Gareth Morgan in the Herald on ACC levies for bikers

**bogan** · 10th July 2012, 19:45

Originally Posted by Parlane

Who would rub herpes on a form!?

Depends if Gareth will be reading it

**Ocean1** · 10th July 2012, 19:59

If Gareth reckons we should pay according to the level of risk involved in our activities then how come my earner levies are income based. And how come my diesel van costs twice as much to register as my car.

If there's a common thread running through the whole ACC levies structure it's one of broadly categarising activities associated with income streams and taxing them accordingly. Same as every other tax rort. Sick of it. The more effort they put into aligning the various tax categories with revenue streams so as to skim as much as possible from any given activity the more effort I put into making godamn sure they get as little as possible.

Fuckem.

**tzrmike** · 10th July 2012, 20:11

Last month, one of my workmates broke his ankle while shit-faced, he stepped off a deck. 4 weeks off work, 3 paid for by ACC. Levies recieved by ACC? Zero directly, but he's covered because of his income based levy. If I'm trimming the hedge at home and cut my finger off, or fall off a scaffold, I'm covered, so why should it be different for using a motor vehicle? If you work, you earn income, which has an ACC levy deducted. If you don't work, you don't have income, so you don't pay an earner's levy, so you don't get compo from ACC. I think that is the crux of the problem, ACC is being used to fund much more than just income protection, AND is being used to provide services to non-earmers.

**The_Duke** · 10th July 2012, 21:39

The only ACC claim I've ever had to make in 17 years of riding was a badly sprained ankle I got trying to be a hero on the old man's unregistered dirt bike..

I'm guessing I'm not the only one.... and it begs the question: Why didn't Dr Pancake-Face do more research into the the distortion that off-road bike incidents make on our ACC stats??

**sleemanj** · 10th July 2012, 22:22

Originally Posted by tzrmike

ACC is being used to fund much more than just income protection, AND is being used to provide services to non-earmers.

Err, because

1. ACC is not just about income protection. It's about fixing you up as best we can. If that means subsidising or providing income, then good, but it also means paying your surgeon, paying for that helicopter rescue, paying for your physio, and those crutches....

2. In the vast majority of cases, non earners were once, or will be in future, earners. And even if they are not (tourists, invalids, elderly, perpetually unemployed), an amount of the money they spend paying you to be employed gets to the ACC as a levy to cover their activities (not to mention the ACC's investment returns).

Do you suggest that the instant you lose your job you cease to be covered by ACC?!?! Sorry you broke your leg granny, but since you don't work, here's a bill for $5000. Oh hai tourists, yes we know you pump millions of dollars into our economy, but anyway here's your gargantuan bill for the medical care since somebody bowled you over crossing the street.

The cost to our society of providing UNIVERSAL coverage under ACC pales in comparison with the advantages to both the individual and society of doing so.

NZ is a country with a strong history of socialised medical care and ACC is a part of that, if you don't like it, the US is only a 12 hour flight to the north, you better take your cheque (check) book though.

**tzrmike** · 11th July 2012, 06:38

The point I'm making is that the Health System should be fixing me, paying my surgeon, providing physical therapy, not the ACC which should be solely for providing income protection. So, if you are a non-earner you get health care, but if you are an earner, you get health care and partial income. Now, I understand this is in effect what happens at the moment, BUT because the medical costs of accidents of both earners and non-earners, as well as the income support for earners are being loaded against ACC, this balloons the liability of ACC, rather than the Health System.

What's the real answer? Don't know. If the cost of accidents is removed from ACC and passed to the Health System, it would probably collapse in a heap of finanicial mis-management, or the government will jack taxes higher to pay for it (and probably leave ACC levies where they are anyway.) As an earner you pay twice anyway, tax and levy, so we're never going be better off.

You don't have to fly for 12 hours either, to see a country whose balls are held in a insurance vice, just pop across the ditch.

**Motig** · 11th July 2012, 07:47

If Gareth could tell me what the advantage for me would be under his hypothetical regime I might be interested but he gives no details of anything in that regard. The main thing his scheme seems to be advocating is basically the elimination of the no faults ACC scheme we have at present which using our old favorite the good old USA as an example would be a disaster. What would this personal motorcycle levy cost? no idea and of course nor does he but I'd just about guarantee the lower waged sector of the motorcycle community would be the worst affected. At least with the present ACC thru registration you have the opportunity if your a softy like me to lessen your ACC levy by having your rego on hold over winter months, that wouldn't be possible under his idea. A rebate if the person opts out having wages covered by his 'personal levy' well what are you going to survive on if something happens? You'd have to have income insurance and I'm pretty sure that would be way more than the present ACC levy, no savings there then. So until I see an advantage of Gareths scheme over the present ACC model, I'm opting firmly for the present scheme.
Perhaps the easiest way to bring motorcycle levies down would be to have all recreational and farm use quads, farmbikes, offroad bikes etc forced to pay rego just like roadbike users. It would take a while but if all new vehicles were required to pay rego as soon as they were brought and renew it every year as everybody else has to it would be a start.
Has Gareth got shares in an insurance company? I'm wondering

