PDA

View Full Version : A bit of surprise on the vehicle registration



Jeremy
29th April 2005, 22:15
I just got my first vehicle re-registration/licensing thing today. Boy was I in for a surprise when I read the list of fee components on the bottom of the form.

License Fee: $24.50
ACC Levy: 189.02 < What the hell
Other Levies: $1.64
Administration: $6.72
GST: $27.74
-
Total: $249.60

What's up with the ACC levy. I could get real health insurance + dental + life insurance for that much. Then I notice that the GST is so large because of the ACC levy, which is really strange since ACC isn't a good or a service. Also when I look at the wording on the back of the form; apparently ACC "covers entitlements such as medical and hospital costs, weekly compensation and rehabilitation care". That sounds suspiciously to me that our public health system is really just a private health system that you are forced to pay for the health insurance for.

*End rant*
I'm just kinda annoyed that something that should cost so little has more levies on it than it's own cost.

John
29th April 2005, 22:24
I just got my first vehicle re-registration/licensing thing today. Boy was I in for a surprise when I read the list of fee components on the bottom of the form.

License Fee: $24.50
ACC Levy: 189.02 < What the hell
Other Levies: $1.64
Administration: $6.72
GST: $27.74
-
Total: $249.60

What's up with the ACC levy. I could get real health insurance + dental + life insurance for that much. Then I notice that the GST is so large because of the ACC levy, which is really strange since ACC isn't a good or a service. Also when I look at the wording on the back of the form; apparently ACC "covers entitlements such as medical and hospital costs, weekly compensation and rehabilitation care". That sounds suspiciously to me that our public health system is really just a private health system that you are forced to pay for the health insurance for.

*End rant*
I'm just kinda annoyed that something that should cost so little has more levies on it than it's own cost.
Thats what we all moan about lol :)

Hitcher
29th April 2005, 22:26
You've got the Labour/Progressive Government to thank for most of that.

Jackrat
29th April 2005, 23:07
Welcome to the real world :weep:

Clockwork
30th April 2005, 07:22
You've got the Labour/Progressive Government to thank for most of that.

As I recall, the ACC levy on Bike registration first went throught the roof around '76-'77. Muldoon, I believe.

I must say though, I can't see how GST can be chargeable on a levy.

TwoSeven
30th April 2005, 09:35
ACC is a service for a start. Its what pays you for having an accident.

ACC is a good service if you have a genuine work related accident or one that prevents you from working. Think of the levy you pay as compulsorary insurance.

Having seen kiwi drivers, I think they need every bit of aid they can get :)

James Deuce
30th April 2005, 09:50
First time you've read it eh?

It's not that much different on a car one either.

Don't worry though. Whinging on an Internet forum will fix it. :niceone:

Jantar
30th April 2005, 09:56
And when you have two or more road bikes you end up paying two or more sets of ACC levies. No-one has ever yet explained how I can ride two bikes or once, or why I am twice as likely to have an accident because I own two bikes. :no:

scumdog
30th April 2005, 09:57
Get something over 40 years old (no, not your body) and you will find the registration is :niceone:

Now if everybody who held a drivers licence paid that sum ($249:60) each year it would make more sense as we can only drive one car/ride one bike at a time, but NO the government wouldn't get as much money from us and it makes too much sense :mad:

Sorry to steal your logic jantar.

Sniper
30th April 2005, 10:38
It gets you really pissed off and Angry too. I worked out a way that saves about $2.32 which is just go ahead with a green form and change the vehicle registration expiry date

Clockwork
30th April 2005, 11:22
ACC is a service for a start. Its what pays you for having an accident.

ACC is a good service if you have a genuine work related accident or one that prevents you from working. Think of the levy you pay as compulsorary insurance.

Having seen kiwi drivers, I think they need every bit of aid they can get :)

Is it still a service if you never make a claim?

