Something I simply can't get my head around

[Mikkel]

If ACC is truly a "no blame" scheme, which is the argument for not distinguishing in regards to who caused a given injury, how then can it be considered reasonable to distinguish as to who suffered said injury?

And furthermore, how then can it be considered reasonable to be selective about which group of injuries to impose a select levy upon?

This I fail to see. Is there anyone in here who can explain the underlying logic to me? ...that is of course assuming that there is any.

[Mikkel]

Another thing I can't understand. If ACC is concerned with extracting a levy from the individual based upon the cost of the injuries that particular person is statistically likely to suffer - why then is the levy extracted from the vehicle registration fee and not some sort of ongoing licensing fee?

[Tony]

Another thing I can't understand. If ACC is concerned with extracting a levy from the individual based upon the cost of the injuries that particular person is statistically likely to suffer - why then is the levy extracted from the vehicle registration fee and not some sort of ongoing licensing fee?

And why are other high risk individuals such as rugby players exempt?

[pzkpfw]

Yeah.

It seems like one day they could use profiling, D.N.A., histroy and more science to decide that you, yes, you will have this specific accident in the next ten years so please pay the $15,000 levy now please.

Kind of makes insurance (we all pay a bit, to help out those who happen to get hit by "the bad thing") a bit silly.


I think the per vehicle fee must date back to when most people would have just one vehicle.

I'm am very scared for the folk who happen to like bikes and happen to own 6 or 8 of them... not fair at all to pay thousands in fees when they can ride one at a time.

[Mikkel]

And why are other high risk individuals such as rugby players exempt?

I can, to some degree, accept that it's reasonable that road users are subject to a separate levy due to the high costs involved in resolving traffic accidents.

[NighthawkNZ]

I can, to some degree, accept that it's reasonable that road users are subject to a separate levy due to the high costs involved in resolving traffic accidents.

Agreed but our levies should be the same as every other road user..

How ever your arguement on the No Fault is correct :)
http://www.southernrider.co.nz/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=9640&start=30

[vifferman]

I think the per vehicle fee must date back to when most people would have just one vehicle.
It makes sense from the point of view that it covers the case where someone else might be using that vehicle (so the vehicle is covered at any time), but makes a mockery of the "user pays" philosophy that ACC were pushing last time they jacked all the fees up (something I pointed out when emailing my submissions in yesterday). If it were truly a "user pays" levy, it would be in the form of a personal gummint insurance fee. However, that too falls down given that anyone (apart from the unemployed, students, etc.) is already covered by either an emplyee or self-employed levy.

I guess you have to just recognise it's a bureaucratic monster, so it's not reasonable to expect its policies to make any sense. :buggerd:

[5150]

I can, to some degree, accept that it's reasonable that road users are subject to a separate levy due to the high costs involved in resolving traffic accidents.

ROAD USERS!!! - means cyclists pay up or get the fuck off our roads!!!!!!!:ar15:

[Mikkel]

Agreed but our levies should be the same as every other road user..

Indeed, I thought that bit obvious :yes:

...that and the levies shouldn't be related to the vehicle but the person, i.e. license.

[Neon]

Another thing I can't understand. If ACC is concerned with extracting a levy from the individual based upon the cost of the injuries that particular person is statistically likely to suffer - why then is the levy extracted from the vehicle registration fee and not some sort of ongoing licensing fee?


And why are other high risk individuals such as rugby players exempt?


Indeed, I thought that bit obvious :yes:

...that and the levies shouldn't be related to the vehicle but the person, i.e. license.

There is a simple answer to all of these points. Because it's too difficult to make it work. Tacking levies onto a rego is easy to administrate, difficult to ignore and easy policed.

Mikkel - you are absolutely right. If we suspend belief for a moment and imagine there was some magical way of levying every voluntary activity proportional to associated claims (risk), alcohol would be at the top of the list...

The fact is that ACC was never designed to work like this, it was meant to spread the cost of individual misfortune across the wider community as a social tool. Levying minorities proportional to risk goes against the fundamental values on which ACC was established.

It either needs to be returned to it's roots - that is everyone chips in equally and everyone benefits should they require it, or it's every man for himself. In reality these extremes will probably never happen, but one has to question whether our social values and sense of community have now diminished to a point where the values originally underpinning ACC just aren't valid anymore. I sincerely, truly, hope that is not the case. :no:

[Neon]

And my idea for the minute is levy tyres. Think about it...

:rolleyes:

[scumdog]

Another thing I can't understand. If ACC is concerned with extracting a levy from the individual based upon the cost of the injuries that particular person is statistically likely to suffer - why then is the levy extracted from the vehicle registration fee and not some sort of ongoing licensing fee?


As I mentioned elsewhere - if they insist on going down that track re motorbike rider being more likely to crash and injure themselves than other road users then what is stopping them from putting a higher ACC levy on the rego of, say, grey coloured cars (hypthetical) because they are involved in more crashes than other coloured cars?

Where would it stop?

Higher ACC levy on stupid people because they're more likely to hurt themselves?

[Sanx]

Higher ACC levy on stupid people because they're more likely to hurt themselves?

I know you were being facetious, but I'm all in favour of IQ-based fees and licensing schemes.

Top of my list would be the requirement for women to have a licence in order to breed.

[StoneY]

And my idea for the minute is levy tyres. Think about it...

:rolleyes:

We would still lose, as despite only having 2 on the bikes, they wear out a shit load faster than my cages do

5 rear tyres this year alone, 2 fronts...cars on same trteads it had 2 years ago!!!
+ Bike Tyres cost more anyway as it is (as an average) due to higher production standards applied

Good thought tho...just didnt quite work by my reckoning (or by my tyre wear)

[Neon]

We would still lose, as despite only having 2 on the bikes, they wear out a shit load faster than my cages do

5 rear tyres this year alone, 2 fronts...cars on same trteads it had 2 years ago!!!
+ Bike Tyres cost more anyway as it is (as an average) due to higher production standards applied

Good thought tho...just didnt quite work by my reckoning (or by my tyre wear)

Granted the levy would have to account for this in some way - e.g. bike tyres incur a lower levy because they wear out faster (even under normal use :rolleyes:). Still:

Good
- The further you travel, the more levy you pay
- If you are hamfisted (and are arguably more of a risk) you pay
- The levy is the same for all brands so there is no overall cost penalty for buying certain brands (but there would be an advantage to buying good-quality, hard-wearing tyres)
- It covers road, track and offroad vehicles equally

Bad
- Levy affected by inflation
- Risk of black market developing for tyres
- Risk of people eeking as much wear out of tyres as possible
- People would repair rather than replace

I'm sure there are other good and bad points too, but I'm bored of this now.

:2thumbsup