More ACC levies on registrations [Archive]

Skyryder

24th December 2008, 11:30

The whole ACC deficit is nothing but a PR job. The projected deficit and that is what this is a projected deficit of three years, (is this a coincidence of the parliamentary term??) not an actual deficit. Considering the fact that National have stated that they want to privatize ACC it should come as no surprise that ACC levies etc are going to rise. It’s the start of the softening up process so that when Key and his cronies finally come out and say that they are going to privatize ACC and this will reduce costs the public will think this is a good idea and go for it in the false belief that they will be better off. It’s the classic ploy make something unpopular and the public will insist that you get rid of it.

Much the same tactic will be used with the RMA. This will be fed into the mouth of the public as a means of improving the economy by way of reducing costs. Hide is already stated this.

But I be your bottom dollar when it comes to building private prisons or transmission lines or for that matter a coalfired powere station they will not be in Hides or Keys back yard.

That Kiwi’s trust Key in light of his lies is a complete mystery to me.

Skyryder

NighthawkNZ

24th December 2008, 11:47

That Kiwi’s trust Key in light of his lies is a complete mystery to me.

I any politician for that mater I have not seen one that I would class as honest, and probably never will...

as for ACC I have never believed in that system either and never will, and have my own insurance and yet I still have to pay... nearly twice as much with rego, and in fuel, and from paye tax etc

FJRider

24th December 2008, 12:03

As for ACC I have never believed in that system either and never will, and have my own insurance and yet I still have to pay... nearly twice as much with rego, and in fuel, and from paye tax etc

Private insurance is good... but your own choice. ACC "levies" paid, do not cover all ACC payouts. And are paid/topped up, from ALL tax paying people...

I am just supprised any goverment, has not introduced compulsory health insurance.

SPman

24th December 2008, 13:21

I am just supprised any goverment, has not introduced compulsory health insurance.
Second term...........then the health system can end up like the USA - fucked!

The more I travel, the more I think ACC is a good idea!

firefighter

24th December 2008, 13:26

who cares, its only 50 bucks, half of you fat bastards should stop eating mc'ds and thats it paid for

some of us have shit like rates and a mortgage to pay, so no it doesn't go on mcd's, when your a bit older and eventually start to pay for these things you'll find "Just 50 bucks" actually becomes a big deal......I used to think like that too until I started paying off a mortgage......

Ocean1

24th December 2008, 13:33

Second term...........then the health system can end up like the USA - fucked!

The more I travel, the more I think ACC is a good idea!

USA doesn't have a health system, it has an health industry. It's fucked not because it's mostly privately funded, it's fucked because the funds are almost exclusively managed by HMOs.

And yes, ACC is a good idea, if it's policies represent both a fair revenue structure and best-value service implimentation. It's drifting further with each political tweak.

mstriumph

29th December 2008, 17:20

Private insurance is good... but your own choice. ...........private insurance is good provided the government acknowledge that you are taking a weight off the overcrowded public system by giving you a tax rebate on it ......... that's how it USED to be here in oz when i first arrived

then they took away the tax incentive and i [and hundreds like me]said ok you unfair, ungrateful scum and discontinued our private coverage .....
..... i mean DUH couldn't anyone with half a braincell have figured out what was going to happen?? :rolleyes:

oh yes - government - why did we expect sensible behaviour?!

anyway -
the public system teetered for several years

and for the past couple the govt has actually had to offer a cash incentive for peops to take out private cover

twits

i despair - i really do

AD345

29th December 2008, 19:01

The privatisation of ACC involves more than simple insurance. The 1974 Accident Compensation Corporation Act did more than simply set up a system of 24/7 no-fault accident insurance cover - it also embodied an idea in which the citizenry gave a "right" to sue across a broad number of areas of potential liability.

Its not the US health system that you should look to a a reason not to do this, its the absolutely terrifying civil liability industry both there AND in Aus that should scare the shit out of any sane person.

