insurance.

But before you buy the car, you need a "certificate to buy". The government issues these every month, and you bid for them at auction.

These kind of charges show how much G'mint can pluck from the motorist if they wish.

Yes, but there is no WOF. NZ is still probably cheaper (as modern cars will require less fix-ups to get their WOF). I know if you are in an accident in Aus and your vehicle is found unsafe you can get pinged, but you don't need to invest in your car's safety every 6 months under Aus law.

[Beemer]

ACC is not charged based on profit. ACC is deducted from an employees wages, and is based on their occupation and the amount of money they get paid.
The levies cover you for work related accidents, and for "social" accidents, like sports.

Vehicle ACC levies cover you for injuries arising from vehicles.

That must definitely be true, because the amount I paid in ACC levies last year was almost what we pay every year in rates on our home and I made sweet FA last year! I actually ended up paying double what I had the year before because now they charge ACC levies on a minimum income level - so I pay levies based on that amount, despite the fact I earn about half that. As for calculating it on your occupation, I'm a journalist and editor, not exactly dangerous occupations, and yet when I did foolishly try and claim for an overuse injury, I was told to bugger off. Gradual process and all that. Bullshit.

[Swoop]

I find it funny how the nation is in debt yet our "leader" is worth 50 odd million and we still pay him $300,000 a year.
You will find out that he donates it to charity... unlike the previous scumsucker who had to go around forging paintings to earn a little extra cash on the side.:rofl:

Singapore... But before you buy the car, you need a "certificate to buy". The government issues these every month, and you bid for them at auction.
It is also a way of keeping the vehicle population down, on an island that has limited space and limited roads. You can simply export a cage and import a replacement one, I have been told.
An ex-boss bought a cheap Jaguar from there. Went to switch on the heater one cold morning and discovered that they were not fitted for the malasian climate!

I simply dont bother rego my bike anymore, it is never parked anywhere that will get parking warden attention and ive never been stopped by the cops in 4yrs riding so the $200 fine is worth it.
Totally have to agree with you. Much easier system and I bet a lot of others will be thinking the same way as prices keep bloating.

[Dodgyiti]

Half the reason I keep my old utes is the cheap rego on one because it is 40+ years old, and the other is the full chassis. No seatbelts though ;)
I would happily plough into a new airbagged car and see what the end result is. 2000kg of metal against 1200kg of plastic and tin foil, yeah much safer.
Back in olden days cars had metal dashboards so when you crashed you got a good smack in the head to remind you to be more careful.

[Paul in NZ]

Half the reason I keep my old utes is the cheap rego on one because it is 40+ years old, and the other is the full chassis. No seatbelts though ;)
I would happily plough into a new airbagged car and see what the end result is. 2000kg of metal against 1200kg of plastic and tin foil, yeah much safer.
Back in olden days cars had metal dashboards so when you crashed you got a good smack in the head to remind you to be more careful.

I hear ya man... Nothing like a steering column embedded in ya sturnum to keep ya focussed ;-)

However - fuck acc... How can this be a fair go for less well off Kiwis. I'm OK but far from rich and drive an old 1993 corolla wagon because it is economical, cheap as chips to run and fix myself (no power steering, no air con, no power windows but a shit hot stereo, well OK ish) and it cost $1300. I do 500 km a week minimum and it's up to 270,000km and still going strong. It's never had a decent whack (straight as) and even if the motor blew up then $700 would replace it. I know people that have new company cars, they have a decent accident once every couple of years cos they drive like muppets and don't car cos it aint their car... Why should they get a cheap rego....

[Beemer]

...I'm OK but far from rich and drive an old 1993 corolla wagon because it is economical, cheap as chips to run and fix myself (no power steering, no air con, no power windows but a shit hot stereo, well OK ish) and it cost $1300. I do 500 km a week minimum and it's up to 270,000km and still going strong. It's never had a decent whack (straight as) and even if the motor blew up then $700 would replace it. I know people that have new company cars, they have a decent accident once every couple of years cos they drive like muppets and don't car cos it aint their car... Why should they get a cheap rego....

