Alternate to rego levy?

[vgcspares]

At the BRONZ AKL meeting it was suggested that a fuel levy would spread the load to all vehicles (on and off road) and would be a fairer alternative to loading motorcycle registration. On a vote it lost majority support, but it was a close vote.

What do people think of it as an alternative and are there any other suggestions floating around ?

[p.dath]

You do know that their is already an ACC levy on petrol?

[BMWST?]

At the BRONZ AKL meeting it was suggested that a fuel levy would spread the load to all vehicles (on and off road) and would be a fairer alternative to loading motorcycle registration. On a vote it lost majority support, but it was a close vote.

What do people think of it as an alternative and are there any other suggestions floating around ?

it would be seen as subsidy though wouldnt it...cars use more petrol than bikes ....and it would impact those least able to afford it...ie lower social ecomoic groupls with large familiies,with inefficient big ol vans and such....The fairest way is total vehicle expenditure didvided bu total vehicle fleet,irrespective of size colour and creed....or total vehicle expenditure divided by total number of driver licenses.....

[shafty]

I'm thinking including ACC in gas would "capture" - to a degree at least, people like skiers, mountain bikers etc - who use a vehicle to get to their particular "increased risk" sport.

And of course boaties and off road motorsport plus those who ignore the rego law anyway... - I like it

[James Deuce]

An ACC petrol levy is not a one dimensional raise in the price of fuel. At the $1 a litre being bandied around to fund the vehicle account, EVERYTHING would be more expensive, food, public transport, the purchase price of a new bike, and it would cause rampant inflation, which would make your mortgage payments more expensive, which would probably cause a run on the Kiwi Peso. You don't want that.

[MSTRS]

There is no 'fairest' way to collect levies. But I do think that licence-based levies would approach that ideal. But that would not include those sports motorists who do not have a road-class licence...

[Pixie]

License based levy 2012:

Car licence: licence fee $50.00
ACC levy $400.00

Car & bike licence licence fee $100.00
Acc levy $ 1200.00

Car,Bike & HT..............

Fuk dat

[pzkpfw]

There is no 'fairest' way to collect levies. But I do think that licence-based levies would approach that ideal. But that would not include those sports motorists who do not have a road-class licence...

The ACC counter is that a family, say, of four people with licenses might each pay the levy - when they have one family car that they share.

This is the reverse of the issue of one bike owner, owning more than one bike and having to pay multiple fees.

What we'd need are some decent statistics to base it all on. (e.g. to compare the two siutations above).


You are right - there will be no "fairest" way.

[duckonin]

An ACC petrol levy is not a one dimensional raise in the price of fuel. At the $1 a litre being bandied around to fund the vehicle account, EVERYTHING would be more expensive, food, public transport, the purchase price of a new bike, and it would cause rampant inflation, which would make your mortgage payments more expensive, which would probably cause a run on the Kiwi Peso. You don't want that.

Exactly!!!....I still do not get the plan, firstly everyone complains about the increase in their rego (more money) rather than accepting that, they want to come up with "their own plan" to pay Lord Nottingham and his bunch of rascals...The way they feel it should be paid...:oi-grr: increases of any sought only lift inflation, we all have to get the money from somewhere to survive.

[MSTRS]

License based levy 2012:

Car licence: licence fee $50.00
ACC levy $400.00

Car & bike licence licence fee $100.00
Acc levy $ 1200.00

Car,Bike & HT..............

Fuk dat

No no....You pay one levy...the one that covers the 'most risky' licence class you hold. I said it here (http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showpost.php?p=1129467238&postcount=49)

[Hitcher]

Despite what their proponents claim, ACC levies have nothing to do with fairness. As a salaried worker, purchaser of motor spirits and the owner of multiple vehicles, I am already being multiply sodomised by this august corporation.

I fail to see why ACC has multiple "accounts". If somebody is injured as a result of an accident, why does it matter where and how? No fault surely means no fault.

There are measures to deal with unsafe work places and practices. There should be other measures in place to deal with unsafe motorists and roads.

ACC made a mega industry out of physiotherapy for no good reason. It now appears to be intent on making a growth industry out of lawyers as it seeks to find new and imaginative ways of rejecting claims made against it.

ACC has all the sophistication of a bull elephant on heat. All we need is a brave soul with a very large calibre gun to shoot it in the head.

[vgcspares]

Seems the BRONZ vote was representative then - I made the point that an increased fuel levy would be a tax on everyone and consequently lose us support from non-motorcyclists.

With no other viable alternatives we're left with contesting the amount of the increase on bike registration.

The consensus was that if the increase was unavoidable then we should press for a staged implementation and of course this would then give us more time to mount arguments based on a challenge to the ACC data (assuming we could get our hands on some that was clearer than the mud they're effectively slinging at us).

