Cross subsidisation...

[Squiggles]

Whats your take on their answers to Q4 & 5 in:
http://www.acc.co.nz/PRD_EXT_CSMP/groups/external_levies/documents/faq/prd_ctrb118121.doc

Particularly...

the costs of claims are more fairly shared among the vehicle classes that are responsible for those costs.

I suppose the real question is... would we be better off if it was causation based? (Knowing at least two riders who've taken many 1000's of $$ in single vehicle/partial fault accidents)


http://www.transport.govt.nz/research/Documents/Motorcycle-Crash-Factsheet.pdf

[swbarnett]

This is bullshit.

Although what they say is technically correct, cross subsidisation is the nature of the beast, the whole scheme is based on it.

Without cross subsidisation, someone that never claims never has to pay a cent. This kind of defeats the purpose of ACC.

[motorbyclist]

What I find interesting, as I interpret this info:
according to that factsheet, motorcyclists are at fault for their injuries just over 50% of the time....
Meanwhile, according to the FAQ, I'm likely to cost 4.8 times more by riding my 400cc bike than the average road user (predominantly in a car/van/suv)

But isn't half of my cost caused by everyone else(predominantly in a car/van/suv)?

If this is the case, then why shouldn't half of my cost be spread across the rest of the population who careen blindly around NZ roads?

Perhaps this is an underlying flaw in ACC's structure? Either way we've been fucked by Labour's last run:

"These changes are necessary because ACC's claim costs have risen by 57 per cent and its unfunded liabilities have grown from $4 billion to $13b in just four years," Dr Smith said.

Can't we just undo the damage Labour did and return to the good ol' days?

[motorbyclist]

Whats your take on their answers to Q4 & 5 in:
http://www.acc.co.nz/PRD_EXT_CSMP/groups/external_levies/documents/faq/prd_ctrb118121.doc


quote it properly!


4. What is cross-subsidisation?

Cross-subsidisation is where cost of claims is not fairly shared among those responsible for those costs - in this case we are referring to vehicle classes.

5. What is ACC doing about cross-subsidisation?

ACC has undertaken a review of the levy classification system with the purpose of identifying options to reduce cross-subsidisation between vehicle classifications to ensure that the costs of claims are more fairly shared among the vehicle classes that are responsible for those costs.



considering that:


19. How can ACC charge a different levy for different vehicles when ACC is a no-fault Scheme?

A no-fault Scheme means that everyone receives cover as specified in the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Act 2001, regardless of who or what 'caused' an injury.
Levies are set having consideration to the level of risk that a particular group bears (as determined by injury involvement). In the case of work injuries, the 'group' an employer is in depends on the industry; while on the road, the 'group' a motorist is in depends on the type of vehicle and its use.
It is the cost of claims in the 'group' which is the basis of the levy for the group, not who is at fault or causes the accident.



I think this is a bit ridiculous - If there is an activity that creates ACC claims, then acc levies it. So, why not levy car drivers for the ACC claims they cause a motorcyclist to make?

[motorbyclist]

Ok, so i was thinking, "hold on, but doesn't this mean I'm undercharged as things are?

lets see things so far....

Cagers cause half my accidents, I cost 4.8 times what a cager does, and if there is an activity that creates ACC claims, then acc levies it. So, why not levy car drivers for the ACC claims they cause a motorcyclist to make?

That's 2.4 times what the cager himself costs! Not to worry, there are plenty more cagers causing biker claims to bear the load, but either way we still have to pay (just under) 2.4 times what a cager pays to be fair on each other.

ACC says It is the cost of claims in the 'group' which is the basis of the levy for the group, not who is at fault or causes the accident.

Problem found.

if we ignore what ACC says, given the average "take" from petrol levies from the relevant demographics per annum, how much should we be paying by my scheme? who has actually seen the accounting figures?


Holy shit look at the time... no doubt there's a crucial flaw in my logic:2thumbsup

[swbarnett]

It is the cost of claims in the 'group' which is the basis of the levy for the group, not who is at fault or causes the accident.
How long do you think this would last if the group was based on race? Rather than some strange notion that just because I ride a motorcycle I'm continuously in mortal peril.

[Naki Rat]

Check out the answer to Q1. In particular:


No levy is included in the price of diesel – therefore, the levy that is part of the licensing fee for diesel-powered vehicles is higher than that charged for petrol-powered vehicles, to ensure drivers of the latter aren’t paying more than their fair share of ACC levies.

As opposed to petrol powered vehicles, diesel vehicles pay no ACC as part of their ongoing running costs. There is no ACC component in the cost of diesel or as part of Road User Charges, and only a relatively minor rego cost differential - who's cross subsidising them ??