Same here - the other half drives a 1984 Ford Laser to work that cost him $1000 about 11 years ago. He's had rust cut out and a little work done on it but it doesn't owe him anything. He is happy to leave it out in the weather when he's at work and the only problems he's had with it are an idiot in a 4WD backing into it while the driver was talking on his mobile (yelling and thumping on the vehicle didn't alert him to the fact he was about to hit the Laser, it was only when he hit it and the other half appeared next to his window that he stopped) and two attempts to steal it as it's easy to get into.

He drives it carefully (not because it's old but because he gives a shit and is alert to other drivers) and has had to avoid many an accident after people pull out in front of him or overtake coming towards him and don't pull in fast enough. The thing is, if you're a safe driver, you're likely to avoid accidents no matter what you are driving, whereas if you're a fuckwit, all the safety features in the world won't help you.

[gwigs]

It will be totally unfair on the financially challenged of this country,one off which I am at this period off time..and what will the poor do?They will just drive without rego...fuck it people will only take so much...even the poor need to drive:scooter:

[scumdog]

It will be totally unfair on the financially challenged of this country,one off which I am at this period off time..and what will the poor do?They will just drive without rego...fuck it people will only take so much...even the poor need to drive:scooter:

'want' and 'need' are not the same..<_<

[Renegade]

explain this to me, two identical mitsi pajero's, same year, same shape, one has a 2.8 diesel and the other 3.0 petrol, to look at the vehicle side by side they are the same.

Now why does the diesel have to pay more $80 a year more rego than the petrol??

I will have to check the rego break down, but still??

[Swoop]

This will open an interesting scenario.
If a car has been designated as "older" and has to pay more to be on the roads because it is less-safe, this surely means that newer/safer vehicles should be able to travel faster on the same roads.

Older vehicles = must keep to speed limit.
Newer vehicles = higher speed limit.

It only seems fair...:whistle:

[rocketman1]

I am pissed taht if you have several bikes that you have to pay $300 bucks each to reg them all.
When u consider that you may ride each bike only once month thats about $28 a ride, just for registration.
The govt need to sort this out.
Yes registering the owner would have merits, I dont know how the govt would administer it though?

[MaxB]

I heard a great party piece that an engineering lecturer from the uni tells his first year students. It is both safer and better for the environment for him to drive his '74 Trumpy 2500TC than to buy a new Prius at the recommended intervals.

It is to do with those NiMH batteries. Only a few countries in the world can process the nickel hydrides in enough quantities to satisfy demand. By the time the battery pack goes into the car, parts of it have been shipped round the world. Another thing mentioned was the average owner in the US has the car for up to 6 years. The first generation units were mostly scrapped due to the cost of the battery pack. You can still buy cheap spare parts for Triumphs today.

But the unexpected fact was that per capita Prius owners had more accidents and more injury claims than the Triumph crowd. The accepted wisdom was that if you crashed an old car you would be badly hurt. However Triumph owners make less claims and Prius owners are a drain on the system.

So then what justification do they have for nailing older cars for more ACC? Another con job I reckon.

[jono035]

I heard a great party piece that an engineering lecturer from the uni tells his first year students. It is both safer and better for the environment for him to drive his '74 Trumpy 2500TC than to buy a new Prius at the recommended intervals.

It is to do with those NiMH batteries. Only a few countries in the world can process the nickel hydrides in enough quantities to satisfy demand. By the time the battery pack goes into the car, parts of it have been shipped round the world. Another thing mentioned was the average owner in the US has the car for up to 6 years. The first generation units were mostly scrapped due to the cost of the battery pack. You can still buy cheap spare parts for Triumphs today.

But the unexpected fact was that per capita Prius owners had more accidents and more injury claims than the Triumph crowd. The accepted wisdom was that if you crashed an old car you would be badly hurt. However Triumph owners make less claims and Prius owners are a drain on the system.

So then what justification do they have for nailing older cars for more ACC? Another con job I reckon.

Yeah, but new technology is always like that. It isn't economical for the masses in the first run, but give it a few iterations and it will get there.

