Bikers able to live with ACC rise?

[Ixion]

You are talking about a total review of the system here.

As far as the why pay twice, thrice, etc for multi vehicles - this argument needs ALL road users behind it - motorcycles will be ignored totally in this argument and should not be singled out for special treatment, if applied it should be to all road users (excluding businesses of course ).

It would be interesting to see just how much higher ACC on a vehicle would be if they changed it so it was charged to a licensed user instead of a vehicle. I imagine it would be substantial.
IMO the best we could hope for is a multi vehicle discount. Anything would be better than the current system which sees me paying for vehicles sitting in the shed.

Even Mr Judge has signalled that he sees the multi vehicle issue as unfair. And I imagine that most road users would either support or not much care about a change to a method that eliminated that anomaly.

[Pussy]

As mentioned in another post... you came across well on the TV1 news, Les. Made it clear the rise is unfair (multiple vehicle ownership etc)
Peter Mac looked to me to be almost kissing Smith's arse... disappointing

[AllanB]

It is an interesting one as one of ACC's big pushes has been the 'fairness' of charges, unfortunately back up by some suspect statistics.

Lets hope they continue to be concerned about being 'fair' and act promptly on a multi-vehicle discount.

I feel another letter writing session coming on I do like this free post to Parliament.

[NONONO]

Of course. A very shrewd politician is Mr Smith. I wonder if Mr Judge really is the extraordinarily BAD politician he appears to be? Or if Mr Smith is even cleverer- as clever perhaps as fox who's swallowed a cartload of weasel pills.

So, we don't complain about the dollars. We complain about the PRINCIPLE. That's not a U turn, we've said that all along. The whole campaign was "Who's next ?" . Not "I don't want to pay more" Was it not?

What happened to the "parity argument; the not one cent more than other road users?
Not sure what you are saying here Ixion, we stop the protests and get into party politics? we accept the hike? We act all grateful for a slap rather than a kick?

[CrAzYMoFo]

Just out of curiosity - how does that work?

ill pay em what the rego costs and not the acc not that hard

ill mail it to them dont expect them to send me a rego card but hey i paied

[bogan]

Just so. Although still *unfair*, and large enough to be a burden, a rise of $174 a year (and about $75 for <600cc) should not see any mass sales of bikes, or great sacrifices needing to be made. Put the sum in context - it's one less beer a fortnight, roughly. I doubt that many riders could justly claim that their budgets were that tight.

The increase is one beer per fornight, and next year itll be another... but the total is unaffordable for some people, $520 for big bikes, and thats 2 beers per week, or a half doz if you go to a supermarket. To me it's the difference between having one and two bikes on the road, as well as a van, to others they may now only be able to afford the van (few years ago that would have been me)

[CrAzYMoFo]

also im not worried about cost just principal

give up your rites one at a time and one day soon you will find you have none left

[scissorhands]

I think they are on the back foot, and quite nervous re a mass dislike for this current national party administration does not take root in the voters mind. Hence the nervous quick decisions from ACC.


We should AT LEAST drive it a bit deeper, before we relax for now. Just so they dont try another swifty too quickly

[spookytooth]

ill pay em what the rego costs and not the acc not that hard

ill mail it to them dont expect them to send me a rego card but hey i paied

Actualy not a bad idea the rego is payed

[CrAzYMoFo]

Actualy not a bad idea the rego is payed

every one should do this would make em backtrack fast lol

[BMWST?]

I think they are on the back foot, and quite nervous re a mass dislike for this current national party administration does not take root in the voters mind. Hence the nervous quick decisions from ACC.


We should AT LEAST drive it a bit deeper, before we relax for now. Just so they dont try another swifty too quickly

agreed we need to tell them to stick ANY increase we already pay more...

[Ixion]

What happened to the "parity argument; the not one cent more than other road users?
Not sure what you are saying here Ixion, we stop the protests and get into party politics? we accept the hike? We act all grateful for a slap rather than a kick?

The parity argument IS principle. Of course we "accept" the hike - there is no way , short of armed revolution, that you can prevent it .You don't have to pay it of course, that option is as valid as ever, just the numbers have changed a bit. Accepting that is no reason not to continue the campaign for a change to the principles.

Did you ever expect ,seriously , that the arguments on principles would be won in a few weeks? Seriously ? From the start, this was stated to be a campaign of years. November 2011. Remember ?

And we are already in party politics . We have accepted support from Labour and the Greens.

We are (and should be) grateful to the Minister for over-ruling Mr Judge. he didn't have to. Accepting that does not mean that we have to agree with him on everything, or on anything.

I am grateful that the increase is $174 , not $500. And I'm grateful that the extra worker levy I pay will be about $250, not $1000. Doesn't mean I'm happy with either of them.

Analogy : you (hypothetical you) fall off your bike (Stop doing that, BTW). Are you not grateful that you were wearing good gear, and that your injuries are a sprained ankle and some bruising? Instead of a smashed in head and a broken back? I know I would be. Doesn't mean that I'd be happy about it though, still hurts. And doesn't mean that I'd think falling off was a good idea.

[mashman]

Game plan or not, there's still the perception of risk being aportioned and i don't like that at all. I still want to see the data. Didn't someone mention that they are going to be introducing a new software(does that mean the current software is broken~)? Policy is being made using the data they have at their disposal and if it's as dodgy we think, then there's a lot of people getting a free ride (read health providers). If you can't cut costs legitimately the only outcome will be further levy hikes.

I'll certainly keep protesting, if only to keep them on their toes, but i won't be happy until the whole system has undergone a review... i want a breakdown of who got paid how much over a period of time and for what treatment... until then i'll not be happy with ANY levy increase... it's our fuckin money!

[kb_SF1]

Applalled at Peter Mac's comment, what's next? another hit next year, and the year after and by 2012 Judge & co have got the $700 they were looking for.
What happened to the process, second representatives meeting, consultation, submissions to the select committee, recommenations to cabinet in February?
Looks like the heat got too much and someone said 'shut it down', the media haven't asked the hard question just reported Smith trying to be the good guy.

Agree with Les, attack the principal, acc is not broke, higher than forecast investment returns of $600m and investment portfolio rose to $13.56b according to the Treasury, someone is still telling porkies.

The education programme has been effective so far, it needs to continue.

[peasea]

The parity argument IS principle. Of course we "accept" the hike - there is no way , short of armed revolution, that you can prevent it.

Sooooo, where/when is the armed revolution kicking off?

I've got some kitchen knives and a baseball bat.