Non-payment of ACC levies: how do you reckon this will end?

[Winston001]

So you own 4 bikes or 4 classic cars whatever but you only use one on the road at any particular time. How do you reduce down to one registration?

And what would it cost? - LTNZ and ACC won't reduce what they collect.

[Zedder]

So you own 4 bikes or 4 classic cars whatever but you only use one on the road at any particular time. How do you reduce down to one registration?

And what would it cost? - LTNZ and ACC won't reduce what they collect.

Some type of Road User Charge, I'm not sure about the numbers yet.

[Ocean1]

So you own 4 bikes or 4 classic cars whatever but you only use one on the road at any particular time. How do you reduce down to one registration?

And what would it cost? - LTNZ and ACC won't reduce what they collect.

It's been pointed out before, the Swiss for one have a single registration per person, it ain't difficult.

As for reducing revenue, they get less from bikers now than before they increased the levy. What was the point of the increase again?

[swbarnett]

So you own 4 bikes or 4 classic cars whatever but you only use one on the road at any particular time. How do you reduce down to one registration?

And what would it cost? - LTNZ and ACC won't reduce what they collect.

Bloody simple really. Abolish ACC levies completely and take the entire cost from tax. We all benifit so we should all pay. This way it's even relative to income.

[Erelyes]

So you own 4 bikes or 4 classic cars whatever but you only use one on the road at any particular time. How do you reduce down to one registration?

And what would it cost? - LTNZ and ACC won't reduce what they collect.

There are problems with pretty much any solution.

Collecting it at the pump - would work well for cars (generally, those that are more fuel efficient are safer too). However the increase in petrol cost would be a slick opportunity for the petrol barons to stick a few cents on top again and skim even more cream off the top at the expense of the public. The other reason that wouldn't wash is that motorcycles are fuel efficient, and roughly quartering the relative fees that motorcycles pay wouldn't be popular, as ACC says- (source)

The continuing cross subsidisation of motorcycles by other vehicle types is a concern to several stakeholder groups

Doing it by driver (through the driver licencing process) - those that do low KMs only to the supermarket each weekend (i.e. Doris) will be paying a disproportionate amount. Plus how fair is that to summer riders (vs those that ride all year round), etc - (source)

ACC requires owners of motor vehicles to pay $1,065 million towards the levies required for 2014/15. If this amount is collected from unique owners rather than from each vehicle then the amount per owner will be higher than the current levies.

'by kilometer' according to vehicle type - we all know how easy a RUC-type scheme is to 'work around'. GPS wouldn't fix this, just as easy to tamper with.

You could offer a 50% discount to the registered owner on the second and subsequently owned vehicle. But then you'll have people that are registered as the owner of their bike, their dad's bike, and their brother's bike. Admittedly this would be a minor issue and you're still paying more. If you offer a 100% discount then the 'minor' issue will be come a big one!

You could offer a system where you only pay licence fees on the days you ride (Rather than a minimum licencing period of a month, and a minimum 'hold' period of 3 months). But how the fuck would you administer that.... plus you could get a $200 fine for getting mixed up as to which bike was licenced on which day, etc...

A nightmare huh

[Zedder]

Bloody simple really. Abolish ACC levies completely and take the entire cost from tax. We all benifit so we should all pay. This way it's even relative to income.

But ACC levies are a set of taxes anyway, just a bloody unfair set of taxes and an insurance scheme as well under the guise of a no blame system.

[Swoop]

Doing it by driver (through the driver licencing process) - those that do low KMs only to the supermarket each weekend (i.e. Doris) will be paying a disproportionate amount.

ACC levies currently do not relate to distances driven/ridden.
It makes no difference if a person drives 1km or 100,000km to ACC as they only get involved when that person has an accident.

So, it goes back to the individual operator of the machinery.

[Zedder]

ACC levies currently do not relate to distances driven/ridden.
It makes no difference if a person drives 1km or 100,000km to ACC as they only get involved when that person has an accident.

So, it goes back to the individual operator of the machinery.

AS Ocean1 wrote earlier, Switzerland has an operator system that works for them although it's not designed for an ACC levy collection process.

Germany has a similar one.

[Ocean1]

ACC levies currently do not relate to distances driven/ridden.
It makes no difference if a person drives 1km or 100,000km to ACC as they only get involved when that person has an accident.

So, it goes back to the individual operator of the machinery.

