If Labour wins the election I'll have to pay my ACC levy

[davereid]

the best thing about the Nats putting my licence fee through the roof is that Im saving about $2500 a year by not paying it. I'm already halfway to buying my next bike, just with the savings.

But Labour have a cunning plan to make me pay.

http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/election-2011/90085/labour-proposes-flat-rate-levy-for-occupational-diseases

[huff3r]

the best thing about the Nats putting my licence fee through the roof is that Im saving about $2500 a year by not paying it. I'm already halfway to buying my next bike, just with the savings.

But Labour have a cunning plan to make me pay.

http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/election-2011/90085/labour-proposes-flat-rate-levy-for-occupational-diseases

But everyone else will be paying theirs too, no longer discriminating against motorcycles... (especially as they tend to use less petrol than the average cage!)

[Renegade]

ACC went to the pack while it was under labours control

[Indiana_Jones]

On petrol isn't really fair, a Jag is gonna be paying a shit load more ACC then a guy on a scooter.

Should be done on kms, like diesel tax

-Indy

[MIXONE]

On petrol isn't really fair, a Jag is gonna be paying a shit load more ACC then a guy on a scooter.

Should be done on kms, like diesel tax

-Indy

No fucking way.If you can afford to drive a jag then you can pay the extra.

[DR650gary]

No fucking way.If you can afford to drive a jag then you can pay the extra.

Why don't you aspire to join those who have money rather than expect them to subsidize you.

[Jantar]

This is the ONLY Liabore policy that may make me change my mind and give them a vote. To ensure a vote change from me they would somehow have to convince me that they won't also increase tax, further destroy the armed services, or form any sort of relationship with the Greens.

[MIXONE]

Why don't you aspire to join those who have money rather than expect them to subsidize you.

Don't second guess yourself mate.I already own a gas guzzler which remains parked up most of the week while I ride my much more economical motorcycle with it's huge ACC component.

[Bad Biker]

I agree with others that the ACC levies on motorcycle registration is a lot higher than other users which targets our back pockets more that car users.

I see there are a number of complaints about the ACC levies but no one seem to complain about the money that is spent by ACC for surgery, medical treatment or weekly compensation when they need it following an accident.

As expected ACC would have to pay less money for someone with a broken leg or arm then they will for a person that needs to spend the rest of their life in a wheel chair which could run into millions per person over a life time.

I believe that the fairest way of attributing an ACC levy on road users is a set rate on the registration for all private motor vehicles regardless of type when you consider there are more cars on the roads than motorcycles therefore there are more injury related accidents involving cars.

Maybe there should also be an additional levy for commercial vehicles as when they have an accident they are also funded out of the same motor vehicle account and not the employer account as mum and dad drivers/riders and spend more time on the roads than the private vehicle user.

This way all vehicle owners would pay the same as we are all at the same risk per number of users as each other.

Just a thought

[curly]

IF they win they will LOOK into it

[RDJ]

Why don't you aspire to join those who have money rather than expect them to subsidize you.

This. Exactly.

[rainman]

Why don't you aspire to join those who have money rather than expect them to subsidize you.

Because money isn't a good measure of success?
I want a lot of things for NZ. Only some of them involve money. None anywhere near the top of my list involve money for me.

[Maha]

:yawn:.....:sleep:

[Indiana_Jones]

No fucking way.If you can afford to drive a jag then you can pay the extra.

That argument is just about as fair as nick 'I'm a cunt face' smith saying Bikes over 600cc should pay more, as people who own them earn more.....yeah.....right

Or how about that bloke down the road who owns the Bently, she should pay more for his gas....rich prick.

-Indy

[98tls]

:killingme:killingme:killingme Labour winning the next election:rolleyes::killingme Dont bother with the worry they havent a chance in hell.If Labour actually gave an iota for this country they would save us all some money and give it away Monday.Whilst on the subject be sure to tick "fuck off activists and tree huggers".

[MIXONE]

That argument is just about as fair as nick 'I'm a cunt face' smith saying Bikes over 600cc should pay more, as people who own them earn more.....yeah.....right

Or how about that bloke down the road who owns the Bently, she should pay more for his gas....rich prick.

-Indy

I really don't give a fuck as long as I pay less on my bike rego,

[kiwi cowboy]

I agree with others that the ACC levies on motorcycle registration is a lot higher than other users which targets our back pockets more that car users.

I see there are a number of complaints about the ACC levies but no one seem to complain about the money that is spent by ACC for surgery, medical treatment or weekly compensation when they need it following an accident.

As expected ACC would have to pay less money for someone with a broken leg or arm then they will for a person that needs to spend the rest of their life in a wheel chair which could run into millions per person over a life time.

I believe that the fairest way of attributing an ACC levy on road users is a set rate on the registration for all private motor vehicles regardless of type when you consider there are more cars on the roads than motorcycles therefore there are more injury related accidents involving cars.

Maybe there should also be an additional levy for commercial vehicles as when they have an accident they are also funded out of the same motor vehicle account and not the employer account as mum and dad drivers/riders and spend more time on the roads than the private vehicle user.

This way all vehicle owners would pay the same as we are all at the same risk per number of users as each other.

