Demerit points hiked for unlicensed vehicles

[cold comfort]

As I conclude that I can do fuck all re this I have looked at the positives that will eventually come out of this. And the one I really like is that as the costs of fuel, license fees and everything else keeps on going up there will be less vehicles on the road. And for that I am prepared to pay!

+1 Thats about it in a nutshell

[86GSXR]

In this thread there are a few issues:

1. We are asked to pay towards ACC from each vehicle license fee. If you own one vehicle you pay once and if you have 10 vehicles you pay 10 times. What would be a fairer setup that all could agree upon?

1. 10% discount for two vehicles, 20% for three and so up to say 75%.

Just looking at the first issue for the time being.

I would say 90% discount on all additional bikes.

And if we don't keep on hammering away at the lawmakers we'll never see any changes.

Good post btw.

[p.dath]

I would say 90% discount on all additional bikes.

Don't forget, the cost of everyone's rego on their first bike would increase to allow this to happen ... I can smell a lot of pissed off bikers over that one.

[Swoop]

I wonder if the Labour Party would be open to the idea of paying a fair ACC levy on one bike and a marginal fee on any subsequent ones?

Yeah, right!

[MSTRS:Me]

Don't forget, the cost of everyone's rego on their first bike would increase to allow this to happen ... I can smell a lot of pissed off bikers over that one.

A glimmer of hope that you're not totally thick...

Simply put, without the differing risk-ratings, vehicle-based ACC levies have to provide $XM, split between the number of vehicles. If discounts are offered on multiple vehicles, then the first vehicle/s must carry a greater proportion of the amount required.

Put the levy on fuel. The annual litreage of fuel use is a relative constant, so tptb can easily work out how much is required per litre, add it at the pump, and adjust up or down as required. No-one is penalised for owning multiple vehicles, everyone pays according to their road use and barring the odd drive-off at fuel stations (never stop those) no-one escapes paying their share.

Of course, those with fuel-hungry vehicles might complain...

[DougieNZ]

It could be a lot worse. Get caught on the UK without a current tax disk (or insurance) and the vehicle is instantly impounded.

Lets see:

1. Govt announce increase in registration costs.

2. Heaps of prople come on here and say "right - I am not going to pay any registration".

3. Govt announces demerit points for offences

Hmmmm

I have always struggled with the whole argument at point 2. Where is the logic in not paying anything? this means, in effect, myself and other law abding road users are contributing for you. Is that fair? So - sorry if you end up getting caught and losing your licence they you will get little symapthy from me. You roll the dice, you pay the price.

As for the revenue gathering argument. Hang on - they have decreased the fine? So this is not about revenue gathering for the offence? It is more about getting people to contribute for using the roads?

Ever used a hospital? Ever collected govt subsidies on prescriptions? Got kids in school? Been on a benefit?

How do you think all this stuff is paid for? Magic? What if we all said - "I don't agree with paying taxes so I'm not paying"?

Drive on the roads? Then contribute to the costs!

[nodrog:Me]

It could be a lot worse. Get caught on the UK without a current tax disk (or insurance) and the vehicle is instantly impounded.

Lets see:

1. Govt announce increase in registration costs.

2. Heaps of prople come on here and say "right - I am not going to pay any registration".

3. Govt announces demerit points for offences

Hmmmm

I have always struggled with the whole argument at point 2. Where is the logic in not paying anything? this means, in effect, myself and other law abding road users are contributing for you. Is that fair? So - sorry if you end up getting caught and losing your licence they you will get little symapthy from me. You roll the dice, you pay the price.

As for the revenue gathering argument. Hang on - they have decreased the fine? So this is not about revenue gathering for the offence? It is more about getting people to contribute for using the roads?

Ever used a hospital? Ever collected govt subsidies on prescriptions? Got kids in school? Been on a benefit?

How do you think all this stuff is paid for? Magic? What if we all said - "I don't agree with paying taxes so I'm not paying"?

Drive on the roads? Then contribute to the costs!

Sweet, ill go and register all 7 of my vehicles and try and drive/ride them all at the same time.

[StoneY]

I wonder if the Labour Party would be open to the idea of paying a fair ACC levy on one bike and a marginal fee on any subsequent ones?

Believe it or not this has been discussed with TPTB in several 'meetings' I have attended, there is some sympathy toward multiple vehicle owners, yet there is no system in place that (currently) can deal with this

Risk assessment based on history and claims has been discussed as well (I would be cooked LOL) but I am not allowed to talk about these things of course........

[Max Preload]

Well, duh!!
The maximum allowable fine has been $1000 for a long time. $200 is the actual fine imposed.

The maximum fine is $1000. The infringement fee is $200.

Yep MR24 form

MR27.

I'll be making moulds of my plates and I still won't be licensing any vehicles. Fuck any 'consequences'. I'm all about the principle.

[MSTRS:Me]

Risk assessment based on history and claims has been discussed as well ...

I'm sure that this would be even more unfair. I touched on it in an earlier post.
The only way to offer discounts for good claim history would be to shift to licence based levies. Which penalises those who do very little motoring. Unless the way it was applied utilised a method of adjusting the levy according to expected annual mileage...but how would that be policed?

[imdying]

It could be a lot worse. Get caught on the UK without a current tax disk (or insurance) and the vehicle is instantly impounded.

How many people without a current tax disk do the runner? Common or unheard of?

Because if I had to play the numbers, a fake plate and a fireblade seems like pretty good odds of getting away with it. Might need a Chinese fairing kit and some matt black paint though... (or at least a couple of kits, IYKWIM).

[p.dath]

Giving some consideration to multi-vehicle ownership - I can see considerable scope for abuse if discounts were offered in this scenario.

A group of owners could get together and form a partnership, company, trust, or any other single legal entity, and then register all of their vehicles under that one name. They could still retain the right to their bike under a constitution or equivalent legal framework within that entity.
And if we are talking about saving people $500 each, then there is considerable motivation for them to do this. I can't see anyway to prevent this.

Also considerable ACC revenue may be lost to current fleet operators. Consider a large corporate with 500 vehicles - all of a sudden their ACC bill would reduce from 500 down to the hugely discounted rate.
The effect of this would be that everyone else's ACC levy would increase. Possibly by quite a bit.

And part of this is that just because a person owns more than one vehicle does not mean all of those vehicles are not used at once. Consider your typical two car family where the cars are registered to a single legal entity - yet both cars are being used.

The more I think about it, the more I come to the conclusion of trying to handle the situation of a single person owing multiple vehicles where only one is used at a time to achieve a lower ACC premium for that one person within the current framework is just too dangerous. There could be a lot of unintended issues.


Shifting 100% of the ACC levy to fuel seems like the simplest option to me, still.

[Bald Eagle]

Shifting 100% of the ACC levy to fuel seems like the simplest option to me, still.

TPTB don't want simple they want maximum revenue for minimum effort.

They also want to sell a flourishing business to the highest bidder once they've got the revenue stream pumped up enough.

[MSTRS:Me]

Shifting 100% of the ACC levy to fuel seems like the simplest option to me, still.

Fair.
Least open to abuse.
Covers all the bases for high, or low, mileage (read that as time exposed to risk).
Easily implemented.
Easy to adjust amount as required (no need to wait until July 1st to raise/lower).

The only 'drawback' for the govt/ACC is their bullshit risk-rating wouldn't apply.

[nodrog:Me]

And part of this is that just because a person owns more than one vehicle does not mean all of those vehicles are not used at once. .

This is why it should be a yearly ACC premium on your drivers licence, then everybody (legally) operating a vehicle has payed.