Most of the newer EVs use Li-Ion batteries with a lot of development focus going into coming up with better and easier to manufacture/recycle electrode materials.

Personally I'm hoping they come up with some new and exciting ways for extracting hydrogen and some new fuel cell tech allowing them to make cheap cells, thats a more elegant solution by a long way...

[jono035]

Ignoring classic cars and looking at the situation with the average vehicle on the road it would appear that this is a form of Regressive Tax (http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Regressive_tax) meaning that people with less money to spend on their vehicles will be charged more. I agree that it is a good thing to get older, less safe cars off the road, but doing so by charging more to people who can't afford newer, safer cars doesn't seem to be a fair way to do it.

[MaxB]

Yeah, but new technology is always like that. It isn't economical for the masses in the first run, but give it a few iterations and it will get there.

Most of the newer EVs use Li-Ion batteries with a lot of development focus going into coming up with better and easier to manufacture/recycle electrode materials.

Personally I'm hoping they come up with some new and exciting ways for extracting hydrogen and some new fuel cell tech allowing them to make cheap cells, thats a more elegant solution by a long way...

The Lithium battery packs are expected to push the new 2011 Prius to over $70k from the 40 or so it is now. Toyota will have to susidise this car heavily to sell any. The only good thing is that the pack is expected to last the life of the car or at least be repairable.

IMO the only practical solution to our dependance on fossil fuels is the fuel cell. That promises clean emissions without sacrificing power.

[jono035]

The Lithium battery packs are expected to push the new 2011 Prius to over $70k from the 40 or so it is now. Toyota will have to susidise this car heavily to sell any. The only good thing is that the pack is expected to last the life of the car or at least be repairable.

IMO the only practical solution to our dependance on fossil fuels is the fuel cell. That promises clean emissions without sacrificing power.

You missed the point I made before about how Li-Ion batteries in their current form are all that expensive. They will become cheaper with scale and with new technologies. This is what the expensive first-runs are effectively subsidising.

Fuel cells are great, but there are some pretty huge problems that need solving before they are ready for prime time. The first is the fact that the cells are expensive due to requiring platinum electrodes, the second being that while hydrogen has a wonderful energy density in terms of joules per kg, it has a terrible energy density in terms of joules per liter, requiring it to be either liquefied (whereupon it is cryogenic, which has its own major set of issues) or heavily compressed, which requires a lot of space. The cost of outfitting gas stations to provide hydrogen in liquid or high pressure (4k PSI) form isn't exactly small.

On the bright side there is research going on in all of these areas. New fuel cell tech to make the cells cheaper (they are currently something like $70 per watt!) and to last longer, new tech to allow hydrogen to be stored as a gas adsorbed into a carrier rather than as a plain tank, and conversion techniques to allow more hydrogen to be generated per input-watt (generating from urea or using biological processes rather than hydrolysis of water)...

[Ixion]

explain this to me, two identical mitsi pajero's, same year, same shape, one has a 2.8 diesel and the other 3.0 petrol, to look at the vehicle side by side they are the same.

Now why does the diesel have to pay more $80 a year more rego than the petrol??

I will have to check the rego break down, but still??

Simple. The petrol one pays an extra $80 per year in taxes on petrol . Have you not noticed that diesel is cheaper than petrol? Ever wondered why?

Always amazes me the number of diesel owners who bitch about this. Loud as when it comes to rego time, but they shut up when they're filling up. Can't have your cake and eat it too. Y' either pay your way at the punmp, or at the Post office counter

(The reason that they don't put the tax on the diesel fuel instead of on the rego is that so much diesel is used in non raod , and non-vehicle uses)

[jono035]

Simple. The petrol one pays an extra $80 per year in taxes on petrol . Have you not noticed that diesel is cheaper than petrol? Ever wondered why?

