Petrol tax - a fairer method?

[motorbyclist]

Now we all know ACC is broke, and a way to charge your licence is fairer on those with many bikes, but wouldn't it be easier and just as effective to just tax petrol some more? Your road usage is directly proportional to the levy you pay, and 10c/L is really going to add up pretty quickly.

the simple fact is that either way we all have to pay for ACC, and petrol is a very hard system to cheat.

as it is ACC has another 3c/L before they hit their limit, at which point we need national to increase the ceiling further - now the trick is to convince 2million voters that this isn't a bad idea.....



bigger bikes/sportier cars use more fuel....
SUVs use more fuel too

that's two major ACC claim sources dicouraged, weekend riders pay sweet FA on the bike but then pay it one their car commute anyway, own as many bikes/cars as you like and you can spin it for the enviromentalists with a whole load of greenhouse gas emissions BS too

bus, courier driver or truckie? RUC to the rescue!

and we all know that dirtbikers are being counted against roadbike stats, but ignoring the real possibility that they bring the average claim cost down, do'ya reckon we can write them off on the petrol levy alone? Maybe not, but I pay 9c/L petrol levies on my 400cc thumper and she's mighty thirsty on gas

[pzkpfw]

Been thinking about this.

The trouble is it is contains no differential for risk (and frankly, I do think we need to be paying something more) and penalises Joe Bob who's only buying petrol for his lawn mower.

So I decided they should just extend the R.U.C. system that diesel users use, to petrol users too.

That is, you'd buy a kilometer allowance for your vehicle.

That way you are only paying for what you ride/drive (taking away the unfairness of the poor buggers who have multiple bikes and are looking at huge fees coming).

And as with the weight and number of axles divisions that they have in R.U.C.; the fees paid could be based on things about the vehicle. e.g. bikes might pay a little more than cars, for the ACC component part of the fee.

[James Deuce]

Huge economic ramifications because you're talking about a lot more than 9c/l.

It would be a good way to reduce the standard of living in NZ which is what some economic commentators are suggesting we need to do (WTF?).

[Maki]

Been thinking about this.

The trouble is it is contains no differential for risk (and frankly, I do think we need to be paying something more) and penalises Joe Bob who's only buying petrol for his lawn mower.

So I decided they should just extend the R.U.C. system that diesel users use, to petrol users too.

That is, you'd buy a kilometer allowance for your vehicle.

That way you are only paying for what you ride/drive (taking away the unfairness of the poor buggers who have multiple bikes and are looking at huge fees coming).

And as with the weight and number of axles divisions that they have in R.U.C.; the fees paid could be based on things about the vehicle. e.g. bikes might pay a little more than cars, for the ACC component part of the fee.

Why should we be paying "something more" when there is no fairness in the system whatsoever? I am happy to pay for what I REALLY COST if everyone else does the same too. While that is not happening I fail to see why I should pay a cent more than skiers, push bikers, netball players, horseback riders, etc. etc. who pay a big fat zero.

[High_Voltage]

we already get taxed on petrol. plus itll be the fact there still nicking our pennies outa our wallets just not with regos but in gas. Im also saying this because i never ride or drive very economically haha and ive got a modded supercharged commodore in the garage.

[young1]

Why should we be paying "something more" when there is no fairness in the system whatsoever? I am happy to pay for what I REALLY COST if everyone else does the same too. While that is not happening I fail to see why I should pay a cent more than skiers, push bikers, netball players, horseback riders, etc. etc. who pay a big fat zero.

Now that is a f#ck!n good point!!!

[rosie631]

Why should we be paying "something more" when there is no fairness in the system whatsoever? I am happy to pay for what I REALLY COST if everyone else does the same too. While that is not happening I fail to see why I should pay a cent more than skiers, push bikers, netball players, horseback riders, etc. etc. who pay a big fat zero.

Exactly, I'll pay more when everyone else who participates in 'high risk' activities does too. At the moment, we just being targeted, cos we're an easy collect via rego. I think it should be the person that is insured. Same as regular insurance, you declare any high risk activities and pay accordingly. You also get no claims bonuses. The way it is everybody is paying vastly different amounts.
As far as I'm concerned ACC is fuckin bullshit.

[McJim]

The flaw in this argument is that it doesn't victimise a minority whose vote has effectively been "written off" by National. Apparently we don't figure significantly in their next election plans so they woo the rest of the electorate whilst alienating us.

ACC levy at the pumps would lose them more votes. Fair has nothing to do with it.

[Motig]

Yes its the old political trick of divide and conquer, us this time someother group next. Happens everytime a political party wants its new agender pushed thru. Of course if the govt instead of adding the GST we pay for ACC and putting in their general tax fund just put it straight into ACC wont happen but it would give ACC a 12.5% boost ay.

[pzkpfw]

Why should we be paying "something more" when there is no fairness in the system whatsoever? I am happy to pay for what I REALLY COST if everyone else does the same too. While that is not happening I fail to see why I should pay a cent more than skiers, push bikers, netball players, horseback riders, etc. etc. who pay a big fat zero.

That's in no way a new point, I've made it myself in different threads. So yes, essentially, I totally agree with.

I really do.

Fucks me off totally that horse riders can do the thing that makes them happy and not pay something extra somewhere somehow. (ACC fees on oats? Yearly saddle license?)

And that's why I'll be in the protest ride(s) if I can (jury service...). I'll be buying the t-shirt, too.

But none of this is about "fair"; it's about "better". ACC want/need the money, apparently, and you'll get nowwhere just saying "fuck off you'll get none from me".


You realise that the license you bought last year for your bike already cost more than the license for your (possibly hypothtical) car?

Did you protest last year?


You need to be realistic. The differential rates genie is already out of the bottle.

[Pixie]

Why should we be paying "something more" when there is no fairness in the system whatsoever? I am happy to pay for what I REALLY COST if everyone else does the same too.

I agree totally.If you hurt yourself,You or the insurance company of your choosing pays all your bills.

[BMWST?]

i think people are missing the point here re multiple vehicles.....it is unfair cause you can only ride one at at a time.But there is no way it will be cheaper if they go to some other system.They still need thir 62 million(or whatever)So if it didvided by ,licenses,or whatever we will pay.Even more than proposed,cos it is divided among fewer payees.

[FJRider]

i think people are missing the point here re multiple vehicles.....it is unfair cause you can only ride one at at a time.But there is no way it will be cheaper if they go to some other system.They still need thir 62 million(or whatever)So if it didvided by ,licenses,or whatever we will pay.Even more than proposed,cos it is divided among fewer payees.

The main point is that any goverment department (including ACC) is not self funding. Any ACC levies do not go straight into ACC coffer's. Just like road user charges do not go directly onto improving roads. Money spent on ACC claimaints that is over their "budget" ... comes from money that could be spent on other things.

Maybe just a TAX increase is needed ...

[Naki Rat]

....
bus, courier driver or truckie? RUC to the rescue!

Not sure what you mean by this but presently there is NO ACC component in RUC or the pump price of diesel as I posted earlier .

This is partly offset by the higher annual rego fee but in the case of a large truck (or boat, heavy machinery) there appears to be a significant imbalance in the ACC levy paid

[MSTRS:Me]

Been thinking about this.

The trouble is it is contains no differential for risk (and frankly, I do think we need to be paying something more) and penalises Joe Bob who's only buying petrol for his lawn mower.

Why should there be a differential for risk? Although it's already there in everybody's earner levies....
Do you know how many fingers/toes etc are lost to motormowers every year? Solely petrol based levy could be useful. But I'm not convinced it's the answer.