ACC Levy Submission

[The Stranger:Me]

Doing some very rough calculations from the pdf on page 19

For every $10 drop in rego fee theres an increase in petrol levy of 0.8c

So to get rid of rego fee it would be an extra (130/10)*0.8 = 10.5c

so we would be paying a total of ~16c in petrol levies

...just in case anyone else was wondering what the extra cost would be

Without checking the figures and off the top of my head they would only need to recover the money they lost, so either way we (as in the populace at large) pay the same amount (approximately)

This does however put the cost where it lies. For example I (and very many others) have more than one bike and a car. It is the person (me) whom is insured by ACC, why should I pay 3 times the premium of someone else?

[The Stranger:Me]

You raise a good point about boats and Im sure boaties would not be happy. I used to waterski race and at full speed on open water we would burn 1L/min. Some of the bigger boats running dual 300hps @100miles/hour would burn 4+L/min.

The only solution would be to pay at a different rate but thats to difficult to police, you could full your boat then transfer it into your car etc so its a bit of a no win. As for lawn mowers/weedwackers really do you need to complain about the extra $2 or so youll end up paying per year

Do water skiers ever have ACC claims?
Do off road bikers ever have ACC claims?
Do farmers ever have ACC claims?
Do people using chainsaws and lawnmowers ever have ACC claims?

So ACC get a windfall from recreational and non vehicle users if they collect from fuel alone.

That could either be handled by reducing the total take elsewhere, which as we have seen they are capable of doing, or allowing say a farmer or lawnmowing contractor etc to claim a deduction or offset against their ACC levy.

Sure there could be abuse of the system, any system (including the current one) is open to abuse, however by and large the vast majority of petrol is used in motor vehicles on a public road and thus would be caught in the scheme. The remainder, and thus the portion open to abuse, would be rather insignificant.

[Swoop]

You raise a good point about boats and Im sure boaties would not be happy.

There is a floating petrol station in the Westhaven harbour. You can only get to it via boat and a vehicle is totally impossible to get near it. Why should those fuelpumps be charging a road tax?

I believe you can apply for a refund of the tax paid on fuel used for boats. Certainly this was once the case. No idea how though

I don't believe there is a method/system of obtaining a refund for non-road useage now.

We are meant to be a "user pays" society. Unfortunately this is not true as some that do-not-use, still pay.

[The_Dover]

it's the ones that do not pay but still use that piss me off.

[Filterer]

Hows about then you have a system like RUC. When you go for your wof you have to pay for the number of km's youve driven or you get no wof. I like that better then a pre-pay system.

Far enough about other petrol users also needing ACC but for a truely user pays system they should be paying relative to the cost of treating.

Should people who use electric weedwackers not pay ACC tax but petrol ones should?

[davereid]

I don't think the cost of treating is relevant. I think the responsibility for the accident is more important.

For example motorcyclists are very expensive to treat. But they are often in hospital as the result of another drivers actions. Who should pay the bill ? The person who caused the accident, or the victim. ?

Maybe, as ACC is a no-fault regime, we should just all pay the same premium.

[The Stranger:Me]

Hows about then you have a system like RUC. When you go for your wof you have to pay for the number of km's youve driven or you get no wof. I like that better then a pre-pay system.

Far enough about other petrol users also needing ACC but for a truely user pays system they should be paying relative to the cost of treating.

Should people who use electric weedwackers not pay ACC tax but petrol ones should?

The pay when you get your warrant has the same problem as paying when you register i.e. you don't actually need a warrant to drive, you do need petrol. Strangely enough, unregistered and/or un warranted vehicles are proportionately over represented in accident statistics, so these people are out there not paying and yet receiving all the benefits of ACC.

[The Stranger:Me]

I don't think the cost of treating is relevant. I think the responsibility for the accident is more important.

For example motorcyclists are very expensive to treat. But they are often in hospital as the result of another drivers actions. Who should pay the bill ? The person who caused the accident, or the victim. ?

Maybe, as ACC is a no-fault regime, we should just all pay the same premium.

Bingo.
That is exactly the contention of BRONZ.

Sure the biggest cause of Motorcycle accidents is single vehicle failing to take a right hand bend, but these cost ACC sweet FA. It is the ones involving other vehicles which cost.

Mind you, it doesn't help when they lump farm and off road motorcycle accidents into the figures then divide the figure by the number of registered motorcyles. These accidents are not meant to be covered from the MV fund.

[emaN]

Done.
Have just emailed them a slightly modified version of that doc.
Cheers N!

[Divot]

I aggree with the petrol levie. The more k's you dou the more at risk you are at. This wat the unlicenced drivers and unlicenced vehicles can be hit as well as all the legal ones.

[NighthawkNZ:Me]

However this then puts additional cost onto non-roading/automotive uses of petrol, such as your lawn mower, scrub cutter, chainsaw, etc - and also particularly harsh on boat owners. Do the profits of the petrol tax (made from purchasing fuel for your boat) go into boating safety or the Coastguard service?