[Mystic13]

I think it would be useful to quantify what that increase in fuel levy would be. If it's a matter of a cent or two I'm not sure people would be alarmed.

If you want a motorcyclist already pay far higher sum than car owners.

Car owner - pays car levy and fuel levy.

Motorcycle Owner - pays car levy, motorcycle levy and fuel levy. (most motorcylists own cars)

The proposed increase is unfair because it targets just one group in the community.

Secondly the statistics have been misused.

Thirdly the point of statistic acquisition is the doctors and hospitals. I have had no ACC claims and do a huge amount of motorcycle riding. I have had more injuries riding off road than on road. When a sport/hobby rider who rides off road on an unregistered bike goes into the doctors that claim is invariably recorded as a motorcycle injury when it should have been recorded as a sport injury. ACC is wanting Road Registered riders to pay for non road injuries as and this is unfair. That would be like charging cars for skiing, boating, and anything where you would practically need to use a car to do the sport. Hell lets through rugby into the car stream.

My view is the fuel levy is the way to go and you'd be surprised how small an increase we're talking about. But this idea of trying to build up the reserves over 5 years is ridiculous. National are talking about moving it to 10 years but lets make it 15.

I believe we should face a nil increase and even a reduction to the same rate as petrol driven cars.

[jboy]

What guts me the most is that in over 14 years of motorcycling I have made no ACC claims relating to motorcycle accidents. I am a mature and experienced rider who prefers to commute on a high-torque 120cc v-twin.

So why should I be expected to subsidise higher risk riders? I hear car drivers bleating about subsidising "all you motorcyclists", but fuck-it ... they're not subsidising me.

My preference? Leave the ACC levy where it is (or increase it only marginally) and FLAT, but impose an excess for motorcycle related claims.

IF I have an accident that is my fault, I'll gladly pay the excess because I was probably being a dick anyway. If it's not my fault then my insurance company can recover the excess from the other party.

Best of all, I don't have to subsidise other riders whose risk profile is higher than mine.

Read on for more rationale behind this opinion ....

---

Motorcycling is my primary means of transport, I have never owned a car. During that 14 years of motorcyling I have had only 3 accidents, neither major enough to warrant any ACC claims, both of which occurred on sub 600cc bikes.

In all 3 cases the other party was technically at fault; but admittedly all 3 were avoidable if I'd been in a more defensive mindset at the time. It is this inexperience that I attribute to those 3 accidents; well, 2 were due to not paying enough attention and one was due to youthful cockiness. Which brings me to by beef about the way these levies are structured...

My personally held theory is that the majority of motorcycle accidents that result in ACC claims break down into these 4 broad categories:

1- motorcyclist was not defensive enough and could have taken steps to avoid the accident (primary cause: inexperience, NOT engine capacity)

2- motorcyclist was suffering from temporary "invincibility complex" (causes: sometimes inexperience, usually too much adrenaline/testosterone, potentially this correlates to engine capacity but I see plenty of fuck-knuckles on 250-400cc racers that fall into this capacity)

3- motorcyclist was "pushing the limits" and went too far; e.g. your typical weekend ride nightmare scenario where someone misses the corner or otherwise blows cover and bins into other vehicles or sturdy and unforgiving scenery (most likely to correlate to power-weight ratio, not engine capacity - if it were engine capacity then ulysses members would be over represented in statistics, right?)

4- "wrong place, wrong time, couldn't see it coming and/or get out of the way fast enough"

I'm not saying these are the only 4 factors, I'm claiming that 98% of incidents that involve an ACC claim would fall into one of these 4 categories.

The point I am trying to empirically illustrate - without any statistics to back it up - is that I don't see how engine capacity correlates to a higher risk profile.

I now own a 1200cc motorcycle and yet for that privilege I am expected to pay for the risk profile of all the young, inexperience, god-complex, careless risk takers on their 250cc Hyosungs when they go blatting around riverhead on a wet sunday and skid under a truck!!

Or is that I'm subsidising all the zippy-about inexperienced hairstylist that get squished between two X5s on their trendy moped?

Perhaps one day I will be "in the wrong place at the wrong time", but I rather hope that the torque of my 1200cc v-twin will help me AVOID injury, not increase my disposition to it. Again - unfair.

---

Possible counter-arguments?

>> Excess is unfair to low income earners

Boo hoo! You know what? Stuff costs money. When you have less money you can't afford as much stuff. That is actually as fair as fair can get. Economically "risk" is a type of stuff, and when I have to subsidise yours then THAT is unfair.

Anyway, I'm not suggesting that the excess would have to be paid in full up front. Just like any other government imposed cost (rates, traffic violations, etc) I would expect there would be provisions for paying it over time.

---

Other benefits of excess vs a levy.

