Researcher criticises motorbike levy logic

[caseye]

Despite all that, ACC have an average return of 8.7% over the last 5 years. They do better than any other Government portfolio, simply by letting their two ACC employed fund managers (both worth their salary) do their job rather than paying a fleet of "Fund Management Advisers".

They've simply been bitten by an unforeseen recession and like all Western Governments are incapable of riding it out and taking the long view because they feel naked and vulnerable (read - losing in the polls - which they aren't) when it's going all wrong. Complaining about ACC's portfolio performance is ridiculous when you find out it is the only one still making money.

Well said mate, fraid I wasn't able to green ya, site rules or summit@#$%!

Divide and conquor is as old as the hills, but oh so effectivwe.First BIG motorcyclists,then little ones, then big car owners then littel ones, eventually thery'll get you pedal pushers too! I certainly hope they do.

[kiwi cowboy]

Don't get me wrong, I'm with you. But I do think that ACC is one of the better run Government businesses. They just don't go the whole way.

Tie ACC to license instead of rego. Then NCBs are easy to do. No license, no cover. Annual license fee instead of annual rego. Multiple licenses, mulitple fees, however if you use it for work the specific license fee could be a claimable employer perk.

Fairer than current practice, but not as fair as adding a dollar a litre to fuel.

Dont agree with you on the tying it in with licences [multiple licence= multiple fees cos i can still only drive-ride one vechile at a time.

Much prefer the fuel tax idea myself.

[James Deuce]

Dont agree with you on the tying it in with licences [multiple licence= multiple fees cos i can still only drive-ride one vechile at a time.

Much prefer the fuel tax idea myself.

It won't happen anyway, but the discussion is about providing a framework that suits owners AND the Government. Most proposals we make will lose the Government revenue. My proposal is less inequitable than the current system where motorcyclists are clearly the only "at fault" party in a no fault insurance system, and makes provision for identifying individuals who qualify for the proposed ACC NCB idea while still maintaining an income stream on the basis of potential use, without you having to pay an ACC levy for each bike or other vehicle you own.

From an Arctuarial perspective, the license based ACC premium would probably include factors like demography and would have a basic minimum fee and then be loaded with premiums that match risk, a la MSTRS' idea. Different license classes would attract different premiums.

Anything that moves the levy to the driver has to be an improvement and would significantly alter the tenor of statistical data collection. I believe it would be vastly more meaningful than the current practices.

[kiwi cowboy]

[QUOTE

From an Arctuarial perspective, the license based ACC premium would probably include factors like demography and would have a basic minimum fee and then be loaded with premiums that match risk, a la MSTRS' idea. Different license classes would attract different premiums.

Anything that moves the levy to the driver has to be an improvement and would significantly alter the tenor of statistical data collection. I believe it would be vastly more meaningful than the current practices.[/QUOTE]

Maybe but that would penalise the people that have multiple licences like me that have six licences 1-6 now the only ones i use at the moment are 1 and 2 but would have to pay a higher fee just because my licence says im allowed to drive other types of vehicle BUT i can only operate ONE at a time.

Fuel tax would be fairer because if your operating a vehicle you are using fuel so you are paying acc -all motor sports would automaticly pay acc through fuel tax as well as grandpa mowing lawns on sunday.

[NighthawkNZ:Me]

Fuel tax would be fairer because if your operating a vehicle you are using fuel so you are paying acc -all motor sports would automaticly pay acc through fuel tax as well as grandpa mowing lawns on sunday.

and boaties

[Coldrider]

[QUOTE

From an Arctuarial perspective, the license based ACC premium would probably include factors like demography and would have a basic minimum fee and then be loaded with premiums that match risk, a la MSTRS' idea. Different license classes would attract different premiums.

Anything that moves the levy to the driver has to be an improvement and would significantly alter the tenor of statistical data collection. I believe it would be vastly more meaningful than the current practices.

Maybe but that would penalise the people that have multiple licences like me that have six licences 1-6 now the only ones i use at the moment are 1 and 2 but would have to pay a higher fee just because my licence says im allowed to drive other types of vehicle BUT i can only operate ONE at a time.

Fuel tax would be fairer because if your operating a vehicle you are using fuel so you are paying acc -all motor sports would automaticly pay acc through fuel tax as well as grandpa mowing lawns on sunday.[/QUOTE]Yes but different arguements, is someones aussie 6 cylinder put its occupants more at risk than someone who drives a suzuki swift, the aussie car uses more petrol per KM, so he pays more in acc, sorry it is not a motorbike arguement , maybe scooter vs GSX1000, but does not make sense, especially as all types are buying petrol from the pump, at one cost per litre.

[James Deuce]

Maybe but that would penalise the people that have multiple licences like me that have six licences 1-6 now the only ones i use at the moment are 1 and 2 but would have to pay a higher fee just because my licence says im allowed to drive other types of vehicle BUT i can only operate ONE at a time.

Fuel tax would be fairer because if your operating a vehicle you are using fuel so you are paying acc -all motor sports would automaticly pay acc through fuel tax as well as grandpa mowing lawns on sunday.