I have no problem with this, there are still accidents that happen, my friend got his eye very baddly damaged when a stone from mowing the lawn and hit him in the eye. And when I was chain sawing some trees (wearing all the safety gear) some sawdust still got under my googles and into my eye...

ACC is not just for road accidents...

[Ixion]

And as far as the question of fuel used in boats goes, it could be argued that boaties at present are gettign a free ride. If they paid something toward the accident costs incurred by their hobby it would in fact be just and equitable.

Why should the man who is injured blatting around on the water pay nothing for ACC cover, whilst the man injured blatting around on a (road registered0 bike must pay ?

ACC as a fuel tax is MORE fair , not less.

[crack]

Chap's & Chapess's:

I am only a mere L Plater? and have decided to join your forum.

As a LONG time biker, the ACC system is a thorn in my Arse.

Not only is it unfair/unjust, and just bloody daft, but very poorly thought out.

When I saw this thread, I decided to "post" my correspondence with the Tossers/Wankers/and Wenches in power, that take our over taxed salaries.

At the time of writting the attached, I was working out of NZ on rotation, I would invaribly get caught out with missing Rego payments, and the minimum I could get was 3months, I ended up paying the 12 months just to stop the hassel, I would pay 12 months and get to use it 3-4 months out of the year.

With ACC, I had to pay contributions: I had to hold as per my contract, global Medical/Accident insurance, and repatriation Insurance out of what ever Rag Head country I was in, to Geneva, then to NZ.

When I broke my little toe while at work, I put in a claim when I arrived home, only to be told that ACC would not pay out.

The next year I decided to not pay ACC, I mean what was the point, Shit did I create a shit storm for myself, and my wife, I paid up again after being threatened with bankrupcy procedings, yes that is correct.

Now if any of you Chaps/Chapess's are of the Legal fraternity, you may be interested to know that the threat of these procedings was done without court preliminaries, direct action as I remember under the ACC act.

Three weeks after paying, I was informed that ACC had changed the rules pertaining to the likes of me working outside NZ, and I no longer had to contibute the such.

Have a look at the attached and form your own opinions of the ACC Rego issue.

As for the Tossers/Wankers/Wenches in power, a jolly good rogering with a unlubricated, splintered, pustulating, phall'us :

I am for fair sharing of the costs, but not to the point of being held responsible in their statistics, EG: get knocked off your mount by some one elses doing, you are penilised because you happen to be on a motorcycle, the payment doesn't take into account that the car owner is at fault, that just perhaps the guilty parties insurance should pay the ACC.

This is not rocket science:

Motorcycles are not comparable to the ARTS for instance, Shit Aunty Helen gave $4 million to the ARTS.

NZer's use to stand up when they had enough and say so, now we are a nation beaten by the Aussie's and the French, in their desire to get what is fair.

Rant Rant Rant enough said for a mere L Plater.

[The Stranger:Me]

As a LONG time biker, the ACC system is a thorn in my Arse.

Not only is it unfair/unjust, and just bloody daft, but very poorly thought out.

Welcome to the site and an interesting post.
So we have crashes where primary responsibility is the motorcyclist and crashes where motorcyclist is a contributing factor and crashes where the car was at fault, yet none where a car was a contributing factor - wonder why that is?

But the other untold tale is that crashes which don't involve a car are usually of quite insignificant cost to ACC.
According to that data, 61% of multi vehicle crashes were caused by cars, so yay, we get to pay for it.

[crack]

Thanks for the recognition, I was beginning to wonder if anyone had any ball's.

You my friend, no question.

What I would like to see and organise, is a Humongous BIKE RUN, and take it to the F--KING STEPS OF PARLIAMENT.

Get some press recognition, I don't want to emulate Brash's comments A La CORRUPTION, but it certainly makes one think doesn't it?

Now before anyone jumps down my throat, The definition as defined in the Collins English Dictionary:

Corrupt':
Lacking integrity,open to,or involving, bribery,wicked;spoilt by mistakes, altered for the worse,make evil,pervert,bribe, make rotten,( see Rot) we have Putrid.

In this land we use to be free, we could express opinions.

Now it is getting bloody dangerous to question government policy.

As for Democracy, What is it.

How do we define it.

Do we have a constitution to say how we want to be governed, NO.

A dictatorship, with the peasants being allowed to vote every three years. 4 million people ruled by 120 by and large self serving career minded, politicians, that take our tax's, and when they either decide to step down,with Tax payer funded pension, or get voted out,still have the pension, they can choose to do as Winston does,make a deal with who ever and give his soul to the devil to hang onto power, and we say we are in a democracy, I have seen more Freedom in 3rd world countries than this cute, F---ed up place I was born in.

What are my kids going to inherit?.

Rant Rant, Rave Rave, I only started looking and delving when I had issues as already described, shit we can rave on about Law and Order, Health Services, Elderly Care, Childrens Education.

As I say they pissed me off over the Rego, and Acc thing, I was truely amazed.

I returned to NZ "Full time" in 2004, after life as an expatriot for 25 years.