Not here

Not ever

The Pastor

29th December 2008, 19:05

Ixion

30th December 2008, 12:58

I just realised something. In a blinding flash of wozzaname.

ACC maintain a separate account for motorcycles, and claim that we cost more than we pay.

But, as well as the rego levy, we all pay 10 odd cents per litre every time we buy fuel, to ACC (you did know that, didn't you).

But - there is no way for ACC to know how much of the fuel levy they get is contributed by cars, and how much by bikes, proportionately like.

Do bikes get credited with *any* of the fuel levy. I bet we don't . I bet it just goes into the vehicle account and is offset against car claims.

The BASTIGES.

I'll follow up on this. Watch this space.

Ocean1

30th December 2008, 13:10

I'll be somewhat surprised if you manage to find a direct link between that 10c/L and ACC at all.

I very much suspect the majority of it ends up in the consolidated fund, with a nominal, (but possibly slightly related) payout to ACC from there.

Ixion

30th December 2008, 13:17

No, ACC do get it (or they show it in their accounts at any rate). Simple exercise, IRD know how many litres of petrol sold, so they pay ACC 10 cents odd per litre

But no one can know how much of the $X per year came from sales to bikes and how much to cars and trucks. Difference between car and truck doesn't matter, because they both pay the same ACC levy. Difference between car and bike does matter cos of different levies.

They claim that the average cost per vehicle of the levy is $96. So, round numbers, given the predominance of cars, that would mean $96 per car. I use , round numbers 2000+ litres of petrol in bikes per year. So I'm paying $200. Twice the car average.

Ocean1

30th December 2008, 13:22

Leme get this straight, they're claiming the 10c/L ammounts to $96 per vehicle per annum?

And there's no accounts showing any such revenue attributable to bike ACC, but there is for cars?

yod

30th December 2008, 13:23

Ixion

30th December 2008, 13:37

Leme get this straight, they're claiming the 10c/L ammounts to $96 per vehicle per annum?

And there's no accounts showing any such revenue attributable to bike ACC, but there is for cars? They claim that for an "average motorist" the levy amounts to $96 per year. That's just $GRAND_TOTAL diuved by number of registered petrol vehicles (all types)

And, they claim that the dollars paid each year by motorcycles are less than the amount paid out for motorcycle claims.

But, the accounts only show the grand total received in petrol levy.

And, as I see it , if they are saying "Motorcyclists only pay $X in total per year ", the only way they can derive that is that $x is the total of the REGO levy. Cos there is no way to split up the petrol levy into cars and bikes. So, I suspect, they don't. They just total the bike rego levies, and then say that's less than claims. And ignore what we pay in petrol levy. Which in my case (and I suspect most bikers) is as much or more than the rego levy.

Owl

30th December 2008, 13:50

After my bin back in April I ended up with three GP consultations, four specialist consultations, about twenty sessions with a physio, an MRI scan and an x-ray

I paid about $30 for the x-ray and about $30 for one of the GP visits

I see no reason to complain about ACC

Funny you should mention that. I visited the GP after my bin and when it came time to pay, I had to pay a couple of $ more because it was an ACC claim?:confused:

riffer

30th December 2008, 13:53

Cos there is no way to split up the petrol levy into cars and bikes. So, I suspect, they don't. They just total the bike rego levies, and then say that's less than claims. And ignore what we pay in petrol levy. Which in my case (and I suspect most bikers) is as much or more than the rego levy.

Hang on. You could work out the number of registered bikes as a proportion of the total registered vehicles. Obviously forgetting non-registered offroad bikes here of course, but it would give you a fair idea of the contribution of motorcycles to the petrol levy. Of course, we could also factor in chainsaws, lawnmowers, etc...

Ixion

30th December 2008, 14:10

Yes, they *could* make some sort of pro-rata allocation. Question is , do they? ACC being ACC , I'm picking not. But that's what I'm checking into.

davereid

31st December 2008, 08:25

They do know the mileage that you travel, as it is recorded at WOF time, so they may be able to estimate a pro-rata rate, although I bet they don't.