Always amazes me the number of diesel owners who bitch about this. Loud as when it comes to rego time, but they shut up when they're filling up. Can't have your cake and eat it too. Y' either pay your way at the punmp, or at the Post office counter

(The reason that they don't put the tax on the diesel fuel instead of on the rego is that so much diesel is used in non raod , and non-vehicle uses)

The fact that some people out there don't understand that is kind of odd... It is also an interesting one because it takes the vehicle type out of the equation. I prefer the idea of taxing by fuel use because it more closely resembles the usage characteristics of vehicles, but as you said, it is a proposition that is unreasonably hard to enforce.

[Renegade]

Simple. The petrol one pays an extra $80 per year in taxes on petrol . Have you not noticed that diesel is cheaper than petrol? Ever wondered why?

Always amazes me the number of diesel owners who bitch about this. Loud as when it comes to rego time, but they shut up when they're filling up. Can't have your cake and eat it too. Y' either pay your way at the punmp, or at the Post office counter

(The reason that they don't put the tax on the diesel fuel instead of on the rego is that so much diesel is used in non raod , and non-vehicle uses)

No, thats what road users is for, you pay for your kms you drive, petrol users pay for thier road user kms at the pump and diesel drivers pay for it at the post shop, the reason for this is so vehicles such as farm tractors and diesel generators which dont use the road dont get stung for something they dont use.

so back to my original question.... explain this to me, two identical mitsi pajero's, same year, same shape, one has a 2.8 diesel and the other 3.0 petrol, to look at the vehicle side by side they are the same.

Now why does the diesel have to pay more $80 a year more rego than the petrol??

[Renegade]

The fact that some people out there don't understand that is kind of odd... It is also an interesting one because it takes the vehicle type out of the equation. I prefer the idea of taxing by fuel use because it more closely resembles the usage characteristics of vehicles, but as you said, it is a proposition that is unreasonably hard to enforce.

see above post, the diesel system actually woks really well.

[jono035]

see above post, the diesel system actually woks really well.

Yeah, except that in the case of road vehicles, it taxes a light-weight fuel-efficient car the same as it does a fuel-hungry heavy-weight SUV because it does so by kms travelled.

As stated before I think taxing by fuel consumed adds a certain amount more incentive towards lighter, more fuel efficient cars and taxes the heavier, less fuel-efficient cars on the road more.

I also mentioned that I recognise why this is done (growing up in rural NZ and all) and that there is no better way of doing it really.

Basically I've just completely repeated myself using more words... Perhaps this way my view will be clearer.

And how exactly does a diesel system 'wok'?

[jono035]

why does the diesel have to pay more $80 a year more rego than the petrol??

No idea, and until about 30 seconds ago, I was unaware that they had to.

[Ixion]

No, thats what road users is for, you pay for your kms you drive, petrol users pay for thier road user kms at the pump and diesel drivers pay for it at the post shop, the reason for this is so vehicles such as farm tractors and diesel generators which dont use the road dont get stung for something they dont use.

so back to my original question.... explain this to me, two identical mitsi pajero's, same year, same shape, one has a 2.8 diesel and the other 3.0 petrol, to look at the vehicle side by side they are the same.

Now why does the diesel have to pay more $80 a year more rego than the petrol??

Nope. Two different things.

Diesel is MUCH cheaper than petrol. Cos it doesn't pay the same tax.

The extra tax on petrol pays TWO things. One is a levy to ACC. And one is tax to the giubbermint.

Diesel pays neither.

So both ACC and the gubbermint make it up other wyas. The gubbermint do it by RUC. ACC do it by an extra levy on y' rego.

Go look at the licence demands for the two vehicles. You'll see it there plain and simple.

The $80 extra rego makes up for PART of the tax you avoid on diesel. The RUC makes up for the rest.

I'll turn your question the other way up. Diesel and petrol come from the same crude petroleum feedstock. The difference in cost between the two is bugger all . So they should both cost about the same per litre, within a few cents. So, why should petrol buyers have to pay more than diesel buyers ? Hm ?