Just a thought

Thats fine but the bug bear has been that if you own 2 vechiles you pay 2 lots of acc but only use 1 at a time and also the tax on fuel is making it more of a - the more km's on the road you do the higher the risk for an accident the more fuel you use to even the risk out.
A tax on fuel would also go towards alot of non work related accident rehabilitation as most hobbies use fuel in some form I:E motorcycle raceing uses fuel,mowing lawns uses fuel,ski bunnies use fuel to get to fields,horsie people use fuel getting horse around etc etc.

[FJRider]

Thats fine but the bug bear has been that if you own 2 vechiles you pay 2 lots of acc but only use 1 at a time ...

That may be the case in single person households ... and most familys have more than one vehicle, and more than one DRIVER/RIDER ... (son,daughter, wife, mother/father, friend ... etc)

[kiwi cowboy]

That may be the case in single person households ... and most familys have more than one vehicle, and more than one DRIVER/RIDER ... (son,daughter, wife, mother/father, friend ... etc)

AND some people have multiple vechicles, motorbikes but son,daughter,mother/father,freind doesnt use them but said people only ride them one at a time.

[Indiana_Jones]

The idea of the ACC on a single vehicle, is that it covers everyone who may use it.

Now sure you may use it 99% of the time, but down the line someone else will use it for some reason or another.

A better system would be some sort of base rate a person pays to cover their vehicle usage. But that'd be too complex so they just cover the vehicle.

-Indy

[HenryDorsetCase]

I agree with others that the ACC levies on motorcycle registration is a lot higher than other users which targets our back pockets more that car users.

I see there are a number of complaints about the ACC levies but no one seem to complain about the money that is spent by ACC for surgery, medical treatment or weekly compensation when they need it following an accident.

As expected ACC would have to pay less money for someone with a broken leg or arm then they will for a person that needs to spend the rest of their life in a wheel chair which could run into millions per person over a life time.

I believe that the fairest way of attributing an ACC levy on road users is a set rate on the registration for all private motor vehicles regardless of type when you consider there are more cars on the roads than motorcycles therefore there are more injury related accidents involving cars.

Maybe there should also be an additional levy for commercial vehicles as when they have an accident they are also funded out of the same motor vehicle account and not the employer account as mum and dad drivers/riders and spend more time on the roads than the private vehicle user.

This way all vehicle owners would pay the same as we are all at the same risk per number of users as each other.

Just a thought

I kind of agree with you: the part about aggregating risk to all road users, not segregating certain road users and making them pay more on the basis of increased cost. However, your proposal does ignore one factor which I suggest is this: risk increases as a result of time and density of travel. so the more k's you do. the more risk you run.. also the more traffic there is. the more likely you are to be involved in a wreck. My solution is simply to remove the acc component from registration, and add it to petrol/fuel. the more you use. the more you pay. The mechanism is already there (petrol tax, GST) to collect and monitor it. and I believe it firmly equates risk with cost. which, IMO the present situation does not.

[Jantar]

The idea of the ACC on a single vehicle, is that it covers everyone who may use it.

Now sure you may use it 99% of the time, but down the line someone else will use it for some reason or another....

ACC on fuel would also cover everyone who may use the vehicle. Unless ACC know of a way that the vehicle can be used without fuel.

Even electric vehicles use fuel (think about it).

[Robert Taylor]

On petrol isn't really fair, a Jag is gonna be paying a shit load more ACC then a guy on a scooter.

Should be done on kms, like diesel tax

-Indy

But it also seems that far too many people that ride scooters have woefully inadequate clothing which means they very much go through the mincer when they fall off. Thats a very real burden on ACC.
Ive said it before, small businesses have far more reason to complain about ACC levies, but we still put up with it and pay.

[jellywrestler]

But it also seems that far too many people that ride scooters have woefully inadequate clothing which means they very much go through the mincer when they fall off. Thats a very real burden on ACC.


But it also seems that far too many people that ride bicycles have woefully inadequate clothing which means they very much go through the mincer when they fall off. Thats a very real burden on ACC.

[riffer]

But it also seems that far too many people that ride scooters have woefully inadequate clothing which means they very much go through the mincer when they fall off. Thats a very real burden on ACC.
Ive said it before, small businesses have far more reason to complain about ACC levies, but we still put up with it and pay.S

So, Robert - have you asked your business-friendly government representative how he will assist your business with lowering its ACC cost?

[Taz]

All my injuries requiring a payout from my insurer (acc) have been from offroad riding. At the moment I'm getting excellent cover for very little cost, mainly my earners levy which is about @2k a year but is that fair?

[Indiana_Jones]

But it also seems that far too many people that ride bicycles have woefully inadequate clothing which means they very much go through the mincer when they fall off. Thats a very real burden on ACC.

+1

All new bicycles should have odometers and ACC paid per 1000km! lol

-Indy

[Devy]

+1

All new bicycles should have odometers and ACC paid per 1000km! lol

-Indy

i agree!. bicycles use our roads as much as motorcycles do and the fact that they get ACC cover without paying for it kinda pisses me off :)

[Banditbandit]

On petrol isn't really fair, a Jag is gonna be paying a shit load more ACC then a guy on a scooter.

Should be done on kms, like diesel tax

-Indy

True .. but the cost to ACC of car accidents per accident outweighs the cost of bike accidents per bike accident ...

[SPman]

ACC went to the pack while it was under labours controlBullshit!......

[HenryDorsetCase]

true .. But the cost to acc of car accidents per accident outweighs the cost of bike accidents per bike accident ...

o rly??????????

[BoristheBiter]

The only way to do it is just charge each person.
Everything will be cheaper and you have a one off yearly charge like rates.
Everything will be linked to your nhs number.

[MSTRS]

....
Everything will be linked to your nhs number.

Is that the number we will all have tattooed on our inner lip...

[BoristheBiter]

Is that the number we will all have tattooed on our inner lip...

No, The microchip in the wrist.

[davereid]

http://www.dol.govt.nz/initiatives/workplace/acc/levies/experience-rating.pdf

Nick has lots of ideas, like introducing compulsory third party insurance, and reducing the amount paid via fuel, moving the majority of the load to a lump sum payment.

[Indiana_Jones]

True .. but the cost to ACC of car accidents per accident outweighs the cost of bike accidents per bike accident ...

Hence you can apply a different rate for different vehicles with a km system. On a petrol system you couldn't.

-Indy

[MSTRS]

Hence you can apply a different rate for different vehicles with a km system. On a petrol system you couldn't.

-Indy

But that, right there, is the problem 'we' have with what has been going on with ACC...
From the word go, it was NEVER intended to have differential levies. Everyone was covered equally and everyone contributed equally. No swings. No slides. Just a merry-go-round.

[BoristheBiter]

But that, right there, is the problem 'we' have with what has been going on with ACC...
From the word go, it was NEVER intended to have differential levies. Everyone was covered equally and everyone contributed equally. No swings. No slides. Just a merry-go-round.

So again everyone gets a one off bill every year. can't be fairer than that.

[Indiana_Jones]

But that, right there, is the problem 'we' have with what has been going on with ACC...
From the word go, it was NEVER intended to have differential levies. Everyone was covered equally and everyone contributed equally. No swings. No slides. Just a merry-go-round.

I agree. But if they insist on different rates for different things, then do it properly. Have a no claim bonus, have better rates for more experienced people etc.

Na fuck that, just rape the bikers some more ;)

As MIXONE said, fuck it, as long as it's cheaper to licence my car.....

-Indy

[The Pastor]

putting on petrol is a good idea, encourages the use of fuel efficient vehicles and public transport.

[Indiana_Jones]

See you on the bus tonight RM!

This government/country has no interest in any other form of transport apart from cars it seems.

-Indy

[oldrider]

ACC went to the pack while it was under labours control

ACC went to the pack because it is a State owned monopoly controlled by "politicians" and is used as a political football .... period! :angry2:

ACC Woodhouse version was world class! ..... The politicians of all types, simply fucked it up to suit their own political ends! :mad:

Solution: Go back to Woodhouse or go private and introduce competition! :yes:

National (Nick Smith) tried to lie their way toward the solution of going private and/or introducing competition and user choice! :crazy:

Left leaning politicians will never return to Woodhouse ACC principals so I would prefer Nationals solution if it wasn't for Nick Smith! :motu: Fuck him!

You just can't get clearly identifiable politicians these days even the so called right wing are left leaning! :brick:

Spose they have to be to please a predominately socialist electorate! :facepalm:

[dmc]

So again everyone gets a one off bill every year. can't be fairer than that.

If you own a bike paying ACC in your fuel is the best option as the amount you pay on ACC for 1 +600cc bike will still be more than a years worth of fuel with an extra 10c a litre for ACC, on 50lt's a week for a year its $260 more in my books they way better than the levy I pay on my bike even if I don't ride it.

And the upside I can have more than one bike in the garage and not get punished.

Since its meant to be no fault insurance as people mention having a fee thats on the usage is way better and fairer in my books.

[BoristheBiter]

If you own a bike paying ACC in your fuel is the best option as the amount you pay on ACC for 1 +600cc bike will still be more than a years worth of fuel with an extra 10c a litre for ACC, on 50lt's a week for a year its $260 more in my books they way better than the levy I pay on my bike even if I don't ride it.

And the upside I can have more than one bike in the garage and not get punished.

Since its meant to be no fault insurance as people mention having a fee thats on the usage is way better and fairer in my books.

And what about the non acc paying sports, off road, cycling etc? who covers them?
My biggest claim came from running, no acc on that.

But if you want the price of fuel to go up to $10 a liter that's your call, but don't think for one minute it will be cheaper to run a vehicle.

So if you want a no fault system you bill everyone the same. then it will be cheaper to run a car or bike, petrol is cheaper and you will get more take home pay.

[steve_t]

And what about the non acc paying sports, off road, cycling etc? who covers them?
My biggest claim came from running, no acc on that.

I doubt they'll remove the Earner's Premium ACC Levy on our incomes

[BoristheBiter]

I doubt they'll remove the Earner's Premium ACC Levy on our incomes

I doubt if they would remove any, just charge us more.

[98tls]

:yawn:Cry me a fucking river with this ACC shit,things could be worse eh,there could be no bikes no anything bar a goat and desert,what to do eat it or shag it?if regos that big a deal sell the bike or sell the mrs,either way do something eh.

[JimO]

if Labour gets in you will have bigger things to worry about

[merv]

Similar to a few that have commented above I've always been into the idea of individual accident insurance and the premium should be based on your track record and lowered by no claim bonuses just like other insurances. No matter how many vehicles me and my wife own or use why the hell should we be paying ACC premiums on them all. Its the nut behind the wheel or the handlebars that influences the risk and less so the vehicle itself.


So insure the person that's what I say, but funny, no party seems to have that as part of its manifesto.

[MSTRS]

And what about the non acc paying sports, off road, cycling etc? who covers them?
My biggest claim came from running, no acc on that.

But if you want the price of fuel to go up to $10 a liter that's your call, but don't think for one minute it will be cheaper to run a vehicle.

So if you want a no fault system you bill everyone the same. then it will be cheaper to run a car or bike, petrol is cheaper and you will get more take home pay.

Try to keep up...
ACC levies are paid in, and for, 4 areas. Work accidents (Employer levy). Leisure accidents (Earner levy). Motoring accidents (Vehicle rego/levy). Non-earner accidents (General taxation - for un-employed and children).

For the purposes of this thread (and presumeably, every other thread about levies) we are concerned about the Vehicle levy, as covered through regos. If that levy was removed from regos and shifted to fuel, the amount required to replace rego-based would be in the nature of $0.10/litre. As there is already $0.099/litre at the pump, this collection method would be super easy to implement by simply changing the collected figure to (say) $0.20/litre. The bonus would be that all off-roaders and boaties would then be contributing too. Where do you get $10/litre from? The downside comes in the form of electric vehicles....

Are you suggesting that every man, woman and child in NZ is sent an invoice by ACC once a year to cover any/every form of accident?

As for your running injuries...You, and we, paid for those as an earner. Or we paid for your un-employed arse...

[ducatilover]

http://www.dol.govt.nz/initiatives/workplace/acc/levies/experience-rating.pdf

Nick has lots of ideas, like introducing compulsory third party insurance, and reducing the amount paid via fuel, moving the majority of the load to a lump sum payment.

What's a spirit levy?

[Banditbandit]

True .. but the cost to ACC of car accidents per accident outweighs the cost of bike accidents per bike accident ...


o rly??????????

I'd have to go back to the information I used for a submission about the levy increases .. and I don't have it so I'll need a bit of time to recreate it ... But it was sometyhing like this ..

A motorcycle accident on average costs ACC around an average of $19,000 per person involved ...

A car accident costs around and average $21,000 per person involved ...

It's not hard to work out that two people on a bike that crashes will cost an average of $38,000 total. And that's the highest the average will be.

Two people in a car that crashes = $42,000, three people = $63,000 and four people in a car $84,000.

(Note that this is about averages, not about the high costs of some accidnets v the low costs of others ...)

[BoristheBiter]

Try to keep up...
ACC levies are paid in, and for, 4 areas. Work accidents (Employer levy). Leisure accidents (Earner levy). Motoring accidents (Vehicle rego/levy). Non-earner accidents (General taxation - for un-employed and children).

For the purposes of this thread (and presumeably, every other thread about levies) we are concerned about the Vehicle levy, as covered through regos. If that levy was removed from regos and shifted to fuel, the amount required to replace rego-based would be in the nature of $0.10/litre. As there is already $0.099/litre at the pump, this collection method would be super easy to implement by simply changing the collected figure to (say) $0.20/litre. The bonus would be that all off-roaders and boaties would then be contributing too. Where do you get $10/litre from? The downside comes in the form of electric vehicles....

Are you suggesting that every man, woman and child in NZ is sent an invoice by ACC once a year to cover any/every form of accident?

As for your running injuries...You, and we, paid for those as an earner. Or we paid for your un-employed arse...

Fuck you are a patronizing wanker.

[MSTRS]

Fuck you are a patronizing wanker.

Why, thank you. Simplistic, short-on-facts, drivel, earned today's lesson. :bleh:

[davereid]

Are you suggesting that every man, woman and child in NZ is sent an invoice by ACC once a year to cover any/every form of accident?


I was interested in determining a few things from A.C.C.. In particular i asked them for information around how much it cost to administer the continuous vehicle licensing regime, as I thought high levies would be resulting in quite a high number of people putting vehicles on-and-off hiold, and that this would actually be quite an expensive exercise.

I also asked for information on how much ACC actually collect in levies as opposed to how much they would collect if they were all paid.

ACC refused my OIA request, basically saying they simply didn't know.

Other than the fact its management 101 to know the cost of your invoicing, and your actual collection rate, and that ACC didnt even know this, I wasn't surprised at the outcome.

I have long suspected that ACC want to head in a few directions, and some of it is hinted at by that document I published earlier in the thread. Other than the fact that the Minister says he is supportive of an increase in motor spirit (fuel) levies on one page and then writes it off a few pages later, I got the following feeling from the document.

(1) If ACC Levies are collected on fuel, while it simple and effective, its difficult to see how the account can be opened up to private competition. So the continued reliance on a vehicle based levy signals an interest in opening the motor vehicle account to competition, indeed those exact words are used in the document.