A higher levy will encourage more riders to ride unregistered bikes; either with no rego at all (not impossible to do) or with counterfeits. An excess will not have this impact.

With the levy approach we run the risk that more of the "high risk" profile riders will avoid paying their levy and yet still contribute cost to the system. The cost, when averaged out in 5 years time, will make it look like motorocyclists are still not paying their way. Eventually ACC will want to raise the levy more to cover costs and that will lead to more levy avoidance.

Only an excess will properly target the risk takers and prevent levy avoidance.

[short-circuit]

At the BRONZ AKL meeting it was suggested that a fuel levy would spread the load to all vehicles (on and off road) and would be a fairer alternative to loading motorcycle registration. On a vote it lost majority support, but it was a close vote.

What do people think of it as an alternative and are there any other suggestions floating around ?

The fact is that even engaging the quest for alternative funding methods is misguided.

The Nats have cooked the books and created a crisis where none exists.

There is no reason why ACC needs to be a fully funded system.

Let's see someone independent do an audit

[short-circuit]

No fault no blame should be the line we maintain - not degrees of fault / liability or where money should come from

[NighthawkNZ]

We could put flat fee ACC levy on all vehicles bought including boats, trailers and caravans, including farm machinery. Even if it is only $50. This levycan be put on the changing of ownership.
Make all farm vehicles warrantable considering they are carrying people about the farm and some get use on the road.
Flat fee on W.O.F's (say $5 or $10) on all warrantable vehicles and trailers. i.e; 2,919,151 vehicles (assuming that all these are once a year, but there will be a good percentage that are every 6 months.) 2,919,151 x $5 = $14,595,755 or $29,191,510 if it was $10.
Small 1% levy on riding gear ie; helmets, boots, gloves, jackets and trousers.
An ACC Levy on all traffic infringement. (except car parking) I would have no idea how much this alone would generate



The fact is that even engaging the quest for alternative funding methods is misguided.
The Nats have cooked the books and created a crisis where none exists.
There is no reason why ACC needs to be a fully funded system.
Totally agree... but in the long run fully funded means lower levies (apparently) and we are only partly self funding at present

my draft letter
http://www.southernrider.co.nz/forum/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=9707

[short-circuit]

Totally agree... but in the long run fully funded means lower levies (apparently)



That is a lie.

The ultimate agenda is privatisation

[Ixion]

Hm. The notion of an excess on bike claims is interesting.

I dunno if it would be particularly fair, or popular, but it does have the great advantage of giving us an alternative to suggest.

At present, one problem the campaign faces in people saying "But, clearly motorcycles ARE costing ACC more than they pay in ? Isn't that unfair? So what alternative to a levy increase do you suggest?"

An excess would be one answer. And one that could be implemented without too much hassle.

The only disadvantage I see is that ACC and their political masters are crooked as a crooked thing. They'll say " Oh good idea" We can't do it this year , no time, so we'll have to put the levy up. But we'll look at an excess next year". Then we end up with higher levies AND an excess.

What I like about it , that it targets the problem. Responsible riders who don't crash (or, not much) won't be affected. And even if ACC said "Aha , we can raise the excess so high they'll be forced off the road -" still won't affect those that don't crash.

For practical purposes, it might be necessary to only set the excess against lump sums or ERC. An excess of any size on medical treatment wouldn't fly.

The other attractive thing is that riders worried about being hit by the excess could presumably insure privately to cover it. Which then ties in with National's "privatise everything" approach.

I think we should kick this around a bit
'

[pzkpfw]

For practical purposes, it might be necessary to only set the excess against lump sums or ERC. An excess of any size on medical treatment wouldn't fly.

The other attractive thing is that riders worried about being hit by the excess could presumably insure privately to cover it. Which then ties in with National's "privatise everything" approach.

I think we should kick this around a bit
'

I wouldn't think it's bad either, if riders who've crashed (and judged at fault) did have to pay an extra $100 or two each year (how, don't know) - not just a one-off excess at the time of the accident.


Either way, this kind of thing would have to be applied to cars too. That is, when a car driver causes an accident (with or without a bike being the "victim") then the car driver pays.

[Coldrider]

I would prefer discount rather than an excess.
It promotes behaviour where it belongs.

[short-circuit]

Hm. The notion of an excess on bike claims is interesting.

I dunno if it would be particularly fair, or popular, but it does have the great advantage of giving us an alternative to suggest.

At present, one problem the campaign faces in people saying "But, clearly motorcycles ARE costing ACC more than they pay in ? Isn't that unfair? So what alternative to a levy increase do you suggest?"

An excess would be one answer. And one that could be implemented without too much hassle.

The only disadvantage I see is that ACC and their political masters are crooked as a crooked thing. They'll say " Oh good idea" We can't do it this year , no time, so we'll have to put the levy up. But we'll look at an excess next year". Then we end up with higher levies AND an excess.