Sniper
30th April 2005, 11:24
Is it still a service if you never make a claim?
How else do they make their money

idb
30th April 2005, 11:26
And when you have two or more road bikes you end up paying two or more sets of ACC levies. No-one has ever yet explained how I can ride two bikes or once, or why I am twice as likely to have an accident because I own two bikes. :no:
Aw mate...now you've got me all steamed up just as I was about to go out into the beautiful cloudless day we have here :mad:

MSTRS
30th April 2005, 11:33
ACC is a service for a start. Its what pays you for having an accident.

ACC is a good service if you have a genuine work related accident or one that prevents you from working. :)
Cough, choke, harrumph....er "Bullshit" Not self-employed, are you?

Jantar
30th April 2005, 11:37
Aw mate...now you've got me all steamed up just as I was about to go out into the beautiful cloudless day we have here :mad:

You Bastard idb. Here I am stuck at work looking out the window and thinking how nice it be to take a cruise on the bike, and you're about to do it. :niceone:

idb
30th April 2005, 11:41
You Bastard idb. Here I am stuck at work looking out the window and thinking how nice it be to take a cruise on the bike, and you're about to do it. :niceone:
Not biking today Jantar - it's the opening day of the Autumn Festival :niceone:

Storm
30th April 2005, 12:08
You Bastard idb. Here I am stuck at work looking out the window and thinking how nice it be to take a cruise on the bike, and you're about to do it. :niceone:
Then again, you are spending work time surfing the net :devil2: :D

Wolf
30th April 2005, 12:45
ACC levy for cars is cheaper because there are more of them and they use more fuel (which is taxed, part of which goes to ACC). ACC upped the levy on bikes to around twice that on cars because they were not gettting as much money out of us as they were from cars.

They are an insurance company - and an inferior one at that. They do not have to compete with other insurers because the govt has passed laws forcing us to pay them. Only once did they get told to partially compete with other insurers but that would have meant improving their service so they got all whiney-arsed and the govt reinstated their monopolistic protection.

I would happily pay a compulsory insurance (which is what ACC is) if I had the freedom of choice as to which company I paid. Because I do not have the choice and have had nothing but bad dealings with ACC, I am not happy.

If the government opened vehicle accident insurance up to the market in general, I would be one of the first finding another insurance company.

If ACC had to compete with the other comapnies, they (ACC) would be out of business within three months.

The ACC levy is a major bone of contention - the amount, the fact you pay it for every vehicle you own (and more from your income tax and more from fuel/road taxes and your employer pays some) and the fact that they will do everything they can to weasel out of paying anything if you have an accident - the govt set it so that we are requred to pay ACC but ACC is under no obligation to pay us.

We have no signed contract with these people and no recourse when they unilaterally decide to up their rates - it's not like we can change insurers if we feel they're not worth the premiums.

Sorry, my leftish libertarian (especially libertarian) views are coming to the fore. I'm politically disinclined to be forced by the government to pay for shit service over which I have no choice (Democracy? Yeah right - reaaaalllllly "democratic" when all political parties support the status quo.)

I would vote for any party that could prove they were going to totally abolish all state funding of ACC and replace it with laws requiring that we all get an equivalent level of insurance cover.

I bet we'd all find cheaper insurance and better service (as every Insurance company plying trade in NZ tries to undercut each other for our custom) and I'd bet the only company requesting "separate insurance for separate vehicles" would be ACC - everyone else would be insisting on separate insurance per licenced driver/rider.

XTC
30th April 2005, 13:11
I would vote for any party that could prove they were going to totally abolish all state funding of ACC and replace it with laws requiring that we all get an equivalent level of insurance cover.

I bet we'd all find cheaper insurance and better service (as every Insurance company plying trade in NZ tries to undercut each other for our custom) and I'd bet the only company requesting "separate insurance for separate vehicles" would be ACC - everyone else would be insisting on separate insurance per licenced driver/rider.