(2) The first step in this would be for ACC to invoice you directly. So you would have to show you had purchased your insurance before you could get a vehicle licensed. (Possibly done electronically like a WOF).

(3) Then the account could be opened up. You could go to Tower or State or your own provider in competition to A.C.C.


However, even though you could purchase insurance in this manner, its likely that it would not result in good drivers or riders getting lower premiums. And of course this would require linking of drivers to vehicles which is also unlikely.

Remember ACC legislation prohibits consideration of liability. It only allows consideration of the account cost.

So even if you could demonstrate that you were very unlikely to be liable for an accident as you are a skilled driver, you would gain no benefit.

However, if the insurer could demonstrate that you had a vehicle that was more safe than another vehicle then you may be able to get a discount.

So that 5 star crash rated Mercedes or Volvo, even if badly driven, would be cheaper to insure than a 0 star motorcycle driven by someone with a perfect record.


My Bet ?

You will get an invoice from ACC Directly in the future, and it will be cheaper for 5 star vehicles than 0 star ones. Its the only thing that fits all the scenarios in that document.

[BoristheBiter]

Why, thank you. Simplistic, short-on-facts, drivel, earned today's lesson. :bleh:

Don't you mean learned, and no I have always known you are a patronizing wanker.

[MSTRS]

Don't you mean learned, and no I have always known you are a patronizing wanker.

Nope, and you don't know me at all, my learn-ed friend. Any more than I know you are a mentally-challenged fuckwit.
[ENDS]

[Newbi]

Personally I'd just like to see a country that holds politicians accountable for what they say. They should not be allowed to spout a load of shite just to get votes and then do none of the things they promised. If you believe anything they tell you, then more fool you I say.:bleh:

[MSTRS]

...
(3) Then the account could be opened up. You could go to Tower or State or your own provider in competition to A.C.C.
...

Has it not always been National govts that have 'tinkered' the most with ACC since it's inception?
I'm guessing that at the most basic level, they hate it's socialistic principles.
ACC's strength has always been that it's universal. Selling off (or opening up to competition) would be, in the long term, a mortal wound. Insurance is under-pinned by the notion of fault, and companies only pay out when liability is admitted or can be proved. Going that way is shaky ground.
I'm worried that we'll all be tied up in court, trying to get compensation from someone who 'opted out'. Welcome to Little America, with it's ambulance-chasers etc. Precisely what ACC was set up to avoid.

[BoristheBiter]

Has it not always been National govts that have 'tinkered' the most with ACC since it's inception?
I'm guessing that at the most basic level, they hate it's socialistic principles.
ACC's strength has always been that it's universal. Selling off (or opening up to competition) would be, in the long term, a mortal wound. Insurance is under-pinned by the notion of fault, and companies only pay out when liability is admitted or can be proved. Going that way is shaky ground.
I'm worried that we'll all be tied up in court, trying to get compensation from someone who 'opted out'. Welcome to Little America, with it's ambulance-chasers etc. Precisely what ACC was set up to avoid.

ACC strength has been its ability to charge everyone more than once.
This was proven when National privatised the work aspect of ACC.
I know for our work, we changed to @work as our provider, ACC suddenly came up with lower premiums that before.

I'm not saying I want it all to be private but there must be a better way of calculating the costs and for some reason a little competition seems to be the easy answer.

[MSTRS]

ACC strength has been its ability to charge everyone more than once.


Only in the Vehicle account. But no-one really grizzled about that until the 2009 levy hikes.
With that spur to reflect, most of us suddenly saw the unfairness of multiple regos in this form of levying. Hence the desire to see something fairer to replace it, and/or better still, something that isn't being wasted when a vehicle is not being used. Something like fuel-based levies.
Privatising the Motor pool (vehicle account) is not a good way to go for obvious reasons.

[BoristheBiter]

Only in the Vehicle account. But no-one really grizzled about that until the 2009 levy hikes.
With that spur to reflect, most of us suddenly saw the unfairness of multiple regos in this form of levying. Hence the desire to see something fairer to replace it, and/or better still, something that isn't being wasted when a vehicle is not being used. Something like fuel-based levies.
Privatising the Motor pool (vehicle account) is not a good way to go for obvious reasons.

I can't see the problem.

We would still be using the same health care provider, only who they send the bill to would change.
Like I said we used @work, cut my hand, went to hospital, got fixed up and never saw a bill, and the rehabilitation was way better than what I have got in the past from ACC
We are not talking medical insurance, we are talking accident insurance, as hospitals are still free.

I can see where there would have to be very strict guidelines enforced, and I can see it could be open to abuse but everything can.

[MSTRS]

We are not talking medical insurance, we are talking accident insurance, as hospitals are still free.



