Well bikers are screwed - ACC levy

[jono035]

Not really just about the money, it's about abstract things like justice and equity 'n stuff , which a lot of people laugh at , but some of us think important (that's not aimed at you BTW). Bikers tend to be among the latter group.

People are talking about riding to Wellington from Aukland or Sth Island. With fuel accomodation, let alone time off work, that'll come to more than the increase.

Yeah, 100% agreed there mate and I'm definitely not saying that people are only whining about the money, just we have to be careful to frame our protests in such a way that it is not easy for the media to turn it into 'oh look, there go those bikers who are pissed off they have to pay for their lifestyle'.

Btw, saw you on the news before, well done. I think you handled it well.

[jono035]

...
If driver at fault is taken to Court then Court awards the fine to ACC.
...

Maybe ACC should get a bit more money from all the money made from ticketing?

[Winston001]

Hi there guys

I thought of some suggestions for why we shouldn't pay the increased ACC Levy and have a few suggestions as to who might start paying for it.......

Good for you Sue, the more ideas the better.

I just do not understand how one person owning multiple vehicles (even both bikes and cars) for some reason must pay their ACC levy multiple times to insure their single self that can only use one vehicle at a time.

OK. The ACC levy on vehicle registration has nothing to do with ownership (except as a convenient way of charging). You do not need to own a car/bike to be able to ride one.

So you personally could own 4 vehicles and family members could each crash driving those vehicles. You wouldn't expect them to be left on the side of the road because they weren't the owner?

[kave]

So you personally could own 4 vehicles and family members could each crash driving those vehicles. You wouldn't expect them to be left on the side of the road because they weren't the owner?

No, but if they were going to be driving them then they should be covering their own ACC levy. Driving a car is the activity that puts you at risk, not owning a car.

[Winston001]

No, but if they were going to be driving them then they should be covering their own ACC levy.

Really? How?

[Horney1]

[QUOTE=Suzuki Sue;1129472437]

4) Every vehicle must be insured before a WOF or Registration is obtained (like in the UK and Canada) and must have liablility insurance.

QUOTE]

Excuse the French but Fork that! You'll be worse off than ever if insurance companies get their other hooks into you. This is all the fault of insurance companies to start with. It'll take some pretty powerful lobbying to out-argue/ out-logic their statistics (conveniently stacked/stat'd in their favour). Once you're locked in they'll ensure they drain you dry of every cent!

I haven't had time to read most of the thread sorry but does anyone know how many actual cage accidents there were last year (not percentage, actual numbers) and how many of those required how many dollars? The insurance companies do.

Looks like I'll have to look into supercharged nitrous methanol sipping mopeds instead of a safe large wheeled adventure bike! I guess one of those won't take me far so all of the places I would have gone to will miss out on the money I would have spent there to....

[Ragingrob]

OK. The ACC levy on vehicle registration has nothing to do with ownership (except as a convenient way of charging). You do not need to own a car/bike to be able to ride one.

So you personally could own 4 vehicles and family members could each crash driving those vehicles. You wouldn't expect them to be left on the side of the road because they weren't the owner?

No, and that's why it should be individualised as per license rather than vehicle.

Anyway, if I crashed a car without a rego I'm sure ACC would still bail me out.

[Reckless]

Anyway, if I crashed a car without a rego I'm sure ACC would still bail me out.

Yes I can't remember or know of anyone being asked by the Doc or ACC if their car was registered when you fill out the ACC forms!!

[kwaka_crasher]

Really? How?

RUC component. In fact, all the ACC levy should be covered by RUC.

[Naki Rat]

It's all about public awareness of a problem just over the horizon for all New Zealanders, and by alerting people of that problem we can increase our support base substantially.

First they came for the rape victims,
I remained silent;
I was not a rape victim.

When they fined up the criminals,
I remained silent;
I was not a criminal.

When they levied the bikers,
I did not speak out;
I was not a biker.

When they prosecuted the unregistered,
I remained silent;
My bike was registered.

Now they are coming for the ???
Oh shit !!!

Legislation change such as this is only possible incrementally. Comprende' ?

[Twinmil]

Motorcycling is not only an economical form of travel with a lower environmental and urban profile, but a SPORT, at least according to ACC, who list it in their Section 20 Sport Claims list, in the ACC injury statistics of 2008.
This list tells us Motorcycling accidents cost the country $7.227 million dollars in 2007.