And motorcycle accident insurance would still be more than car accident insurance as we're more likely to sustain serious injury in a crash... And ACC have to insure you no matter how many accidents you have where as a private company would put your premiums up or eventually refuse to insure you if you were a serial crasher.....
I say Acc is still the best option

MSTRS
30th April 2005, 13:17
And motorcycle accident insurance would still be more than car accident insurance as we're more likely to sustain serious injury in a crash... And ACC have to insure you no matter how many accidents you have where as a private company would put your premiums up or eventually refuse to insure you if you were a serial crasher.....
I say Acc is still the best option
I don't see a No-Claims Bonus from ACC anytime soon.

Jeremy
30th April 2005, 13:35
ACC is a service for a start. Its what pays you for having an accident.

ACC is a good service if you have a genuine work related accident or one that prevents you from working. Think of the levy you pay as compulsorary insurance.

Having seen kiwi drivers, I think they need every bit of aid they can get :)


I'd argue that it's not a service though because you can't refuse it. And since it's not goods and it's not a service then you can't legally charge GST on it.

Wolf
30th April 2005, 15:55
I'd argue that it's not a service though because you can't refuse it. And since it's not goods and it's not a service then you can't legally charge GST on it.
If the governemet cal "legally" force you to have comply with an insurance scheme over which you have no choice, with whom you have not signed anything remotely like a legal contract, and arbitrarily set how much funding (through levies and other forms of taxation) then I suppose they can "legally" charge GST on it as well - they are the government and make the laws so anything they do is (by definition) "legal" even if it would mean a prison term or major fines for any company or individual that tried the same thing. The government cannot "break the law" even when it is doing so. That's also how they can get away with motorcades that exceed the speed limit - they are "exempt" from the laws they inflict upon us.

Clockwork
30th April 2005, 16:20
Compulsory insurance never seemed that cheap in the UK and you could still get hit by an uninsured driver. What then?

Wolf
30th April 2005, 16:44
And motorcycle accident insurance would still be more than car accident insurance as we're more likely to sustain serious injury in a crash...
And if you've been accident-free as long as I have, you would find your premiums dropping dramatically. I guarantee that my premiums would be lower than your average newly ensured 25-year old (an age often deemed "mature and safe" by insurers - except for ACC who gouge you irrespective of age, lack of accidents or how many vehicles you can drive/ride at once.)

And ACC have to insure you no matter how many accidents you have where as a private company would put your premiums up or eventually refuse to insure you if you were a serial crasher.....
I say Acc is still the best option
Hmmmm, can't get insurance if you've had too many accidents.... That sounds like you've posted it on the wrong thread - there was another around here somewhere about "how can we ensure people don't drive like fuckwits?" :msn-wink:
Seriously, I think that the knowledge that careless driving would have such consequences might go a long way towards making our roads safer. I suspect that is the case in other countries where they do have compulsory insurance. Any proof either way on this? Are these countries that have lower road deaths per capita also ones that have a free market and compulsory insurance?

Insurance companies probably would not turn you away if they knew that you had to have insurance to drive/ride - they'd probably just increase the premium. If said premium is too high, guess who's not going to be driving... until they turn 25 or whatever other criteria might qualify them for a lower premium.

If someone else caused the accident you are in, do you lose "no claims" bonuses or have premiums go up? Surely, if the accident were due to the actions of another, their insurance policy would be the one covering the medical bills - theirs would be the one losing bonuses and gaining penalties.

Great argument, XTC, but I disagree - I would much prefer a system whereby fuckwits could possibly find it difficult to get insurance (and might possibly be kept off the road) and where safe drivers/riders are rewarded.

I could also see it becoming packaged - "medical/death, third party, theft and fire and contents insurance" - you're covered for injury/death, your bike is covered for theft and fire, your helmet and leathers are covered and so is anyone you hit - all under one handy policy and one handy premium which costs less than paying for separate policies.

Also - do you realise how much money you would have in your hand to pay for insurance if ACC's greedy little paws were slapped away? Less income tax, cheaper petrol and cheaper yearly registration. And self employed people and companies would be even better off because they could pour the money they pay ACC for their employees into the company.