WE are talking about VEHICLE ACCIDENT-related personal 'insurance' - not cutting your hand at work or in the kitchen at home.
Perhaps not a problem if/when JoeSquid falls off his R1 and only hurts himself. What about the poor bugger hurt when SidStupid takes out that pedestrian, drives off and no-one 'got his plate'? Said pedestrian was hurt in a vehicle-related accident, s/he'll be asked for the driver's details for insurance purposes and can't comply. *Cover denied*. Or *Just go to ACC and lie about how you were hurt*.
We have strict guidelines now, and yes there is still some abuse, but at least the system is relatively simple.
Changing things would be like the olde maps stated ... "Here there be Dragons"

[davereid]

WE are talking about VEHICLE ACCIDENT-related personal 'insurance' - not cutting your hand at work or in the kitchen at home.
Perhaps not a problem if/when JoeSquid falls off his R1 and only hurts himself. What about the poor bugger hurt when SidStupid takes out that pedestrian, drives off and no-one 'got his plate'? Said pedestrian was hurt in a vehicle-related accident, s/he'll be asked for the driver's details for insurance purposes and can't comply. *Cover denied*. Or *Just go to ACC and lie about how you were hurt*.
We have strict guidelines now, and yes there is still some abuse, but at least the system is relatively simple.
Changing things would be like the olde maps stated ... "Here there be Dragons"

Exactly.

Even if compulsory third party insurance were introduced, lots of people just wont bother. So if you don't have other cover, you are shagged if the fella that crashes into you isn't covered.

And even if he paid for his insurance like a good boy, he may be drunk, or unlicenced, so his claim will be declined, and yep its back on you.

Of course there is the next fallacy that competition always results in improvement to prices. It CAN do. But it is hard for organisations designed to make a profit to be cheaper to run than those that don't need to make a return.

ACC doesn't need to make a profit. Each private insurer will want to make a profit, pay handsome rewards to its directors and CEO and good returns to its investors.

They may make offers that seem to good to be true for a while. But eventually, they will want to send profits back to USA or China.

[BoristheBiter]

WE are talking about VEHICLE ACCIDENT-related personal 'insurance' - not cutting your hand at work or in the kitchen at home.
Perhaps not a problem if/when JoeSquid falls off his R1 and only hurts himself. What about the poor bugger hurt when SidStupid takes out that pedestrian, drives off and no-one 'got his plate'? Said pedestrian was hurt in a vehicle-related accident, s/he'll be asked for the driver's details for insurance purposes and can't comply. *Cover denied*. Or *Just go to ACC and lie about how you were hurt*.
We have strict guidelines now, and yes there is still some abuse, but at least the system is relatively simple.
Changing things would be like the olde maps stated ... "Here there be Dragons"


I am simply talking about a fairer system for all but I guess you just can't see the big picture as you seem to have a major hang up over private insurance.

I can't see your point with the above, as the pedestrian would have their own insurance. The hospital charges the insurance company and the insurance company is the one that goes looking for sidstupid.

And it is accident medical and rehabilitation insurance, to be more specific, personal injury cover.

[BoristheBiter]

Exactly.

Even if compulsory third party insurance were introduced, lots of people just wont bother. So if you don't have other cover, you are shagged if the fella that crashes into you isn't covered.

And even if he paid for his insurance like a good boy, he may be drunk, or unlicenced, so his claim will be declined, and yep its back on you.

Of course there is the next fallacy that competition always results in improvement to prices. It CAN do. But it is hard for organisations designed to make a profit to be cheaper to run than those that don't need to make a return.

ACC doesn't need to make a profit. Each private insurer will want to make a profit, pay handsome rewards to its directors and CEO and good returns to its investors.

They may make offers that seem to good to be true for a while. But eventually, they will want to send profits back to USA or China.

Where do you guys get these ideas from?
As long as you are insured it will be, as it is now, the insurance company that goes after them not you, so how can you be out of pocket?

[davereid]

Where do you guys get these ideas from?
As long as you are insured it will be, as it is now, the insurance company that goes after them not you, so how can you be out of pocket?

Thats exactly what I said. I made the point that you will be reliant on YOUR insurance.

So you had better purchase wisely.

Would be a bummer if your WOF was expired and you had no cover, even though I crashed into you when I was drunk.

[MSTRS]

I am simply talking about a fairer system for all but I guess you just can't see the big picture as you seem to have a major hang up over private insurance.

I can't see your point with the above, as the pedestrian would have their own insurance. The hospital charges the insurance company and the insurance company is the one that goes looking for sidstupid.

And it is accident medical and rehabilitation insurance, to be more specific, personal injury cover.

Hmmm...
YOU are basically talking about ACC as it was at it's inception. One single fund that everyone paid into (well, taxpayers at least). The only difference being that in your scenario, everyone must pay (including children) and they can choose who to pay it to.
Well - guess what? TPTB soon introduced different funds for different accident types, introduced risk-rating to hit those in 'riskier' professions or vehicle choice, hidden levies and latterly future-funding instead of pay-as-you-go.
How long do you think a profit-driven entity will play 'nice'?

[BoristheBiter]

Hmmm...
YOU are basically talking about ACC as it was at it's inception. One single fund that everyone paid into (well, taxpayers at least). The only difference being that in your scenario, everyone must pay (including children) and they can choose who to pay it to.
Well - guess what? TPTB soon introduced different funds for different accident types, introduced risk-rating to hit those in 'riskier' professions or vehicle choice, hidden levies and latterly future-funding instead of pay-as-you-go.
How long do you think a profit-driven entity will play 'nice'?

I don't know but I would like to think a long time but not so naive to think they will.