It also tells us:-

- Cycling cost us $10.447 million
- Horse Riding $ 9.14 million
- Netball $11.496 million
- Swimming $10.055 million
- Soccer $14.156 million
- Skiing $ 8.004 million
- Motocross & Dirt Biking $ 8.17 million
- Rugby Union $40.041 million
- Rugby League $10.648 million

Should Motorcycling be unique in being the only recreational activity in NZ to be asked to fund itself through exhorbitant fees just because it's functional aspect makes it liable for registration costs from which extraction of fees is relatively easy?

Should Motorcycling be targeted as an especially dangerous activity that needs discouraging by punitive charges, even though a large number of recreational activities in NZ are statistically more dangerous but that have no useful and therefore taxable component?

Should vehicles that use less resource, generate less CO2 and use less space on the road and in parking be actively discouraged?

Should motorcycling be penalised for a monstrous cost blow-out in the ACC, $4.18 Billion in, $23.78Billion Out.
(ACC Annual Report 2009)

The repeated assertion that cars are subsidising motorcycling is a red herring that masks the entire ACC Motor Vehicle Account cost blowout of $6.845 Billion claims against a net levy revenue of $739 Million, of which motorcycling is only a miniscule fraction.

If Motorcycling is not being scapegoated why is car registration not being increased pro rata for it's lack of levy income to cover it's proportionately higher percentage of the Motor Vehicle Account Funding shortfall?

Has the private outsourcing for accident care helped to contribute to this cost blowout?

Also from the ACC Annual Report of 2009
"The past year has seen a further increase in the risk premiums that investors have required for risky investments such as equities"
"...all significant developed equity markets again produced negative returns during 2008-2009."
"... a significant portion of ACC's reserves portfolios are invested in equity markets."
"ACC's reserves portfolios delivered an average return of 3.2% over the year.
While this result is significantly above our market benchmarks, it is slightly below the return that could have been achieved from low risk fixed interest investments over the year."

Does gambling with Tax payer money (particularly using opaque financial instruments) seem like a reasonable practice?

Does it seem reasonable that 259 staff members of ACC are on six figure salaries and divide $145.65 million dollars between themselves in wages while bringing about a 568% gap between income and costs that would send any private concern incompetent enough to oversee such a cost blow into insolvency?

Thank you for your time.

[Fluffy Cat]

Wow what a letter, well thought out.
Thanks Twinmil.
Still dont get why i have to pay ACC per vehicle. Then again i bought an Sp1 and lent it to me mate cos i am sooo nice, and happy to pay Acc for him, so he's safe. Its a dumb money grubbing set up that penalizes multi vehicle owners. ACC the licence holder, that covers them any other licence holder sorts out their own ACC.

[munterk6]

looks like we have to rob from Peter to pay Paul with this levy hike.
meaning..just put the rego on hold and carry on regardless. In the event of an injury accident, ACC will pay out anyway

[Naki Rat]

It is becoming increasingly obvious that the government intends to open up some ACC 'Accounts' to privatisation.

Now liken the situation to preparing a vehicle for sale. The obvious bad points are best addressed or else potential buyers will be disinterested or liable to beat down the price based on accentuating the negative. So, you replace a worn tyre, buff out the scratches and valet the interior; non of which were a problem but they just detracted from the overall look of the car. Put a nice stereo in it to distract the tyre kickers and stick it on Trade Me. Sold, easy as

The government is preparing ACC Accounts for sale. The Work Claims Account is a no brainer; it can be tweeked at will to ensure that it is a saleable entity. The Motor Vehicle Account however is not so straight forward as despite it running well in the black it has a 'non performing' category called motorcycles which sort of catch they eye, and not in a good way. Even though half the expenses that appear in this category are only there due to some poor bugger being astride a bike when they got clobbered due to no fault of their own, but it still 'looks bad'. So best they tart up the numbers a bit by appearing to make things balance better in that category. Up the rego levy..... Done. That should make the Motor Vehicle Account more inviting for a prospective buyer

Now lets have a look at that Sports Account.......

Who's Next ???

[Azi Dahaka]

i mean as your sig shows there are alot of things that are covered from acc that dont pay any levy.