What I like about it , that it targets the problem. Responsible riders who don't crash (or, not much) won't be affected. And even if ACC said "Aha , we can raise the excess so high they'll be forced off the road -" still won't affect those that don't crash.

For practical purposes, it might be necessary to only set the excess against lump sums or ERC. An excess of any size on medical treatment wouldn't fly.

The other attractive thing is that riders worried about being hit by the excess could presumably insure privately to cover it. Which then ties in with National's "privatise everything" approach.

I think we should kick this around a bit
'

Read the letter from Ivan Sowry about the philosophy behind ACC and it's intention: http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?t=110712

It was never meant to be a user pays system

[NighthawkNZ]

That is a lie.

The ultimate agenda is privatisation

the transition to fully funded started back in 1999 and we are only 1/2 way there...

[short-circuit]

the transition to fully funded started back in 1999 and we are only 1/2 way there...

Believe what you like - this mob have form and NZers seem to have astoundingly short memories...

The agenda is to make ACC appear to be unaffordable so that Joe Public is left which no option other than private accident insurance

[NighthawkNZ]

Believe what you like - this mob have form and NZers seem to have astoundingly short memories...

The agenda is to make ACC appear to be unaffordable so that Joe Public is left which no option other than private accident insurance

I know that is what the Nats want... just saying and if they keep the BS up it will loose them the next election

[vgcspares]

an obvious issue with the Excess approach is Fault must be established - a good proportion of our claims are single vehicle accidents, so no problem there

but establishing fault where a collision has occured is problemmatical unless one side fronts up, or the police do a thorough investigation (but they don't get called to every scene even if the result is an injury), or there's a truly independent witness

on the insurance side of things we do our best and reckon it's 60:40 with the other vehicle mostly at fault, but how is an A&E doctor going to establish fault ?

[ckai]

Hm. The notion of an excess on bike claims is interesting.

I dunno if it would be particularly fair, or popular, but it does have the great advantage of giving us an alternative to suggest.

...
'

You I do agree with this and I think it's a good idea that covers a lot of bases but...


an obvious issue with the Excess approach is Fault must be established - a good proportion of our claims are single vehicle accidents, so no problem there

but establishing fault where a collision has occured is problemmatical unless one side fronts up, or the police do a thorough investigation (but they don't get called to every scene even if the result is an injury), or there's a truly independent witness

on the insurance side of things we do our best and reckon it's 60:40 with the other vehicle mostly at fault, but how is an A&E doctor going to establish fault ?

This is the problem and it is kind of a major problem. I would be pissed if a car hits me, I need ACC and the car driver doesn't, even though it was their fault. I had a prick of a time getting a car driver to admit fault when they hit my car when my father was driving it. This meant I had to pay the excess. But they did front up and I got refunded.

This would be an asshole but it does seem one of the more attractive ideas.

That and a higher ACC levy on fuel i.e. 2c/litre. Again there is a problem with this regarding delivery. You can open up a whole can of worms by saying transport companies can be excluded from the extra tax but shit, admin charges come into play.

As mentioned, the extra gas levy would cover all the other sports where ACC is involved, but doing a stupid amount just brings us back to square one. Any extra levy on fuel needs to be below 5c/litre in my opinion. Let's not go back to the dark ages.

Excess as well, if it can be ironed out a bit regarding fault.

Also fire the ACC management because (even if the books are cooked) they're crap. They got us into this shit!

[Warren]

The fact is that even engaging the quest for alternative funding methods is misguided.

The Nats have cooked the books and created a crisis where none exists.

There is no reason why ACC needs to be a fully funded system.

Let's see someone independent do an audit

Perhaps a few members who have knowledge to explain how the stats could be crooked could then get in contact with the Auditor General. They may be able to investigate.


gives Parliament independent assurance over the performance and accountability of public organisations.

[sport-cruzer?]

As a 4 vehicle family I'd much rather they dropped the ACC part of the rego altogether and put it on fuel, Petrol prices are up and down so much anyway who's going to notice another 5 cents?

[short-circuit]

Believe what you like - this mob have form and NZers seem to have astoundingly short memories...

The agenda is to make ACC appear to be unaffordable so that Joe Public is left which no option other than private accident insurance

What did I tell you? http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?t=110739

[NighthawkNZ]

As a 4 vehicle family I'd much rather they dropped the ACC part of the rego altogether and put it on fuel, Petrol prices are up and down so much anyway who's going to notice another 5 cents?

putting too much on petrol will up the cost of living over all so you have to carefull,

all of a sudden the cost of all transport and goods are more expensive, which gets past on to you... and then we are worse off.

But I would agree upping it a fraction more


Wonder how many politicains play sim city :scratch: