Fuel tax to replace ACC on regos?

[FROSTY]

Maybee I'm misguided but it seems to me that the gubbiment has missed a point by putting ACC onto the rego costs of a vehicle.
The point being that Boaties,farmers,offroadriders/drivers and drivers of any form of ontrack race vehicle don't pay ACC yet "use" acc regularly.
Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to apply a blanket no blame FUEL tax on all fuel. of course scrapping the ACC on licencing.
With perhaps an adjustment downwards of the ACC levvy an employer in industries using vehicle professionally (truckies etc)

[davereid]

It would cost 11.5 cents per litre.

Total motor vehicle account = $341,007,000
2,961,643,835 litres of petrol sold per year
(2000 figures sorry cant find newer ones)

Gives 11.5 cents per litre to pay the whole lot.

[YellowDog]

If it's ony 11.5 cents, then that has to be the answer.

The motorcycle rego hype will fail to raise the projected revenue by a long way.

[mossy1200]

Means that the off roaders and unregistered vehicles and chain saws and lawnmowers will all contribute aswell.Sounds fair system to me.

[Mully]

This was discussed at the BRONZ meeting, Frosty. It was generally (I don't know why) considered to be better to have it partly on fuel and partly as a levy on licences.

I didn't quite get the reasoning for that as off-roaders (and boaties) don't need licences anyway. I've always thought fuel was more logical - those who do more Ks (and are therefore more likely to need ACC) pay more levies.

EDIT: Plus, as Mr Chairman pointed out - NZ has a lot of unlicenced drivers anyway. You have to buy fuel, licence or not.

[FROSTY]

well it makes sense to me to do it that way--I can't see ANY down side to it.

[davereid]

Government already has extra taxes planned for fuel, to save us from the ice age or sumfink... but we have to send the money from the evil carbon taxes to russia, where they run nice clean nukes, so have carbon credits to sell

[Mully]

well it makes sense to me to do it that way--I can't see ANY down side to it.

Which is why you're not a politician.

Too fair, and too logical.

[newbould]

And the wilder you ride the more gas you burn
and the Scorp has the best fuel economy this side of a diesel GasGas:2thumbsup


The downside - far too fuckin simple a solution

and can we trust the government to send it in the right direction - consider all the millions they already gather from fuel and don't spend on roading (if the AA is to be believed):angry2:

[NighthawkNZ]

While the idea sounds good only 11.5c a litre... problem fuel drives part of the econmony and put the price of fuel up 11.5c thena dd the extra GST on top fuel becomes expensive again...

Then the all transport costs rise, food prices go up, and everything else transported by road goes up to cover the cost , so you pay more at the pump to save you $252 a year but overall it probably costing you a lot more... You pay has not gone up but the cost of living has and inflation can get out of hand... which makes the recession worse... and yes there still is a recession its not over yet...

Putting ACC on fuel needs to happen when there isn't so much doom and gloom...

[MacD]

The reason it won't be done is that only the government can levy taxes. If ACC was funded this way it couldn't be "opened to competition" (i.e. privatised).

[Sam I Am]

would be time to get a electric bike then !

[NighthawkNZ]

would be time to get a electric bike then !

the ACC on them is hicher because they know they can't get the fuel levy from you ;)

[Naki Rat]

It would cost 11.5 cents per litre.

Total motor vehicle account = $341,007,000
2,961,643,835 litres of petrol sold per year
(2000 figures sorry cant find newer ones)

Gives 11.5 cents per litre to pay the whole lot.

It would be a lot less than that if it was spread over diesel/RUC as well.

[NordieBoy]

While the idea sounds good only 11.5c a litre... problem fuel drives part of the econmony and put the price of fuel up 11.5c thena dd the extra GST on top fuel becomes expensive again...

Can't put GST on the tax part. Only on the base cost.

I think?

[James Deuce]

11.5c per litre is only part of the story. Remember that they want to fully fund their liability, so they don't want to cover the cost of claims they want to cover the cost of future claims. It it's transferred to petrol it will be significantly more than 11.5/litre. The inflationary byproduct of a huge rise will throw NZ's economy down the toilet. 11.5c/litre will make a significant rise in the price of food, especially dairy and bread, a reality too. It wasn't that long ago that a kilo of cheese was $12.

[newbould]

Add 25 c a liter and it's still a lot cheaper than it was 18 months ago - remember $2.20 a litre. Yes NH just before the recession hit I know, but it takes more than the price of fuel to cause a recession. pLus you have $10.00 a week extra in your back pocket -enough to pay the extra on 40 l of petrol - which would take me from here to the beehive. But why would I want to go there - the bastards aren't going to listen to any of us.

[Mikkel]

Hell, put an ACC levy of 50c a liter on the petrol for all I care! The less 4x4s hauling boats over twisty mountain passes I have to get stuck behind the better. Fuel is too bloody cheap in NZ anyway...

As for food prices - either don't apply it to diesel or introduce tax deductions for commercial applications.

And Jim - if you can sell it for $12 a kg and turn a profit it is not cheese!

As for the recession - that has nothing to do with fuel prices. The current global financial crisis is caused by one thing, and one thing only: Greed! The banks lost all common sense and jumped on the "let's invest in real estate" bandwagon. Anyone who's sat an introduction level course in economy knows that real wealth does not arise from speculation-driven investment gains. The banks failing to realise this and stop the madness before it got out of hand is what caused the current state of affairs.

[NighthawkNZ]

Can't put GST on the tax part. Only on the base cost.

I think?
ACC isn't classed as I tax, its a levy... yeah I know

[NighthawkNZ]

Add 25 c a liter and it's still a lot cheaper than it was 18 months ago - remember $2.20 a litre. Yes NH just before the recession hit I know, but it takes more than the price of fuel to cause a recession. pLus you have $10.00 a week extra in your back pocket -enough to pay the extra on 40 l of petrol


Not saying it caused the recession, but it didn't help for those that were starting to feel the pince... so they start spending less... and we are not out the recession yet...

[James Deuce]

Hell, put an ACC levy of 50c a liter on the petrol for all I care! The less 4x4s hauling boats over twisty mountain passes I have to get stuck behind the better. Fuel is too bloody cheap in NZ anyway...

As for food prices - either don't apply it to diesel or introduce tax deductions for commercial applications.

And Jim - if you can sell it for $12 a kg and turn a profit it is not cheese!

As for the recession - that has nothing to do with fuel prices. The current global financial crisis is caused by one thing, and one thing only: Greed! The banks lost all common sense and jumped on the "let's invest in real estate" bandwagon. Anyone who's sat an introduction level course in economy knows that real wealth does not arise from speculation-driven investment gains. The banks failing to realise this and stop the madness before it got out of hand is what caused the current state of affairs.

The price of dairy in the local market had Fonterra, our biggest exporter scrambling for overseas markets because it significantly dented their financial portfolio. The price of cheese and milk was entirely related to the big spike in fuel prices. We have no rail network to speak of and thanks to our truck friendly National brethren rely almost entirely on an industry who would be savaged overnight, to move the basic goods of life from manufacturing to warehouse to point of sale.

NZ simply doesn't have the money or the logistics infrastructure to cope with a sudden increase in the price of fuel of that magnitude. If it goes over $2 a litre we won't exit the current recession for considerably longer than it takes the rest of the world to extricate themselves. Relative standard of living slips, downward spiral continues.

[scracha]

.. problem fuel drives part of the econmony

Fuel does not drive the economy. Fuel is an expense. Avoiding paying fuel is also part of the economy. If fuel goes up then more sensible forms of transport may be employed. Companies also think twice about moving goods from one end of the country unnecessarily and quite often local macro economies are drastically improved and waste levels reduced. Essentially, why should the haulage industry be subsidised? Just because there is a recession should not mean we continue pumping money into unsustainable means of transport. Quite the opposite in fact.

[James Deuce]

Fuel does not drive the economy. Fuel is an expense. Avoiding paying fuel is also part of the economy. If fuel goes up then more sensible forms of transport may be employed. Companies also think twice about moving goods from one end of the country unnecessarily and quite often local macro economies are drastically improved and waste levels reduced. Essentially, why should the haulage industry be subsidised? Just because there is a recession should not mean we continue pumping money into unsustainable means of transport. Quite the opposite in fact.

In Europe, yes. In NZ no. There's no alternative to road transportation for goods, and the distance from logistics head to point of sale would generally exceed that of the average European country.

This is not meant as an insult in any way, but immigrants often forget that NZ has the population of Hampshire spread out over an land area slightly bigger than the UK. The price of fuel in NZ governs the price of a lettuce in a supermarket.

Before you say it, we do not have the available funds to upgrade the rail network to "take over" from trucks. We struggle to get rolling stock because of our odd gauge and we would need to seriously consider changing gauge to make the exercise worthwhile in terms of upgrading the rolling stock to cope with the proposed volume. You're talking 10s of billions of dollars.

[McJim]

We seemed to be going fine when fuel topped $2 a litre.....why would an extra 12c or so break the camels toe...I mean back? (thinking of another thread for a monet there - forgive me)

[Mikkel]

The price of dairy in the local market had Fonterra, our biggest exporter scrambling for overseas markets because it significantly dented their financial portfolio. The price of cheese and milk was entirely related to the big spike in fuel prices. We have no rail network to speak of and thanks to our truck friendly National brethren rely almost entirely on an industry who would be savaged overnight, to move the basic goods of life from manufacturing to warehouse to point of sale.

NZ simply doesn't have the money or the logistics infrastructure to cope with a sudden increase in the price of fuel of that magnitude. If it goes over $2 a litre we won't exit the current recession for considerably longer than it takes the rest of the world to extricate themselves. Relative standard of living slips, downward spiral continues.

Well, last time I checked lorries ran on diesel, which I suggested remain exempt... Anyway, you can keep commercial traffic clear of the ACC component on fuel through a variety of regulations.

As for Fonterra and the global market - when international fuel prices start to increase they will be at a serious disadvantage regardless of what national issues they may be dealing with.

As for the recession in NZ - I'm not saying it isn't here, but compared to most other places we do not seem to be doing too badly in that regard.


In Europe, yes. In NZ no. There's no alternative to road transportation for goods, and the distance from logistics head to point of sale would generally exceed that of the average European country.

Still scracha has a valid point - NZ will eventually have to find a sustainable alternative to transporting goods. NZ can not, in the long run, prosper if it persists in using the argument of "too few people, too much space" to excuse it's shortsightedness. You might find this documentary (http://www.hotscience.co.nz/video_detail.php?videoid=1755) interesting.

[James Deuce]

We seemed to be going fine when fuel topped $2 a litre.....why would an extra 12c or so break the camels toe...I mean back? (thinking of another thread for a monet there - forgive me)

Because we weren't in a recession then, and it won't be an extra 11.5c. The really important point to remember is they aren't after 63 million, or even 300 million. They're after 22 billion, I think it is, to fully fund future claims.

There's been a substantial reduction in retail spend over the last 12 months and it isn't reversing in step with the intoxicated Treasury officials rambling about economic recovery. You'd need to plot that sort of increase to be in step with an economic upswing or you'll soften or even reverse the desired recovery.

[James Deuce]

Still scracha has a valid point - NZ will eventually have to find a sustainable alternative to transporting goods. NZ can not, in the long run, prosper if it persists in using the argument of "too few people, too much space" to excuse it's shortsightedness. You might find this documentary (http://www.hotscience.co.nz/video_detail.php?videoid=1755) interesting.

You can say that, but it won't happen in NZ. We don't have the money. Our projected medium term debt is running into the Trillions and our GDP does not inspire the confidence of any financial institution to lend the money to redesign our transport industry. If we had something other than primary produce as our main export earner we "might" be able to do something about it, but we don't. Our exports are subject to the vagaries of culture, religion, and political machinations and don't provide the hard currency to back up our current standard of living.

Another point that is always forgotten about NZ is that it requires intensive soil management to produce nutritious food. Our soil composition is designed to support 150 million year old flora, and trace elements are missing that you need to maintain a healthy populace. The self-supporting village concept will still require intensive transportation of goods and imports of different kinds of fertiliser.

The argument isn't too few people, too much space, more no money, wrong industry supporting the economy.

I don't think you guys realise just how much rail has been ripped up in NZ, nor how stupidly short sighted and self important or politicians are. Our spending cycle is: 1 year of election promises, 1 year of spending money producing excuses for why the election promises aren't going to be fulfilled and 1 year of producing reports about how good it was they didn't spend the money.

[NighthawkNZ]

They're after 22 billion, I think it is, to fully fund future claims.

Something like that (I thought 23 Billion) they have 11 billion in the bank... after banking 1 billion last year...

But you are correct it all about being fully funded by 2014 hopefully now 2019 which should ease it a bit...:crazy:


I don't think you guys realise just how much rail has been ripped up in NZ.

a good quarter is gone... basically the main trunk line left with a few off shoots

[Mikkel]

You can say that, but it won't happen in NZ. We don't have the money. Our projected medium term debt is running into the Trillions and our GDP does not inspire the confidence of any financial institution to lend the money to redesign our transport industry. If we had something other than primary produce as our main export earner we "might" be able to do something about it, but we don't. Our exports are subject to the vagaries of culture, religion, and political machinations and don't provide the hard currency to back up our current standard of living.

Another point that is always forgotten about NZ is that it requires intensive soil management to produce nutritious food. Our soil composition is designed to support 150 million year old flora, and trace elements are missing that you need to maintain a healthy populace. The self-supporting village concept will still require intensive transportation of goods and imports of different kinds of fertiliser.

The argument isn't too few people, too much space, more no money, wrong industry supporting the economy.

I don't think you guys realise just how much rail has been ripped up in NZ, nor how stupidly short sighted and self important or politicians are. Our spending cycle is: 1 year of election promises, 1 year of spending money producing excuses for why the election promises aren't going to be fulfilled and 1 year of producing reports about how good it was they didn't spend the money.

