Alternate to rego levy?

[short-circuit]

No fault no blame should be the line we maintain - not degrees of fault / liability or where money should come from

[NighthawkNZ:Me]

• We could put flat fee ACC levy on all vehicles bought including boats, trailers and caravans, including farm machinery. Even if it is only $50. This levycan be put on the changing of ownership.
• Make all farm vehicles warrantable considering they are carrying people about the farm and some get use on the road.
• Flat fee on W.O.F's (say $5 or $10) on all warrantable vehicles and trailers. i.e; 2,919,151 vehicles (assuming that all these are once a year, but there will be a good percentage that are every 6 months.) 2,919,151 x $5 = $14,595,755 or $29,191,510 if it was $10.
• Small 1% levy on riding gear ie; helmets, boots, gloves, jackets and trousers.
• An ACC Levy on all traffic infringement. (except car parking) I would have no idea how much this alone would generate

The fact is that even engaging the quest for alternative funding methods is misguided.
The Nats have cooked the books and created a crisis where none exists.
There is no reason why ACC needs to be a fully funded system.

Totally agree... but in the long run fully funded means lower levies (apparently) and we are only partly self funding at present

my draft letter
http://www.southernrider.co.nz/forum...hp?f=27&t=9707

[short-circuit]

Totally agree... but in the long run fully funded means lower levies (apparently)

That is a lie.

The ultimate agenda is privatisation

[Ixion]

Hm. The notion of an excess on bike claims is interesting.

I dunno if it would be particularly fair, or popular, but it does have the great advantage of giving us an alternative to suggest.

At present, one problem the campaign faces in people saying "But, clearly motorcycles ARE costing ACC more than they pay in ? Isn't that unfair? So what alternative to a levy increase do you suggest?"

An excess would be one answer. And one that could be implemented without too much hassle.

The only disadvantage I see is that ACC and their political masters are crooked as a crooked thing. They'll say " Oh good idea" We can't do it this year , no time, so we'll have to put the levy up. But we'll look at an excess next year". Then we end up with higher levies AND an excess.

What I like about it , that it targets the problem. Responsible riders who don't crash (or, not much) won't be affected. And even if ACC said "Aha , we can raise the excess so high they'll be forced off the road -" still won't affect those that don't crash.

For practical purposes, it might be necessary to only set the excess against lump sums or ERC. An excess of any size on medical treatment wouldn't fly.

The other attractive thing is that riders worried about being hit by the excess could presumably insure privately to cover it. Which then ties in with National's "privatise everything" approach.

I think we should kick this around a bit
'

[pzkpfw]

For practical purposes, it might be necessary to only set the excess against lump sums or ERC. An excess of any size on medical treatment wouldn't fly.

The other attractive thing is that riders worried about being hit by the excess could presumably insure privately to cover it. Which then ties in with National's "privatise everything" approach.

I think we should kick this around a bit
'

I wouldn't think it's bad either, if riders who've crashed (and judged at fault) did have to pay an extra $100 or two each year (how, don't know) - not just a one-off excess at the time of the accident.


Either way, this kind of thing would have to be applied to cars too. That is, when a car driver causes an accident (with or without a bike being the "victim") then the car driver pays.

[Coldrider]

I would prefer discount rather than an excess.
It promotes behaviour where it belongs.

[short-circuit]

Hm. The notion of an excess on bike claims is interesting.

I dunno if it would be particularly fair, or popular, but it does have the great advantage of giving us an alternative to suggest.

At present, one problem the campaign faces in people saying "But, clearly motorcycles ARE costing ACC more than they pay in ? Isn't that unfair? So what alternative to a levy increase do you suggest?"

An excess would be one answer. And one that could be implemented without too much hassle.

The only disadvantage I see is that ACC and their political masters are crooked as a crooked thing. They'll say " Oh good idea" We can't do it this year , no time, so we'll have to put the levy up. But we'll look at an excess next year". Then we end up with higher levies AND an excess.

What I like about it , that it targets the problem. Responsible riders who don't crash (or, not much) won't be affected. And even if ACC said "Aha , we can raise the excess so high they'll be forced off the road -" still won't affect those that don't crash.

