ACC levies for multiple bike owners

**RentaTriumph** · 14th July 2008, 17:44

I heard a story about an old boy who has two motorcycles and registered the first. He then paid seperate cheques for the registration component and acc levy on the second bike. he then went to the bank and cancelled the cheque for the ACC levy. ACC have been onto him and he refuses to pay stating that he can only ride one bike at a time. Apparently ACC are now not going to chase him for the second levy as they are concerned it could grow into a monster if word go out and support grew.

What is other KB's thoughts on this. Is it fair for people who register more than one bike a year to pay the ACC levy more than once?.

**Jantar** · 14th July 2008, 17:48

Can you find out more?

If true, I'd support this guy with a donation towards his legal costs.

**gijoe1313** · 14th July 2008, 17:48

Dizzam thats something I never considered ... and me with a gargre praked full of bikes that need wasing!

Hmmmm very interesting food for thought ... mind you, I guess its the same as if you owned a bunch of cages ...

I may have to set myself up as a dealer and just transfer a plate across

**rwh** · 14th July 2008, 17:49

While there's a point with the extra cost for 2 bikes, the argument that 'I can't ride both at the same time' doesn't really work - he can still lend one to a mate.

It would make more sense for the fees to be distance based, rather than time based. But then is the risk really proportional to the distance travelled, or more to the time spent on the bike (which we have no standard instruments to measure)?

It's a hard problem.

Richard

**vtec** · 14th July 2008, 17:53

Totally, I owned 2 bikes and a car in NZ. ACC were shafting me hardcore, especially because I was a bicycle courier. They were taxing my income at crazy levels too, and I wasn't even using my motorvehicles much.

And my parents?? 3 bikes, 2 cars. That's over $1000 for my parents alone in registration. We were paying the equivalent of 3 peoples ACC fees each. And we could only use one vehicle at a time. It's bollocks. System needs to be changed so you are allowed to own a few vehicles without getting raped. Good on the old boy.

But as pointed out the system could then be manipulated by people putting all their families vehicles in one name. The ACC should definitely be distance based. I say more fuel tax

Would encourage people to use their vehicles less, creating less chance of having a road accident related injury, better for the environment, better for congestion, and fairer.

I'm earning way better money in the lucky country now (Australia) being taxed less, and I don't even need a vehicle here. The public transport system kicks arse. Affordable trains and trams and buses everywhere. NZ is rooted, it's about time a decent recession took hold. The oil and the subprime crises are just the kickstarters. The housing market is the next deck of cards to go. Good luck to you all and god speed.

**The Stranger:Me** · 14th July 2008, 17:55

Originally Posted by rwh

While there's a point with the extra cost for 2 bikes, the argument that 'I can't ride both at the same time' doesn't really work - he can still lend one to a mate.

It would make more sense for the fees to be distance based, rather than time based. But then is the risk really proportional to the distance travelled, or more to the time spent on the bike (which we have no standard instruments to measure)?

It's a hard problem.

Richard

Just levy fuel (as they do now) and only fuel. Those that travel the most km pay the most. Sure fuel would go up in price, but it need be no more than we would get back from the saving on our reg. Not a hard problem at all.

**Mikkel** · 14th July 2008, 18:05

Originally Posted by The Stranger

Just levy fuel (as they do now) and only fuel. Those that travel the most km pay the most. Sure fuel would go up in price, but it need be no more than we would get back from the saving on our reg. Not a hard problem at all.

While I'm for anything to scare big nasty 4WD petrolsuckers off the roads - I'd still have to maintain that putting all levies on fuel would not be any fairer to those who own a comparatively thirsty vehicle.

Yes, it might make sense as a govermental policy to reduce emissions - but not in regards to the ACC levy.

Tricky business this stuff - but I doubt it would be possible to introduce a taxing schedule that would could not be considered unfair from one perspective or the other.
How about putting a weekly/bi-weekly/monthly/annual fee on your license? If you want to use your license you have to pay for the priviledge - some of that to ACC.

One good thing about the current system is that it isn't hugely complicated - introducing all sorts of finicky rules and excemptions would only make everything more expensive by introducing a larger bureaucratic overhead.

**vtec** · 14th July 2008, 18:10

No need to make it complicated, just one rate on diesel and one rate on petrol, that's the only thing you'd have to work out, how much to put on each. I'm quite happy for people driving bigger or more gas guzzling vehicles to pay more ACC, because first of all the bigger the vehicle the more damage they are capable of doing. The more energy a vehicle uses, the more danger it poses. Trucks carry too much energy and can't stop... I could go into detail. But from where I'm sitting it's the fairest and best and simplest method of collecting ACC. Collecting it with Rego, is archaic and the only reason I can think of not changing it is laziness.