The reality is that ACC is going to be the tool used to price motorcycles off the road.

Cars are getting safer and safer. Airbags, ABS, stability control and crash testing are lowering the road toll every year, for cars.

Volvo now say they intend to produce cars so safe that you won't get hurt in one. And they intend it within the next 10 - 11 years.

Soon, only motorcyclists will die or be injured on the road, and ACC and the "what price a life" / "Darwin" theorists will have us off the road.

JohnR

1st January 2009, 12:42

ACC and the "what price a life" / "Darwin" theorists will have us off the road.

Therefore we need to revive and/or perpetuate the myth/image of bikers being lawless, anachistic, greasy thugs :2guns:for whom organised civil disobedience would just be another fun thing to do...:headbang::devil2:

robboh

5th January 2009, 01:42

Cars are getting safer and safer. Airbags, ABS, stability control and crash testing are lowering the road toll every year, for cars.
Are they though? The missus and I were actually discussing this last night after watching top-gear where they were talking about KNEE AIRBAGS (scary).

Id be very interested to know if the ratio of fatality versus non-fatality accidents is reducing. And for that matter, how overall accident rates are trending in relation to # of vehicles registered / kms travelled.

I actually suspect that the accident rate is actually increasing overall (this is supposition, not based on facts, as I am unsure where to find these sorts of stats).

And I suspect that a good portion of it will be due to increased traffic volumes AND peoples increased sense of 'safety' that seems to be getting pushed down peoples throats at present.

testastretta

5th January 2009, 09:13

The biggest bitch I have about the ACC levies is they dont take into account those of us that own more than one motorcycle.I know it is probably impossible to have a system that insures the rider against injury and not the motorcycle but it pisses me off that I should pay twice when I am the only one riding my bikes and obviously can only ride one at a time.
Then again I also think that I should pay less than the idiots that ride around in t-shirts and shorts.

Ixion

5th January 2009, 10:37

Are they though? The missus and I were actually discussing this last night after watching top-gear where they were talking about KNEE AIRBAGS (scary).

Id be very interested to know if the ratio of fatality versus non-fatality accidents is reducing. And for that matter, how overall accident rates are trending in relation to # of vehicles registered / kms travelled.

I actually suspect that the accident rate is actually increasing overall (this is supposition, not based on facts, as I am unsure where to find these sorts of stats).

And I suspect that a good portion of it will be due to increased traffic volumes AND peoples increased sense of 'safety' that seems to be getting pushed down peoples throats at present.

I have seen those stats, though I can't be arsed finding them again. Yes, you are correct on both counts. The number of fatalities has steady fallen, but the number of injuries (especially serious injury cases) has actually risen somewhat. A good part of the fall in fatalities is related to improvements (both in capability and in timeliness) of medical treatment (think air ambulances and the golden hour)

Total crashes are still trending upward. Severity of crashes is claimed to be falling, though I'm damned if I know how they'd measure that

pixc

5th January 2009, 10:47

I propose ... (waffle to follow..) I propose, that everytime you get an infringement, speeding, careless driving..what ever...not only do you get a fine...but somehow, its linked to your rego/ACC levies and that goes up. targeting higher risk folk. Maybe even linked to IRD and more of your pay gets allocated to ACC. The more infringements..the more you pay..after 5 years of behaving...rego comes down again. Told you I tend to waffle.

Road Guardian

5th January 2009, 16:01

Hmm, I like waffel, sorry wrong type of waffel

Seriously good point though, prob a better way would be to increase the ACC levies on those who cause accidents, that can be proven to be that persons fault.

I propose ... (waffle to follow..) I propose, that everytime you get an infringement, speeding, careless driving..what ever...not only do you get a fine...but somehow, its linked to your rego/ACC levies and that goes up. targeting higher risk folk. Maybe even linked to IRD and more of your pay gets allocated to ACC. The more infringements..the more you pay..after 5 years of behaving...rego comes down again. Told you I tend to waffle.