I

[Ixion]

Chapter and verse



Why do diesel* vehicles pay more than petrol?
* includes other non-petrol powered vehicles


Motor vehicle account levies are collected via an annual licence fee for vehicles and a tax on petrol sales.
For petrol powered vehicles this works out as:


Annual license fee of $111.11



Petrol tax of 5.78 cents per litre (for the average vehicle this works out as $78.89 per year)

$111.11 + $78.89 = $190.00

Diesel vehicles don’t pay the petrol tax, so the whole of their levy is collected from the annual license fee (i.e. $190.00).






And, from the LTSA web site






All users of New Zealand's roads contribute towards their upkeep. Most road users pay levies in the prices of their fuel. Others, such as users of diesel-powered or electric vehicles, pay through road user charges (RUC).
All the revenue collected from road user charges goes into the National Land Transport Fund.
Road user charges are administered by the NZ Transport Agency (NZTA) and enforced by the New Zealand Police.




ie - ACC make up for the tax you aren't paying by an extra rego fee. NZTA make up for the tax you aren't paying via RUC. None of the RUC goes to ACC.

You could have found that out y'self, y'know.

[Ocean1]

Diesel and petrol come from the same crude petroleum feedstock. The difference in cost between the two is bugger all . So they should both cost about the same per litre, within a few cents. So, why should petrol buyers have to pay more than diesel buyers ? Hm ?

I

Dude, it might come from the same raw material source but it is a very different product. Even where a refinery is optimised for petrol the AGO is cheaper to produce.

Marsden Pt was built optimised for AGO (Diesel). Domestic prices up to about a decade ago were a reasonable refelction of the relative local production costs. Progressively that's changed to more closely match international prices.

[Ixion]

Certainly it is a different product. And diesel IS cheaper, considered on a refinery scale. But broken down to a per litre basis the differenc ein material cost is , only a few cents per litre

As at June 2008 when the petrol price stood at $2.01 per litre (latest figures I can find) , the price was made up as follows:

• $1.038 cost of crude oil
• $ 0.11 petrol refining margin (the difference between the ex-refinery petrol price and crude price)
• $ 0.133 importer margin (the difference between the retail price - less taxes and duties - and the landed cost of the refined product)
• $ 0.729 GST and other taxes.

Tax

• 42.524 cents per litre (cpl) excise tax used for the National Land Transport Management Fund (This varies a bit because of regional tax levies - I think this is an avergae)
• 9.34 cpl ACC levy
• 0.025 cpl Petroleum Fuels Monitoring levy
• 0.66 cpl Local Authorities Petroleum tax

Plus GST on all that. Diesel doesn't pay the first two . Not sure about the other two, but it's only a cent per litre.

So the two taxes that diesel doesn't pay amount to roughly 52 cents a litre

A couple of days ago petrol was $1.64 a litre ( it varies depending on where you go). Diesel was $1.08. The difference is 56 cents a litre. 52 cents of the difference is tax . The difference in the material cost (assuming that the oil companies are cross subsidising - I think that a reasonable assumption, and even if they are it wouldn't be more than a cent or so) is about 4 cents a litre. As I said, a few cents per litre. The exact number of cents is somewhat uncertain , but it's trivial in the context of a pump difference of 56 cents a litre.

Of course , when you are talking millions and millions of litres, that 4 cents adds up, so it is also true to say that diesel is cheaper for the refiners to produce.

But, at the pump, almost all of the difference between the $1.64 paid by the petrol engined driver (or rider) , and the $1.08 paid by the diesel owner (or rider ) is the tax that the latter doesn't pay. And which is therefore recouped by an additional license levy (in the case of the ACC component) ; or Road User Charges (in the case of the LTNZ bit)

[Ocean1]

Of course , when you are talking millions and millions of litres, that 4 cents adds up, so it is also true to say that diesel is cheaper for the refiners to produce.

There's a larger difference: you can wring a fair bit more AGO from a ton of crude than you can petrol. And the price of the respective by-products don't affect the retail price.

[Renegade]

Chapter and verse
ie - ACC make up for the tax you aren't paying by an extra rego fee. NZTA make up for the tax you aren't paying via RUC. None of the RUC goes to ACC.

You could have found that out y'self, y'know.

i did find out, i asked those who may know, and you answered, cheers.