The one exception to this is that it would advantage motorcycles

because they are dangerous to the occupant without using much fuel. But hey, you have to make a sacrifice somewhere. And two wheeled travel should be encouraged for many reasons. NZ would be a better place in many ways if 2 wheeled travel was encouraged.

Something like 80% of accidents on public roads involve trucks. I can't back this stat up, but I'm sure I saw it somewhere. Feel free to shoot it down.

Bugger it, while we're at it, the f(*^ing licencing system should be fixed so you don't need to do all the tests twice to get a bike licence. The road rules are the same for a bike as a car. There should just be a booster test if you already have one to get the other. Two wheels needs to be encouraged to fix the transport and parking problems of Auckland. Because it's obvious they don't have the money for serious public transport solutions.

Honestly, there are people being paid to think up solutions and yet in NZ nothing sensible ever seems to go ahead. Whats happened to make the national psyche so backwards?

In Melbourne here, motorcycle are treated like bicycles in terms of parking. If it's out of the way you're allowed to park it on the footpath. NZ is run by grey haired rich people who can't see past their own backyards.

**Mikkel** · 14th July 2008, 18:14

Get that mandatory 3rd party insurance put into place, remove all ACC levies and let the 3rd party insurance take care of it.

That way each road-user and his/her choice of vehicle will be subject to a risk evaluation by the insurance brokers and levied accordingly.

**vtec** · 14th July 2008, 18:21

Does that solve the problem of multiple vehicle ownership? And then the people who are irresponsible and illegally don't get insurance or rego are the winners on the day, until they have an accident and injure someone, and everyone else foots the bills.

Mandatory insurance has some major drawback. Makes insurance way more expensive. And drains the economy and development hardcore. I do see the benefits, but it doesn't stop people from driving illegally without insurance, and for some reason these are generally the people who are most likely to crash.

**kiwi cowboy** · 14th July 2008, 18:28

Originally Posted by rwh

While there's a point with the extra cost for 2 bikes, the argument that 'I can't ride both at the same time' doesn't really work - he can still lend one to a mate.

It would make more sense for the fees to be distance based, rather than time based. But then is the risk really proportional to the distance travelled, or more to the time spent on the bike (which we have no standard instruments to measure)?

It's a hard problem.

Richard

i agree it is a problem but i dont agree with your coment about it not working if he lent one to a mate.
Why cant we all be redgistered individualy then it wouldnt matter if he lent it to a mate as long as he has himself redged its ok cos while hes riden his mates bike hes not riden his or posibly drivin a car.
Then the vehicle would only need a warrent.
Also the redgistration could be rated a bit like insurance like a bit more expensive for younger people getting cheeper as get older relative to risk.
Just my 2 cents worth.

**Katman** · 14th July 2008, 18:29

What about if the ACC levy was a fee paid when we renew our license on a yearly basis?

**NighthawkNZ:Me** · 14th July 2008, 18:30

Originally Posted by RentaTriumph

I heard a story about an old boy who has two motorcycles and registered the first. He then paid seperate cheques for the registration component and acc levy on the second bike. he then went to the bank and cancelled the cheque for the ACC levy. ACC have been onto him and he refuses to pay stating that he can only ride one bike at a time. Apparently ACC are now not going to chase him for the second levy as they are concerned it could grow into a monster if word go out and support grew.

What is other KB's thoughts on this. Is it fair for people who register more than one bike a year to pay the ACC levy more than once?.

I don't believe in paying ACC any way (I distrust them...) I would prefer that I pay my own private health insurance...

as for ACC in the rego fees again I disagree... it should be paid when you fill up at the pump... for this very reason I can only ride one bike at a time and something needs to be done...(lucky I only own one at present... but Better half owns a car and a bike and she can only ride or drive one at a time...)

Originally Posted by Jantar

Can you find out more?

If true, I'd support this guy with a donation towards his legal costs.

so would I...

**vtec** · 14th July 2008, 18:30

That brings us to another problem though, if someone drives way more than someone else, then it isn't fair that everyone pays the same motorvehicle ACC. Fuel based is still way more fair. It encourages so many good things, and discourages so many bad things while being the fairest option.

It encourages... fuel efficiency, carpooling, motorcycles, bicycles, less emissions, less usage of limited natural resources, less money going to oil barons in Saudi, and instead helping to keep the NZ economy above water.

It discourages... traffic congestion, oil barons, Remuera tractors, AMG mercedes 4wds and Porsche Cayennes and all American vehicles... don't we all hate these?

Oil's not going to come down in price people.

And it means that the further you travel in a vehicle the more ACC tax you pay... which is fair X|