**tbs** · 11th July 2012, 10:10

Just wondering here. Is the advisory council's brief just to look into the ACC levies and registration (sorry, licensing) costs, or are they supposed to be looking at ways to lower the motorcycle accident rate? I ask, because while I agree in theory with the license the rider not the bike approach, I don't agree with the rest of this user pays attitude. It either places too much burden on user groups that are easy to tax, such as road motorcyclists, or it further opens the door for targeted revenue collection across a whole range of activities.

I'd be happy with a high personal license fee as long as I could bring it down significantly by going to high quality, fully subsidized rider training programs. We know that rider error is a huge part of the problem with motorcycle injury and death, so let's target that specifically. If they need to use high licensing fees to push riders into doing the training, then I personally don't have a problem with that. I also think you should be able to show high speed machine control before getting your learner license, as I believe the biggest part of the problem is bad riding technique. I think riders should be made to do a full two day course covering theory and practical riding at a track, with high standards for pass rates The restricted and full license tests should be carried out on road by proper motorcycle instructors who can actually analyze technique.

I know many will disagree, but here's the reasoning behind my thinking. I got my license less than two years ago. I proved I could pootle around a car park with a speed limit of 20km/h. No problem. What I did have a problem with, was that I had absolutely no clue how to ride properly at road speeds. Of course I did learn, but a lot of the technique I have comes from having watched the Twist of the Wrist DVD, gone to a Prorider day, and attending SASS, and doing track days..... all at my cost (except SASS). Oh, and 20 odd years riding and racing mountain bikes helped too. And while I believe track days are great for learning machine control, I have to admit I am nowhere near as confident riding on the road, and I would describe my road technique as mediocre at best.

Look at Grantman's thread on the noobie forum as an example. Left to his own devices, he developed bad habits and a bad mind set, and became the classic example of all that motorcyclists do wrong. He could virtually be the poster child for my recommendations.

I have to go do some work now, so that I can pay my ACC levies.....

Discuss.

**GTRMAN** · 11th July 2012, 10:16

Originally Posted by tbs

Just wondering here. Is the advisory council's brief just to look into the ACC levies and registration (sorry, licensing) costs, or are they supposed to be looking at ways to lower the motorcycle accident rate? I ask, because while I agree in theory with the license the rider not the bike approach, I don't agree with the rest of this user pays attitude. It either places too much burden on user groups that are easy to tax, such as road motorcyclists, or it further opens the door for targeted revenue collection across a whole range of activities.

I'd be happy with a high personal license fee as long as I could bring it down significantly by going to high quality, fully subsidized rider training programs. We know that rider error is a huge part of the problem with motorcycle injury and death, so let's target that specifically. If they need to use high licensing fees to push riders into doing the training, then I personally don't have a problem with that. I also think you should be able to show high speed machine control before getting your learner license, as I believe the biggest part of the problem is bad riding technique. I think riders should be made to do a full two day course covering theory and practical riding at a track, with high standards for pass rates The restricted and full license tests should be carried out on road by proper motorcycle instructors who can actually analyze technique.

I know many will disagree, but here's the reasoning behind my thinking. I got my license less than two years ago. I proved I could pootle around a car park with a speed limit of 20km/h. No problem. What I did have a problem with, was that I had absolutely no clue how to ride properly at road speeds. Of course I did learn, but a lot of the technique I have comes from having watched the Twist of the Wrist DVD, gone to a Prorider day, and attending SASS, and doing track days..... all at my cost (except SASS). Oh, and 20 odd years riding and racing mountain bikes helped too. And while I believe track days are great for learning machine control, I have to admit I am nowhere near as confident riding on the road, and I would describe my road technique as mediocre at best.

Look at Grantman's thread on the noobie forum as an example. Left to his own devices, he developed bad habits and a bad mind set, and became the classic example of all that motorcyclists do wrong. He could virtually be the poster child for my recommendations.

I have to go do some work now, so that I can pay my ACC levies.....

Discuss.

Well it does make sense that if every rider is trained and assessed in competence at a much higher skill level then the number of accidents (should say rider caused accidents) would decrease.

**jellywrestler** · 11th July 2012, 10:22

Originally Posted by tbs

Is the advisory council's brief just to look into the ACC levies and registration (sorry, licensing) costs, or are they supposed to be looking at ways to lower the motorcycle accident rate?