Max Preload

5th January 2009, 16:33

I propose ... (waffle to follow..) I propose, that everytime you get an infringement, speeding, careless driving..what ever...not only do you get a fine...but somehow, its linked to your rego/ACC levies and that goes up. targeting higher risk folk.

It should simply be linked to your license. As for 'speeding' causing it to go up, I strongly disagree (and I haven't had a speeding ticket in 7 or 8 years) . It would be much better to link it to the person at fault in any accident, injury or otherwise. It pisses me off that the penalties for actually crashing into someone else are so friggin' light compared to simply exceeding a purely arbitrary posted speed limit perfectly safely.

Of course, New Zealanders won't like that. They like the 'no-fault' system because they can continue to drive like the blind, incompetent fuckwits they are with no real repercussion.

Maybe even linked to IRD and more of your pay gets allocated to ACC. The more infringements..the more you pay..after 5 years of behaving...rego comes down again. Told you I tend to waffle.

That's the same thing as simply increasing ACC levies for shit drivers & riders.

gixxer-king

9th January 2009, 19:15

It should simply be linked to your license. As for 'speeding' causing it to go up, I strongly disagree (and I haven't had a speeding ticket in 7 or 8 years) . It would be much better to link it to the person at fault in any accident, injury or otherwise. It pisses me off that the penalties for actually crashing into someone else are so friggin' light compared to simply exceeding a purely arbitrary posted speed limit perfectly safely.

Of course, New Zealanders won't like that. They like the 'no-fault' system because they can continue to drive like the blind, incompetent fuckwits they are with no real repercussion.

That's the same thing as simply increasing ACC levies for shit drivers & riders.

Well your insurance sure rises if your a shit driver, heard of no claims? yea baby. But yea why not. in fact better yet, no speeding ticket but each offence doubles your rego, that'll have people slowing down quick.

shingo

9th January 2009, 21:33

Well your insurance sure rises if your a shit driver, heard of no claims? yea baby.

That's assuming they have insurance, and even then if the person who caused the accident is forced to pay up you'll probably only get a few bucks a week.

homer

9th January 2009, 21:53

private insurance is good provided the government acknowledge that you are taking a weight off the overcrowded public system by giving you a tax rebate on it ......... that's how it USED to be here in oz when i first arrived

then they took away the tax incentive and i [and hundreds like me]said ok you unfair, ungrateful scum and discontinued our private coverage .....
..... i mean DUH couldn't anyone with half a braincell have figured out what was going to happen?? :rolleyes:

oh yes - government - why did we expect sensible behaviour?!

anyway -
the public system teetered for several years

and for the past couple the govt has actually had to offer a cash incentive for peops to take out private cover

twits

i despair - i really do

:Oi:failing to see the total point of taking pressure off the public sector ......oh i see so , my arguement about private patients getting treatment or sergery ahead of public customers maybe holds a lot of ground then .
i think if you pay for private health, then if you decide to use you private cover , then you dont get the service in a public facility.
if public are the only ones to provide then its tuff.
i think if you pay acc and private then yes you get a choice , but you decide.
if public have what you need , hey then you wait like the rest of us who pay acc .
not jump the que just cause you pay both.

KingJackaL

9th January 2009, 22:03

Some good discussion here. Ixion, as well as asking how the fuel money is allocated (and I too would suspect a slush fund), it may be worth finding out how much the average driver claims per year (for each class of vehicle they track). That would be very valuable info, as you could compare that directly to the registration amounts for those classes.

Although, 'truck' has large difference in RUC with tonnage - does any of that go into ACC? I can't remember...

As for road toll stats robboh, NZ government departments post pretty much all their pertinent stats online these days. I think the key pages you'll be looking for are:

The 'Road Toll', updated often and comparing this year and last:
http://www.ltsa.govt.nz/research/toll.html
More detailed reports into crash stats (see yearly links in left nav - 2008 not compiled yet) - a LOT of detail in these:
http://www.transport.govt.nz/motor-vehicle-crashes-in-new-zealand-index/
'Road Toll' over 5 years:
http://www.transport.govt.nz/road-toll1/

Ocean1

9th January 2009, 22:11

i think if you pay acc and private then yes you get a choice , but you decide.
if public have what you need , hey then you wait like the rest of us who pay acc .
not jump the que just cause you pay both.