In the original post I postulated making any levy required for a license used primarily for employment tax deductible. The main issue with the fuel levy is whacking $1/l on fuel isn't going to get the incumbent political party voted back in, and it will penalise businesses who are already paying ACC.

[kiwi cowboy]

Maybe but that would penalise the people that have multiple licences like me that have six licences 1-6 now the only ones i use at the moment are 1 and 2 but would have to pay a higher fee just because my licence says im allowed to drive other types of vehicle BUT i can only operate ONE at a time.

Fuel tax would be fairer because if your operating a vehicle you are using fuel so you are paying acc -all motor sports would automaticly pay acc through fuel tax as well as grandpa mowing lawns on sunday.

Yes but different arguements, is someones aussie 6 cylinder put its occupants more at risk than someone who drives a suzuki swift, the aussie car uses more petrol per KM, so he pays more in acc, sorry it is not a motorbike arguement , maybe scooter vs GSX1000, but does not make sense, especially as all types are buying petrol from the pump, at one cost per litre.[/QUOTE]

AHH but then it does become a matter of choice whot you decide to drive and how much you drive it.
My real point is the fuel tax would make it pay as you go so to speak - say i do 1000km's a year on my bike [my choice] i only pay acc on the little fuel i use as opposed to someone else doing 50,000km's would use alot more fuel so pay more acc.

[Pedrostt500]

I quiet like JDs idea of tying ACC to licences, you could use tis system to risk rate individual drivers, ie those who are the cause of an accident, through drink driving / dangerious driving, those who are convicted of drink driving / dangerious driving, or other traffic offences, they would see a persentage increase in their ACC leavey for up to a 10 yr period, 10 yrs clean record and the ACC rate drops back to the lower rate.
Those who incur Demerit point losses against their licences also incur a persentage increase in their ACC leavey, for the period of the demerit point loss, or a 2 yr period, regardless if the licence is lost during that time because of loss of demerit points.
For those who can keep their licences clean, for a 10yr period they can receive an ACC Leavy drop in fee, rewarding them for their good driving, ( or ability not to get caught.)

[Coldrider]

Yes but different arguements, is someones aussie 6 cylinder put its occupants more at risk than someone who drives a suzuki swift, the aussie car uses more petrol per KM, so he pays more in acc, sorry it is not a motorbike arguement , maybe scooter vs GSX1000, but does not make sense, especially as all types are buying petrol from the pump, at one cost per litre.

AHH but then it does become a matter of choice whot you decide to drive and how much you drive it.
My real point is the fuel tax would make it pay as you go so to speak - say i do 1000km's a year on my bike [my choice] i only pay acc on the little fuel i use as opposed to someone else doing 50,000km's would use alot more fuel so pay more acc.[/QUOTE]My point is that varying classes of users buy petrol at the pump price with varying uses, so what suits motorcyclists won't suit others. And those others buy far more petrol.

[James Deuce]

That's the one Pedrostt. I've been thinking a bit about how licence disqualification is pointless and how there's no incentive to improve either attitude or skills. The concept opens up a hole pile of ways to change road user behaviour without necessarily bunging more cops on the road and removes the patently unfair levy applied to multi vehicle households, without an incumbent Government having to commit suicide by making fuel the same price it is in Europe.

[dipshit]

Maybe but that would penalise the people that have multiple licences like me that have six licences 1-6 now the only ones i use at the moment are 1 and 2 but would have to pay a higher fee just because my licence says im allowed to drive other types of vehicle BUT i can only operate ONE at a time.

Holding a licence doesn't necessarily mean you are using a vehicle though. Many people with licences may not have driven anything for ten years.

Fuel tax would be fairer because if your operating a vehicle you are using fuel so you are paying acc

Higher fuel prices end up driving up prices on everything else though.

[James Deuce]

Holding a licence doesn't necessarily mean you are using a vehicle though. Many people with licences may not have driven anything for ten years.



Higher fuel prices end up driving up prices on everything else though.

Both good points. I've thought about this too. The registered owner would have to be licensed to buy a vehicle. This might limit the number 4 year old's buying cars for their drop kick grandparents immediately (don't laugh, it happens), plus it would mean that people wouldn't be that keen to be the registered owner of a vehicle because there would be an associated cost in ACC levy if you owned multiple private vehicles for to cater for your disqualified rellies.

Company vehicle ACC would be handled as a business expense on the company's ACC account. Convictions for drivers of company vehicles would affect the ACC vehicle premiums for that company. More incentive you see.

The fuel price thing is dead right. The flow on effect of lumping ACC on to fuel is enormous. Rampant inflation, massive hikes in food costs and commuter transport are just some of them.

[Pedrostt500]

Holding a licence doesn't necessarily mean you are using a vehicle though. Many people with licences may not have driven anything for ten years.

Then these people may opt to retire their licences.



Higher fuel prices end up driving up prices on everything else though.

to mess with the price of fuel in any great way would be certain political suicide, and ACC wouldnt have to pay out because it was suicide.

[Divot]

Higher fuel prices end up driving up prices on everything else though.

Yes fuel costs would be higher but the registration would be cheeper. With the levies on fuel the only people that wouldn't pay the levies are the ones that do petrol drive offs. A lots less that the number of unregesited vehicles and unlicenced drivers