Reckon a fuel surcharge would work OK. It might not be perfectly proportionate to the time spent on the road, but if you factor in a fudge for the higher fuel consumption units being generally the larger and hurtier ones I reckon the cost to personal damage would be well close.

All of which fails to address the most likely driver of current policy: There’s no point at all taxing those that can’t pay. So we’ll continue to see heavily spun policy driven by dodgilly collected data designed to justify taxing those that CAN pay.

Whatever. I’ll continue to endeavour to retain as many of my hard-earned shekels as is conveniently possible, whatever the current rort.

[Robbo]

I think the reason why it is higher for bigger bikes is because mid life crisis bikers buy them and think they can ride as well as they did 25 years ago and come to grief as the power of big bikes today is much higher.

Cassina, that is absolute crap. If you had taken the time to check the ACC statistics you would known that the biggest amount of claims have come from the younger inexperienced riders, many of whom think they are Valentino Rossis and end up coming to grief. There is no substitute for experience and this is what most middle aged riders have along with the fact that most bikes in their earlier days were capable of 160km+ and handled like shit compared to modern bikes.

[Robbo]

What I have said is not made up as I have read similar comment from many publictions. Younger guys are not taking up motorcycling today like they did in the 70's as today you can buy a good quick car for same price as a big bike so they could not possibly make up the majority of bike deaths. If you want to debate further I will paste some articles.

Articles from publications are pure speculation in most cases. Suggest you go to the ACC website and get the correct statistics as this thread is about ACC costs and levies. It shows that 17 to 30 years of age has almost double the accidents and claims than 50+.

[pritch]

It's been pointed out before, the Swiss for one have a single registration per person, it ain't difficult.

When the question of multiple vehicles was raised at the time of the increase ACC stated that if they just had a single charge the funds raised would not meet the budget.
So common sense, logic, justice, or anything else don't come into it. It is this way soley to raise money. Of course they were too hungry and turned it into a fail.

[Winston001]

Bloody simple really. Abolish ACC levies completely and take the entire cost from tax. We all benifit so we should all pay. This way it's even relative to income.

My gut reaction is to agree but the tax situation doesn't support that. Family Support means many people pay no tax at all. In fact tax revenue comes from about 25% of the population including companies.

ACC is an insurance scheme even if we pretend it isn't. Risk is weighted and ACC levies follow the logic. If you are in forestry you are high risk and pay a high premium.

If you ride a motorcycle you are high risk and pay accordingly. It doesn't matter that muppets in cages cause the accidents for bikers, the core fact is a biker gets hurt and needs compensation.

[swbarnett]

My gut reaction is to agree but the tax situation doesn't support that. Family Support means many people pay no tax at all.

That means that those that are already being supported by the rest of us continue to be. Don't see a problem here.

In fact tax revenue comes from about 25% of the population including companies.

Do you have a source for this assertion?

ACC is an insurance scheme even if we pretend it isn't. Risk is weighted and ACC levies follow the logic. If you are in forestry you are high risk and pay a high premium.

If you ride a motorcycle you are high risk and pay accordingly. It doesn't matter that muppets in cages cause the accidents for bikers, the core fact is a biker gets hurt and needs compensation.

I agree that ACC is currently operated akin to an insurance company. However, that is completely against the principles on which it was founded.

Secondly, the definition of the groups that incurance companies use to aportion relative risk values are completely arbitrary. Imagine the public backlash if they started aportioning risk values based on race. Why should your choice of vehicle be any different?

Thirdly, the whole idea of no-claim bonuses, while nice when you're on the receiving end, is completely illogical. The financial model of an insurance company is based around that fact that some customers will never claim; their premiums then more than make up for those that do.

[Ocean1]

What I have said is not made up as I have read similar comment from many publictions. Younger guys are not taking up motorcycling today like they did in the 70's as today you can buy a good quick car for same price as a big bike so they could not possibly make up the majority of bike deaths. If you want to debate further I will paste some articles.

Don’t bother, they're wrong. They're simply quoting or re-quoting official publications like this: http://www.transport.govt.nz/assets/...cts-2012.1.pdf
without bothering to do any further analysis. The graph showing the "proof" you're looking for is about 1/4 of the way down.

You’ll notice the humps at 15/20 and at 45/55. Except, when you correct it for numbers riding at those ages the 45/55 hump becomes a hollow. The un-spun facts support the generally sound premise that experience produces results.