For practical purposes, it might be necessary to only set the excess against lump sums or ERC. An excess of any size on medical treatment wouldn't fly.

The other attractive thing is that riders worried about being hit by the excess could presumably insure privately to cover it. Which then ties in with National's "privatise everything" approach.

I think we should kick this around a bit
'

Read the letter from Ivan Sowry about the philosophy behind ACC and it's intention: http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/sh...d.php?t=110712

It was never meant to be a user pays system

[NighthawkNZ:Me]

That is a lie.

The ultimate agenda is privatisation

the transition to fully funded started back in 1999 and we are only 1/2 way there...

[short-circuit]

the transition to fully funded started back in 1999 and we are only 1/2 way there...

Believe what you like - this mob have form and NZers seem to have astoundingly short memories...

The agenda is to make ACC appear to be unaffordable so that Joe Public is left which no option other than private accident insurance

[NighthawkNZ:Me]

Believe what you like - this mob have form and NZers seem to have astoundingly short memories...

The agenda is to make ACC appear to be unaffordable so that Joe Public is left which no option other than private accident insurance

I know that is what the Nats want... just saying and if they keep the BS up it will loose them the next election

[vgcspares]

an obvious issue with the Excess approach is Fault must be established - a good proportion of our claims are single vehicle accidents, so no problem there

but establishing fault where a collision has occured is problemmatical unless one side fronts up, or the police do a thorough investigation (but they don't get called to every scene even if the result is an injury), or there's a truly independent witness

on the insurance side of things we do our best and reckon it's 60:40 with the other vehicle mostly at fault, but how is an A&E doctor going to establish fault ?

[ckai]

Hm. The notion of an excess on bike claims is interesting.

I dunno if it would be particularly fair, or popular, but it does have the great advantage of giving us an alternative to suggest.

...
'

You I do agree with this and I think it's a good idea that covers a lot of bases but...

an obvious issue with the Excess approach is Fault must be established - a good proportion of our claims are single vehicle accidents, so no problem there

but establishing fault where a collision has occured is problemmatical unless one side fronts up, or the police do a thorough investigation (but they don't get called to every scene even if the result is an injury), or there's a truly independent witness

on the insurance side of things we do our best and reckon it's 60:40 with the other vehicle mostly at fault, but how is an A&E doctor going to establish fault ?

This is the problem and it is kind of a major problem. I would be pissed if a car hits me, I need ACC and the car driver doesn't, even though it was their fault. I had a prick of a time getting a car driver to admit fault when they hit my car when my father was driving it. This meant I had to pay the excess. But they did front up and I got refunded.

This would be an asshole but it does seem one of the more attractive ideas.

That and a higher ACC levy on fuel i.e. 2c/litre. Again there is a problem with this regarding delivery. You can open up a whole can of worms by saying transport companies can be excluded from the extra tax but shit, admin charges come into play.

As mentioned, the extra gas levy would cover all the other sports where ACC is involved, but doing a stupid amount just brings us back to square one. Any extra levy on fuel needs to be below 5c/litre in my opinion. Let's not go back to the dark ages.

Excess as well, if it can be ironed out a bit regarding fault.

Also fire the ACC management because (even if the books are cooked) they're crap. They got us into this shit!

[Warren]

The fact is that even engaging the quest for alternative funding methods is misguided.

The Nats have cooked the books and created a crisis where none exists.

There is no reason why ACC needs to be a fully funded system.

Let's see someone independent do an audit

Perhaps a few members who have knowledge to explain how the stats could be crooked could then get in contact with the Auditor General. They may be able to investigate.

gives Parliament independent assurance over the performance and accountability of public organisations.

[sport-cruzer?]

As a 4 vehicle family I'd much rather they dropped the ACC part of the rego altogether and put it on fuel, Petrol prices are up and down so much anyway who's going to notice another 5 cents?

[short-circuit]

Believe what you like - this mob have form and NZers seem to have astoundingly short memories...

The agenda is to make ACC appear to be unaffordable so that Joe Public is left which no option other than private accident insurance

What did I tell you? http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/sh...d.php?t=110739