If we want to stop risk-rating then we will have to pay, otherwise it will remain the status quo.
Even if they bring in no claims discounts (they won't), we still have areas that are not covered by ACC levies, (why i brought up the running) areas of high risk (climbing, hang-gliding etc) that aren't covered.

[davereid]

If we want to stop risk-rating then we will have to pay, otherwise it will remain the status quo.
Even if they bring in no claims discounts (they won't), we still have areas that are not covered by ACC levies, (why i brought up the running) areas of high risk (climbing, hang-gliding etc) that aren't covered.

Sometimes the law of diminishing returns comes in.

The cost to ACC of collecting its revenue from fuel levies is very very low, and compliance is virtually 100%.

There may be the odd Bogan running an electric vehicle, or his petrol one on methanol that he makes at home, but there is only a few of them in the entire country. Way less than the number of people like me, who simply don't pay. And its not insurmountable that with the smart meters that will soon be everywhere, that a fuel tax is seamlessly applied to those vehicles too.

The cost of running individual accounts, ensuring they are collected, rating users, applying no claim discounts, scrapping over the no claim discount when "you hit me but its my leg in plaster etc etc" all has to added to what you pay in premiums.

Then if you add the requirement to make a 10-20% return on investment....

Every time the Nats get in they try and privatise it... every time labour get in they try and nationalise it.

If Labour are smart they will simply put it all on fuel. You will pay $10 rego. And there is no real mechanisim to privatise it.

Then the nats would really struggle to convince anyone that a $300-$700 licence fee is a good thing.

[bogan]

Sometimes the law of diminishing returns comes in.

The cost to ACC of collecting its revenue from fuel levies is very very low, and compliance is virtually 100%.

There may be the odd Bogan running an electric vehicle, or his petrol one on methanol that he makes at home, but there is only a few of them in the entire country. Way less than the number of people like me, who simply don't pay. And its not insurmountable that with the smart meters that will soon be everywhere, that a fuel tax is seamlessly applied to those vehicles too.

The cost of running individual accounts, ensuring they are collected, rating users, applying no claim discounts, scrapping over the no claim discount when "you hit me but its my leg in plaster etc etc" all has to added to what you pay in premiums.

Then if you add the requirement to make a 10-20% return on investment....

Every time the Nats get in they try and privatise it... every time labour get in they try and nationalise it.

If Labour are smart they will simply put it all on fuel. You will pay $10 rego. And there is no real mechanisim to privatise it.

Then the nats would really struggle to convince anyone that a $300-$700 licence fee is a good thing.

That's it in a nutshell I think. Either you have the socialist scheme and have no profit for buisnesses, with only a minority of people paying more than they would under a privatised system. Or you have a privatised system taking profits, and charging the majority more, creating a few more jobs too no doubt along with other overhead costs, but also clogging up the legal system.
The only way I can see a privatised model being even slightly beneficial to NZ, is if all the companies are NZ based, and profits don't just dissapear across the ditch.

[Spearfish]

What about diesel fuel is that included?, ACC on diesel vans/utes etc is ridiculous.

So how hard is it to make homebrew fuel? lol

[MSTRS]

What about diesel fuel is that included?, ACC on diesel vans/utes etc is ridiculous.

So how hard is it to make homebrew fuel? lol

No taxes at the pump on diesel - atm. But how hard would it be to simply include as is the case with petrol? The screams would start with farmers using diesel powered farm-only vehicles. There would have to be a system for them to claim back road user charges.
Just to illustrate to it is impossible to have a system to keeps everyone happy.

Ask your local chippie...

[oneofsix]

No taxes at the pump on diesel - atm. But how hard would it be to simply include as is the case with petrol? The screams would start with farmers using diesel powered farm-only vehicles. There would have to be a system for them to claim back road user charges.
Just to illustrate to it is impossible to have a system to keeps everyone happy.

Ask your local chippie...

No, They are covered by ACC whilst they are using the diesel powered tractor so they pay the ACC levy via the diesel pump. Just like you now pay road user charges for using your petrol lawn mower, that would be fairer if it was ACC at least there is an ACC risk to mowing the lawns.

[Spearfish]

No taxes at the pump on diesel - atm. But how hard would it be to simply include as is the case with petrol? The screams would start with farmers using diesel powered farm-only vehicles. There would have to be a system for them to claim back road user charges.
Just to illustrate to it is impossible to have a system to keeps everyone happy.



Yeah, it does open a can of worms,
HaHa, :psst: the off road guys will have to pay by default:shutup: and the weed eater ATGATT on those killer bastards .
BOATS...... shyt! the boat drinks fuel!!:gob:

but at least the bike will be a wee cheaper in rego:facepalm:

[bogan]

No, They are covered by ACC whilst they are using the diesel powered tractor so they pay the ACC levy via the diesel pump. Just like you now pay road user charges for using your petrol lawn mower, that would be fairer if it was ACC at least there is an ACC risk to mowing the lawns.