You seem to think it's the same queue. It's not.

ACC fund only so much, if you don't meet the requirements for a certain procedure then you don't get it. Even if you do meet the criteria you may wait some time for the operation.

If you want it any other way the only alternative is to buy that procedure either directly or through private insurance. Those that choose to do so actually save ACC the total cost of the operation, in effect they've paid twice.

KingJackaL

9th January 2009, 22:22

Ooo, found some interesting stuff digging through the ACC site. Claim amounts by region (but not by vehicle class):
http://www.acc.co.nz/about-acc/acc-media-centre/statistics/MDC_00070#road_crash_injuries

Looks like they pay out a pretty regular amount. Slight trend upwards, which looks to me to be similar to inflation and population growth (it's not dramatic). Say maybe $320-$350M for this year (extrapolation). So yeah, that's like $100 per person (not per driver) in the country, so I see how fuel of $100, plus rego of $100 or $200 is certainly within the ballpark.

http://www.acc.co.nz/about-acc/acc-injury-statistics-2006/SS_WIM2_063133

Looks like males claim on average 3x as much as females! (I wouldn't have suspected that massive a disproportion)

And the most recent money data by vehicle type is here:
http://www.acc.co.nz/about-acc/acc-injury-statistics-2006/SS_WIM2_062809

Hmmpf. They haven't done it per population (num vehicles) though. *sigh*

It looks like all the relevant stats are online. Just none of them have been summarised such that the above questions can be easily answered. A night on a spreadsheet sifting through those reports would sort it though xD.

The only problems:
- the latest ACC data I can find is 2006 (through til mid 2007 I think?). They seem to be a year behind everyone else in publishing stats (this doesn't impress me at all).
- ACC stats are July 1 -> Jun 30, LTSA stats are Jan -> Jan.

So there will be some slight statistical munging, but you should be able to get a pretty accurate trend at the least.

homer

10th January 2009, 08:48

You seem to think it's the same queue. It's not.

ACC fund only so much, if you don't meet the requirements for a certain procedure then you don't get it. Even if you do meet the criteria you may wait some time for the operation.

If you want it any other way the only alternative is to buy that procedure either directly or through private insurance. Those that choose to do so actually save ACC the total cost of the operation, in effect they've paid twice.

yes and wheres the waiting list gone to , they get the treatment a lot sooner .
im saying that if you have private insurance and you choose to use it , then if the private company dosnt have the facilitys ,then you shouldnt get the treatment thru a public outfit.

Ocean1

10th January 2009, 09:23

yes and wheres the waiting list gone to , they get the treatment a lot sooner .
im saying that if you have private insurance and you choose to use it , then if the private company dosnt have the facilitys ,then you shouldnt get the treatment thru a public outfit.

In many cases the facilities and staff available to the private sector are exactly those the public system uses. If you halted all private work it would affect the public system waiting list not a jot. Actually, that's not true, the loss of private sector income would soon degrade the facilities and a lot more specialists would leave the country.

I've got a thesis on the subject around here somewhere, one of it's more surprising revelations is the extent of exactly the unrealistic attitudes and patient expectations evident in your post.

scracha

10th January 2009, 09:25

Looks like males claim on average 3x as much as females! (I wouldn't have suspected that massive a disproportion)

From my not so scientific observations I would say that's simply because roughly 3 out of 4 vehicles on the road are driven by males (heavy goods, tractors and when a family goes out somewhere it's normally the bloke doing the driving).