The only disadvantage I see is that forcing ACC to compete would suddenly cause all the dole queues to be flooded by a lot of ex-ACC staff with no employability at all - they would no longer be needed by ACC and they would be no use to anyone who has to compete for business... :devil2:

Wolf
30th April 2005, 16:57
Compulsory insurance never seemed that cheap in the UK and you could still get hit by an uninsured driver. What then?
I don't know. What happens there if insurance is compulsory and the person is driving around without it? What happens in the UK if the person who hits you is in breach of the law in that respect? Surely that eventuality is covered.

Do they not get their arses kicked and forced to comply? Would not your insurer cover in the interim and take it out of the culpable person's insurer when they get one (at ruinous cost) or directly out of the culpable person?

There would obviously have to be things written into the law to cover what happens if you get clobbered by someone breaking the law.

Also, bicyclists would have to pay insurance too - so when they plough into your door at full-tit they are covered. They should also have third party insurance to cover the damage to your car's door...

Ixion
30th April 2005, 17:03
..
Also, bicyclists would have to pay insurance too - so when they plough into your door at full-tit they are covered. They should also have third party insurance to cover the damage to your car's door...

Pedestrians ? Skateboarders ? Horses ? Low flying chaffinches ?

Wolf
30th April 2005, 17:23
Pedestrians ? Skateboarders ? Horses ? Low flying chaffinches ?
They're all valid targets (except horses which are kinda like old-tech motorbikes).

RDJ
30th April 2005, 19:57
I don't know. What happens there if insurance is compulsory and the person is driving around without it? What happens in the UK if the person who hits you is in breach of the law in that respect? Surely that eventuality is covered.

Do they not get their arses kicked and forced to comply? Would not your insurer cover in the interim and take it out of the culpable person's insurer when they get one (at ruinous cost) or directly out of the culpable person?


Have lived, worked, ridden in such jurisdictions. What happens is the uninsured driver is fined (money goes to court) and you have to pick up your own expenses, and sue him/her for redress. He/she then either pays up, but only if you win and he/she has assets, or declares bankrupticy if your costs are high enough.

BTW the culpable person cannot get insurance after the fact i.e. if they hit you while uninsured.

Be careful what you wish for, you may get it :-)

Wolf
30th April 2005, 21:53
The govt still collects the money from our registration etc but we get to choose which insurance company covers us and gets the boodle. A government body could be created to ensure that everyone is insured with a recognised company and that the policy meets certain criteria and that any reductions/increases in premiums are passed on to the appropriate policy holders while the loot gets passed on to the appropriate insurer.

As few people would be staying with ACC once there are better alternatives available, the staff that ACC will no longer need can be employed by the aforemention govt body - as they would only be cross-checking records, they should be able to manage it (with a few months of intensive training :devil2: )

Clockwork
1st May 2005, 07:46
Now I think of it, in the UK your medical costs are met by the NHS (except for ambulances which are free to everyone except road accident victims, I believe). If you have full-comp insurance then your ride will get fixed and the insurance co will have to chase up said miscreant but if you're third party only, tough titties.

BUT "theoretiaclly" the ACC shouldn't be trying to take a profit margin for sharholders therefore they should always be able to out perform a private company. Private insurers would almost certainly be overseas owned and that means the profits would be leaving the country. At least this way the money stays entirely in NZ.

I agree, ACC could/should follow a more industry standard model, but over all I'd rather have it than compulsory private insurance.

inlinefour
1st May 2005, 09:43
Its to pay for all the dumbarses in cars who create accidents in cages. Statistically it would be interesting to find out what the proportion of motorcycle accidents are that are created by brainfarts in cages. Compared to wipeouts of bikes alone. The only bad accident I've had is being knocked from my bike by a total cow who does not drive responsibly, i.e. look at where the feck she is going first. Hence the rego fee goes towards all those people out there who have been given the right to drive on the roads, but probably should not...