Not at all, As a motorcyclist with over 33 years on the road i've seen some stupid hazards some of which are an easy fix. I took the time to put in TWO submissions to MOTONZ and didn't get one single word of reply from them.
When i did email them to check some months later they told me they got my submissions, not a single word other than a confirmation.
It seems to me that MOTONZ are simply about a good old get together for a tray of lamingtons and a pot of tea...

**MisterE** · 11th July 2012, 10:23

Originally Posted by Katman

Convincing us to crash less often seems like a pretty good agenda to me.

Agreed. If it works. Let's start with the following...

Consequences are extremely important for explaining risky behaviours, like speeding,
because these behaviours are typically followed by soon and certain positive
consequences (rewards), while the negative consequences (penalties) are generally
uncertain and not very likely at the short term. Indeed, and luckily, crashes due to
speeding are relatively rare events and only a small percentage of total speed violations
are fined. So, speeding often goes unpunished. Driving safely, conversely, offers little
reward to the individual driver. Because of this specific alignment of consequences,
speeding is a highly common phenomenon, proving hard to curtail (Fuller, 1991).

Start with the research carried out by B F Skinner. It doesn't work. It's never worked. There is not one single piece of credible research demonstrating that this approach works. Which is why our self confessed "numbers man" has failed miserably to talk numbers.

**GrayWolf** · 11th July 2012, 10:56

Originally Posted by sleemanj

Err, because

1. ACC is not just about income protection. It's about fixing you up as best we can. If that means subsidising or providing income, then good, but it also means paying your surgeon, paying for that helicopter rescue, paying for your physio, and those crutches....

2. In the vast majority of cases, non earners were once, or will be in future, earners. And even if they are not (tourists, invalids, elderly, perpetually unemployed), an amount of the money they spend paying you to be employed gets to the ACC as a levy to cover their activities (not to mention the ACC's investment returns).

Do you suggest that the instant you lose your job you cease to be covered by ACC?!?! Sorry you broke your leg granny, but since you don't work, here's a bill for $5000. Oh hai tourists, yes we know you pump millions of dollars into our economy, but anyway here's your gargantuan bill for the medical care since somebody bowled you over crossing the street.

The cost to our society of providing UNIVERSAL coverage under ACC pales in comparison with the advantages to both the individual and society of doing so.

NZ is a country with a strong history of socialised medical care and ACC is a part of that, if you don't like it, the US is only a 12 hour flight to the north, you better take your cheque (check) book though.

Agree with the above overall, however, (isnt there always an 'however'?) accepting ACC is a 'global panacea' for all in the event of an accident, and is funded by our contributions. We (those who work) pay an ACC levy, our employers pay an ACC levy, we buy a vehicle(s) and pay an ACC levy.... I would and do willingly agree and accept the notion of benifit for an accident outside the workplace being covered. Anyone could get bowled by a car, fall over, trip, etc etc. Where there is a serious inequality is in the fact Motorcyclists have been singled out as 'high risk' users of the service and 'taxed' accordingly as they are x45 times more likely to be injured. So using that premise, play rugby, netball, football, hockey, horse riding, mountain biking..... they are all at 'high risk' of injury when compared to a pedestrian walking along the pavement... About time ACC also hit their pockets to contribute.... and lets not get me started on performance cars!!!

**duckonin** · 11th July 2012, 11:01

Originally Posted by sleemanj

Err, because

1. it also means paying your surgeon, paying for that helicopter rescue, paying for your physio, and those crutches....
.

Those above are the very souce of ripping off ACC with BIG bills. Most professionals love the thought ACC is paying the bill, and hike the price to their biggest advantage.

You could make your own list but here are a few more .Optometrists, GP'S, Motorcycle trainers, Chiropraters plus many more.

These are the morons helping themselves big time to the 'unlimited purse' to make sure they are more than 'WELL' paid. Yep just wright out the chit,submit it and presto another house on the waterways at Pauanui.

We in turn pay more for levies to keep those above in lavish lifestyles. Try and get a Surgeon to help you if you are not on ACC or private insurance, ha ha happy waiting JACK...

**duckonin** · 11th July 2012, 11:05

Originally Posted by jellywrestler

Not at all, As a motorcyclist with over 33 years on the road i've seen some stupid hazards some of which are an easy fix. I took the time to put in TWO submissions to MOTONZ and didn't get one single word of reply from them.
When i did email them to check some months later they told me they got my submissions, not a single word other than a confirmation.
It seems to me that MOTONZ are simply about a good old get together for a tray of lamingtons and a pot of tea...

Same here.. I did not even get a confirmation so I figured why waste my time again. A waste of another thirty dollars of my money..