Soul.Trader

10th January 2009, 16:19

From my not so scientific observations I would say that's simply because roughly 3 out of 4 vehicles on the road are driven by males

I would be extraordinarily surprised if this were true. More likely, it's due to the well known fact that males have more car accidents, and are far more likely to participate in risky activities, both on and off the road. I know a lot of people have difficulty accepting the truth, but statistically women are much drivers than men, causing less damage and fewer injuries and deaths.

scracha

10th January 2009, 17:06

I would be extraordinarily surprised if this were true. More likely, it's due to the well known fact that males have more car accidents, and are far more likely to participate in risky activities, both on and off the road. I know a lot of people have difficulty accepting the truth, but statistically women are much drivers than men, causing less damage and fewer injuries and deaths.

I'm not saying men don't take more risks but the figures are very very skewed by the distance actually driven by the average male compared to females.

Take a look for yourself. Stand on any state highway and survey who's driving, there's more guys than gals driving. Now factor in the commercial drivers...there's by far much more males in vehicles at night than female. Driving heavy trucks through the night is a dangerous occupation. Just because you don't see all the guys on the road at night doesn't mean they're not there.

mstriumph

11th January 2009, 21:16

:Oi:failing to see the total point of taking pressure off the public sector ......oh i see so , my arguement about private patients getting treatment or sergery ahead of public customers maybe holds a lot of ground then .
....................
i think if you pay acc and private then yes you get a choice , but you decide.
if public have what you need , hey then you wait like the rest of us who pay acc .
not jump the que just cause you pay both. you lost me?

prettybillie

12th January 2009, 09:10

A lady started the thread so I won't voice my opinion of ACC again.....:Pokey:

It is true that women have more accidents that men - however if you look at the stats it is men that have to horrendous accidents that cost all involved a fortune. Us women just scratch things a little bit.

Usarka

12th January 2009, 19:04

It is true that women have more accidents that men - however if you look at the stats it is men that have to horrendous accidents that cost all involved a fortune. Us women just scratch things a little bit.

Stop being sexist, I was referring to not calling ACC a bunch of cunts, having ladies present and all.....

homer

12th January 2009, 21:19

you lost me?

its simple .
if you pay private insurance, and at the time you choose to use it .
ok .
then if private cant provide , tuff you miss out .
ok with me so far.
because , why should you get to hop in ,in front of swomeone on a waiting list . just because they dont pay for a private healt cover .
and remembering that the private insurers get to provide thru public system.
get my point .

MarkH

13th January 2009, 20:50

the well known fact that males have more car accidents, and are far more likely to participate in risky activities, both on and off the road. I know a lot of people have difficulty accepting the truth, but statistically women are much drivers than men, causing less damage and fewer injuries and deaths.

I have read a surprising bit of info a while back, it seems a study was done somewhere in Aussie which showed that the accidents per km driven was lower for males than females, despite the males taking less risks. I don't know how accurate this was though, it is pretty difficult to get accurate info on how many kms every driver does, lots of families share a car. I believe the implication was that men are better at the hand/eye co-ordination thing, something about hunting and survival traits and more humans descending from women that are good nurturers and men that are good hunters and survivors.

Despite a lack of good evidence that men in fact have fewer accidents per km driven (apart from the one study that I can't remember bugger all about) I have seen very little statistical evidence that men DON'T have fewer accidents per km driven. Of course from the point of view of an insurance company or ACC - if men are likely to drive more kms then they are likely to be a higher risk, regardless of whether men or women are the better drivers.

White trash

13th January 2009, 20:57

It's those fucken Mair boys in cahoots with the Sullivans raising our ACC levies.

Fuckers.

Ixion

13th January 2009, 21:52

That so? Sue-Ellen, feetch ma bannjo. Cletus, fetch ma shotgon. Maw, go tell Granpappy to raise the clan. Ain't no place in a Gawd respectin tarn like this for them Mair bruddas.

oldrider

15th January 2009, 22:16

Did you all here that ACC levies on motor vehicle registrations are going up by $50 per year!!!!

If they (the rule makers) were serious about reducing motorcycle deaths and injuries they would get rid of ACC and allow motorcyclists to sue errant motorists.

Then watch their eyesight improve and their cell phones stay switched off! :blip: John.