Scale is a bit different, equivalent road user kms for a lawn mowed is probably 5-10, equivalent road user kms for a paddock mowed with a tractor is going to be quite a bit more, and the farmer already pays ACC through the work or earners account. I beleive the system is basically already in place with farm/buisness registered vehicles able to claim GST back from fuel (I think, correct me if I'm wrong), so why not extend it to any type of buisness vehicle being exempt from a fuel ACC charge as they already pay through the work accounts?

edit, or is it devaluation that gets claimed back? I can't remember, but I know my parents have to do so many buisness related kms on their 'farm' BMW each year.

[BoristheBiter]

Scale is a bit different, equivalent road user kms for a lawn mowed is probably 5-10, equivalent road user kms for a paddock mowed with a tractor is going to be quite a bit more, and the farmer already pays ACC through the work or earners account. I beleive the system is basically already in place with farm/buisness registered vehicles able to claim GST back from fuel (I think, correct me if I'm wrong), so why not extend it to any type of buisness vehicle being exempt from a fuel ACC charge as they already pay through the work accounts?

edit, or is it devaluation that gets claimed back? I can't remember, but I know my parents have to do so many buisness related kms on their 'farm' BMW each year.

Cool so i will rego all my vehicles in the company and pay no ACC.
Actually i will only by petrol with my gas card for all other things (lawnmower, weed-eater, dirt bikes etc) and claim all that back as well.

[MSTRS]

Cool so i will rego all my vehicles in the company and pay no ACC.
Actually i will only by petrol with my gas card for all other things (lawnmower, weed-eater, dirt bikes etc) and claim all that back as well.

This country was built on loopholes...

In actual fact though, business owners pay ACC on their profit AND on any vehicle they operate, just like private users do. Farm-only vehicles still need to be registered BUT there is no ACC component for them.

[bogan]

Cool so i will rego all my vehicles in the company and pay no ACC.
Actually i will only by petrol with my gas card for all other things (lawnmower, weed-eater, dirt bikes etc) and claim all that back as well.

Like you do now to claim GST and/or devaluation back right? The money would be about the same as either of those thing, so surely the motivation to milk the system is similar too?

[BoristheBiter]

This country was built on loopholes...

In actual fact though, business owners pay ACC on their profit AND on any vehicle they operate, just like private users do. Farm-only vehicles still need to be registered BUT there is no ACC component for them.

Hasn't it just.
ACC is based on the wages account not on profit.


Like you do now to claim GST and/or devaluation back right? The money would be about the same as either of those thing, so surely the motivation to milk the system is similar too?

yep, spot on. if the company owns it, all associated costs are deductible.

Depreciation can be claimed back but most is pretty negligible.

[Swoop]

BOATS...... shyt! the boat drinks fuel!!:gob:

Correct. Why should fuel include "road costs" when it is being used in a boat? The car that tows the boat needs to pay the road tax, but not the flippin' boat.

[bogan]

Even better then, do away will all ACC collection fees, and just pull whatever is required from tax. Give a bit less to all the beneficiaries who don't pay ACC anymore to compensate. Be a bit of other cost redistribution, but if that distribtion is good enough for tax, should be good enough for ACC.

[MSTRS]

ACC is based on the wages account not on profit.

Ah - I neglected that distinction. A business owner might be a sole trader (like me) and I pay the stated levy per $100 on my profit. It matters not what I take in drawings/whatever.

Correct. Why should fuel include "road costs" when it is being used in a boat? The car that tows the boat needs to pay the road tax, but not the flippin' boat.
That is how it ued to be waaaay back. A boat owner could reclaim the road user tax part from the fuel he purchased for his boat. So of course, everyone then trundled down to the gassy with their boat tanks, got the rebate, and once home poured the fuel into their cars. Besides, a trailer being towed still has an effect on the road surface, so the rebate system was dropped.

Even better then, do away will all ACC collection fees, and just pull whatever is required from tax. Give a bit less to all the beneficiaries who don't pay ACC anymore to compensate. Be a bit of other cost redistribution, but if that distribtion is good enough for tax, should be good enough for ACC.
What? Noooooooooo....
Go back to how ACC was designed and set up?
It'd never fly.

[Banditbandit]

Correct. Why should fuel include "road costs" when it is being used in a boat? The car that tows the boat needs to pay the road tax, but not the flippin' boat.


True - but if we are talking taxes to fund ACC that seems fairer ... boaties have accidents too .. and claim acc for boat-related accidents .. but current only pay ACC through earner levies ...



No taxes at the pump on diesel - atm. But how hard would it be to simply include as is the case with petrol? The screams would start with farmers using diesel powered farm-only vehicles. There would have to be a system for them to claim back road user charges.
Just to illustrate to it is impossible to have a system to keeps everyone happy.

Ask your local chippie...

There's a system now .. I used to keep a log book for on-road/off-road work for my farm ute ... but if we are talking ACC then I was possibly more likely tro have an injury accident off road than on road .... so why make the distinction?

[BoristheBiter]

Ah - I neglected that distinction. A business owner might be a sole trader (like me) and I pay the stated levy per $100 on my profit. It matters not what I take in drawings/whatever.
.

we used to be like that (old man was sole trader) changed to company, way better, also protects your personal assets, also less tax.

[steve_t]

we used to be like that (old man was sole trader) changed to company, way better, also protects your personal assets, also less tax.

Companies don't really provide asset protection at all. Even Trusts are being contested these days