So, in a way, you are saying that you whole-heartedly agree with my point... but that it is too late and NZ is fucked because it doesn't have the financial strength to pull itself out of the hole it has dug itself into?

That's being a bit too pessimistic. Wouldn't it be better to drop the excuses, face the music and do something about the situation?

[James Deuce]

So, in a way, you are saying that you whole-heartedly agree with my point... but that it is too late and NZ is fucked because it doesn't have the financial strength to pull itself out of the hole it has dug itself into?

That's being a bit too pessimistic. Wouldn't it be better to drop the excuses, face the music and do something about the situation?

It isn't part of NZ culture to face the music, particularly NZ's political culture because an admission of defeat means a defeat in the polls. Hence the "pessimism". The only way forward lies in either mass immigration from the Pacific's low lying islands that are supposedly disappearing under the sea to boost the population over the growth threshold, or reducing the current population's standard of living for a couple of generations while the economy is sorted out, and trade balances are altered.

In both cases, I think you'd see a substantial change in NZ's ethnic makeup fairly rapidly, provided of course that option 2 allows a legal escape.

[Mystic13]

The current fuel tax is 9.9 cents. ACC have asked if this should be raised to 12.87 cents. ACC want motorcycles charged at a premium above cars regardless.

If we increase to the new fuel levy rate ACC propose that the new car rego ACC fee drop from $272.72 to $237.37 or 13%.

For the over 600cc motorcycle they propose a drop from $745.77 to $735.16 or 1.4%.

When you read the two documents ACC have produced it makes stark reading. They are proposing that Road registered motorcyles pay for all motorcycle injuries and that further based on this that a significant premium be charged to this category.

Any increase in fuel levy would not reduce licence fees proportionally but reduce licence fees on the basis of what ACC earn receive from each category. ACC are determined that Motorcycles be singled out and punished.

Clearly the head of ACC hates motorcycles and wants them gone from his corner of the world.

[FROSTY]

Jim I don't claim to be the cleverest guy around the blocks but to me increasing fuel tax will have an immediate INCREASE in the take from ACC.
It will become USER pays.
But what I also propose is that Diesel price at pump increase and RUC be scrapped.
RUC has become a joke anyway.
This will mean that EVERY fuel user pays and the motorised fuel users who don't contribute to ACC will do so.
This will be simplicity to administer.
THEN if the gubbbinment feels they should those industries useing fuel in their industry can claim back a relivant percentage of the ACC money in their tax.

[Dodger]

forget a petrol tax,
just add a few % to GST, that way EVERYONE is paying it. :yes:

[Coldrider]

forget a petrol tax,
just add a few % to GST, that way EVERYONE is paying it. :yes:

Taxation committee looking at GST at 15% anyway, as tax grab, nothing to do with ACC.

[NighthawkNZ]

Taxation committee looking at GST at 15% anyway, as tax grab, nothing to do with ACC.


earn less pay more get less

[kwaka_crasher]

The point being that Boaties... don't pay ACC yet "use" acc regularly.

Hey, fuck off! :angry2: We already pay an ACC levy on the fuel and a power boat uses considerably more fuel to travel short distances than any other vehicle. And what about yachties? They're the fuckers actually getting themselves injured.


...put the price of fuel up 11.5c then add the extra GST on top fuel becomes expensive again...

Yeah, well there shouldn't fucking well be GST on levies (taxes) in the first place.

[Jizah]

If they did push the price of fuel up by adding the ACC levy to it, it may force people to use their vehicles less and in turn the number of claims may drop.

Realistically though, I imagine nobody would be changing their driving habits, they'd all just be complaining more.

[FROSTY]

If they did push the price of fuel up by adding the ACC levy to it, it may force people to use their vehicles less and in turn the number of claims may drop.

Realistically though, I imagine nobody would be changing their driving habits, they'd all just be complaining more.
nahh what it would mean is all those people NOT registering vehicles would get picked up so the ACC take would be greater

[JimO]

i havnt checked if someone has already raised this but surly a levy on fuel would cover off road bikes/quads, boats jetskis etc people who dont rego their pos cars etc instead of targeting specific users and probably raise more $$$

[vifferman]

Don't be so fkn sensible! This has got nothing to do with fairness and like that there! :Pokey:

[sleemanj]

i havnt checked if someone has already raised this but surly a levy on fuel would cover off road bikes/quads, boats jetskis etc people who dont rego their pos cars etc instead of targeting specific users and probably raise more $$$

But then the couldn't target motorcyclists and price them off the road. Which is after all, the desire of ACC.