Single Flat Rate ACC Levy per road user?

[FastBikeGear]

I reckon a flat rate for all road motor vehicle users.

Pushbikes and horses certainly should NOT be levied, as there is no way to police it,

Yes there is. All you need to do is afix a tamper proof numbered seal to all cyles. The private bike parks i.e. Woodhill already do this so that you can show that you have paid your years membership to ride in the park.

Just a point ot note guys. The more places that attach or try to collect ACC from the greater the administration costs to both teh ACC and business owner collecting teh levy on behalf of the ACC.

Extra costs: Every transaction occurs banking fees, every staff member who has to collect ACC, needs to be trrained, extra forms, extra computer processing (yes there are costs to this), extra auditing costs, extra form and paper work costs, extra staff time costs, etc,

A simple and easy system is easier to understand, more transparent and costs less to administer.

We often hear that greater than 50% of money collected by charities is consumed by collection and administration cost, I wonder how that ACC compares to a well run charity?

When ACC privatises/sells the business of ACC to the insurance companies (in 2011?) I wonder how many of the ACC staff will find their jobs trimmed? A fair number of the senior staff at ACC are actually working towards their redundancy. Is that irony or coppery?

[mashman]

What we should have is single flat rate ACC levy per NZ citizenship/residency.

That way cyclists, horse riders, and rugby players are levied too.
Also including prone-to-fall elderlies.

Flat rate ensures a no-fault and non user-pays system (i.e., ACC not being an insurance scheme).

I posted something similar in a different thread. Why marginalise 1 group, 2 groups, X groups of people for going about their day. Motorcycle accidents and the like pale into insignificance when you take into account household injuries, or even non-road accidents... why should road users pay when they already have? If, as NighthawkNZ says we need 800 million, 4 million people multiplied by 200 bucks a year.... erm.... i'm more than happy to stump up my 200 bucks a year for cover, same as paying for my wife and kids... it'll still gonna cost less than it would if i have to pay the proposed levy on the bike...

Put it on a person, a 1 off payment per year, you can opt out if you have PMI etc... Make participants in sport pay $1 per sporting day etc... plenty of simple changes can be made.

I don't care how the accounts are held as they only provide statistical information on which group of ACC users costs the most... highlights safety concerns and that's about it! The balancing of the books still comes down to a single bottom line and any accounting structure that says otherwise is being used purely as an excuse to point the finger and get more filthy lucre.

[Jantar]

No this wouldn't be fair big someone driving a gas guzzler car or truck, would be paying more per kilometer than someone riding a moped, sccoter or smaller bike.

We want a fair system - not one that just suits us.

"someone driving a gas guzzler car or truck, would be paying more per kilometer than someone riding a moped, sccoter or smaller bike." Is exactly the point that makes it fair. When a big gas guzzler hits a moped the chances are the rider will be injured, but the driver of the gas guzzler wouldn't be. Putting the major portion of ACC onto fuel means those who are more likely to cause injury pay more. Those who travel longer distances and so are more at risk pay more.

[Clockwork]

Single flat rate for all vehicles, (say $100/150) topped up from fuel levies. All earnings related compo to be payed from the earner account regardless of where the accident occured!

[popelli]

"someone driving a gas guzzler car or truck, would be paying more per kilometer than someone riding a moped, sccoter or smaller bike." Is exactly the point that makes it fair.

except under the current logic the large gas guzzler protects its occupants in the event of a single vehcile crash and minimises the cost to the acc

using this logic they should be paying less per mile

the entire point about acc it should either be a proper insurance based premium based upon individual risk or wiped altogether and paid by general taxation and income / corporate tax increased accordingly - this would be more effcient and cheaper as it would reduce administration costs

alternatively cut back some of the cover offered to reduce the cost of it in the first instance