IT geeks unite - is this an option?

[davebullet]

Collecting levies on vehicle licensing seems to be generally poo pooed.

People seem to be leaning toward a combo job of petrol levy and driver license levy as a better solution than a per vehicle amount.

I am assuming the government will avoid the above because implementing the IT system is costly (or they can milk the revenue they think they need through existing means - so why change it).

Should the KB geeks get together and cost a solution to collect revenue via the above alternative means? I'm sure we could make it viable and not bloat the IT cost like the usual big consulting firms do. Viable? Anything in it for the government? (otherwise they won't do it).

[FJRider]

Perhaps "Personal" levy's ... the more accidents you have ... the more time you spend on ACC "benefit" ...the more you pay in levy's.

[paddy]

Collecting levies on vehicle licensing seems to be generally poo pooed.

People seem to be leaning toward a combo job of petrol levy and driver license levy as a better solution than a per vehicle amount.

I am assuming the government will avoid the above because implementing the IT system is costly (or they can milk the revenue they think they need through existing means - so why change it).

Should the KB geeks get together and cost a solution to collect revenue via the above alternative means? I'm sure we could make it viable and not bloat the IT cost like the usual big consulting firms do. Viable? Anything in it for the government? (otherwise they won't do it).

I would tend to suggest that anyone who labels him or her self a "geek" would typically not be capable of the degree of formality required for such a proposal. I also tend to think that their are many reasons that the government may or may not choose a given option. The cost of implementing a particular IT system is only part of the picture

Even staying with the IT theme, there is still a lot more to it than first meets the eye. You need to consider the cost of hardware, software, user training, BAU support, BCP/DR, integration... Before you get anywhere near that you would need to perform a Current State Assessment, a Future State Assessment, and a Gap Analysis. This alone would require considerable access to the appropriate staff within a variety of government agencies. Even if you could get it to that state, it would probably still need to go through an RFP process - you might not even win the work.

Just my thoughts though. I'm not trying to discourage you, just the idea is probably a little big especially for the approach you are considering.

[Mom]

Perhaps "Personal" levy's ... the more accidents you have ... the more time you spend on ACC "benefit" ...the more you pay in levy's.

The dishonourable Nick Smith told us plainly on Monday night that ACC is an insurance scheme. I want to know where my no claims bonus is if that is the case.

The change to insurance if indeed it has happened (though I note that JJ has stopped using Acc Insurance in his signature) was done without a mandate. ACC is not an Insurance scheme, it is a no fault Accident Prevention, Rehabilitation and Compensation Scheme.

We all contribute equally. For us that means one levy for all contributors to the scheme no matter what mode of transport we use.

[dpex]

We all contribute equally. For us that means one levy for all contributors to the scheme no matter what mode of transport we use.[/QUOTE]

Sorry Mom, you are utterly wrong. We do not all contribute equally, and that is what is so wrong about the ACC levy system.

[sedge]

Before you get anywhere near that you would need to perform a Current State Assessment, a Future State Assessment, and a Gap Analysis.

Spot the vendor. Probably project manager or technical BA.

Sedge

[yachtie10]

as an unemployed IT Geek I would love to tackle the issue.
But as you probably know this is a potential INCIS in the making
only the big vendors would normally be able to take this on with any credibility

[mikeey01]

Collecting levies on vehicle licensing seems to be generally poo pooed.

People seem to be leaning toward a combo job of petrol levy and driver license levy as a better solution than a per vehicle amount.

I am assuming the government will avoid the above because implementing the IT system is costly (or they can milk the revenue they think they need through existing means - so why change it).

Should the KB geeks get together and cost a solution to collect revenue via the above alternative means? I'm sure we could make it viable and not bloat the IT cost like the usual big consulting firms do. Viable? Anything in it for the government? (otherwise they won't do it).

Come up with an idea to help collect revenue?
Hello your joking, right?

[James Deuce]

We all contribute equally. For us that means one levy for all contributors to the scheme no matter what mode of transport we use.

Sorry Mom, you are utterly wrong. We do not all contribute equally, and that is what is so wrong about the ACC levy system.

Read it again.

[paddy]

Spot the vendor. Probably project manager or technical BA.

Sedge

Close-ish but not quite. :-)

[davebullet]

Sure - you can bloat anything if you want. Add enough paper and process (which governments like to do for one of two reasons 1. butt covering or 2. lining your mate's pockets). At the end of the day, all that paper doesn't help produce working software and end users don't actually use the paper, they use the system.

PS: Re hardware - just throw it all in the cloud (rent per month, tax deductible etc.. etc...)

[Mully]

My understanding is that Gummint's position on changes to the tax laws being considered is that they must be revenue neutral.

I would suggest this would be the same - and must therefore collect more to offset the administration required (if we're talking about licence renewal annually with a levy payable)

The trouble is, we'd have to pull an admin figure out of our collective arses in order to "price" the potential up - and Gummint's admin costs have a habit of spiralling out of control.

[James Deuce]

I'm not really understanding the approach. NZ Government Ministries are required to tender for services in response to a fairly clear plan that has been approved by the Minister, especially for for large projects that affect Government revenue.

One does not cold-call the Government with a good idea.

[James Deuce]

PS: Re hardware - just throw it all in the cloud (rent per month, tax deductible etc.. etc...)

GCSB have a lot to say about cloud computing in regard to Government usage and not much of it is good. The biggest stumbling block is that Doris' work is one password away.

[paddy]

Sure - you can bloat anything if you want. Add enough paper and process (which governments like to do for one of two reasons 1. butt covering or 2. lining your mate's pockets). At the end of the day, all that paper doesn't help produce working software and end users don't actually use the paper, they use the system.

3. Because they are very large organisations and there are typically many different parties to coordinate.

PS: Re hardware - just throw it all in the cloud (rent per month, tax deductible etc.. etc...)

What's the SLA? When you pay $10 a month, you can only expect $10 per month worth of service. Sure you often might get better than that, especially with a large provider, but when push comes to shove, you get no more clout with your supplier than I do when I sent an email to Amazon because something is wrong with my S3 bucket.