Gareth Morgan in the Herald on ACC levies for bikers

[flyingcrocodile46]

But why? Why do we have to levy ACC on anything other than income as part of taxation?

Why do we have to say "you had a motor vehicle accident, so your costs will be paid by motor vehiclists", or indeed "you are a dairy worker, so you will pay more ACC than an office worker", why can it not just be "you had an accident, so your costs will be paid by all of society".



One flat percentage of income levy added to personal and company taxes, adjusted annually. Set at whatever level it needs to be to cover the expected costs.

Because you can't do away with the ever increasing selection of indirect taxation increases (under whatever label) without offseting their loss by increasing the tax take on personal income and company taxes. If we did away with all of societies separate taxes and levies like Rates, GST, ACC taxes, petrol taxes, alcohol taxes, tobacco taxes, road user taxes, etc etc our maximum personal income tax rates would have to be increased from 33% up to 80% and that would drive the best of us overseas where people aren't forced to bear the same level of burden to get by in life (i.e Oz).

At present if you are paying 33% plus all the other levies and taxes it totals up to well over 50% and that is fucking sickening. Why does a single income earner with 3 or more dependents get forced to support them and theirs (4 people) on less than half his fucking money. It is fucking bullshit.

http://www.victoria.ac.nz/sacl/about...INAL_paper.pdf

The above link is to a very interesting read about the start of PAYE back in 58. The PAYE rate was only 15% and if you had a family of 3 to support you only paid half that rate. The creation of a funding mechanism to feed a welfare society. We have since let PC type concerns overule common sense and drive unaffordable increases in expenditure to provide more and more and more and more "essential services" as part of our welfare society and similarly increased expenditure on social amenities. The list of things that are regarded as "essential" has grown from food, water, clothing, shelter, cooking and cleaning facilities to now include things that weren't even available back in 58. Now you can get subsidies to pay for your mortgage on your appreciating assets from tax paid by people who have no similar assets, allowances to buy new fangled washing machines,TV's and PC's (for the children's education) luxurious upholstered lounge suites and innersprung beds and an unimaginable variety of exotic fruit and veges THAT SOMEONE ELSE GETS PAID TO GROW.. etc etc.

[MrKiwi]

A good rule of thumb, if you are part of a group dealing with a particular issue, don't make an individual statement on a similar issue. It's not fucking rocket science.

I hope you do have the discussion, tbh I find it hard to believe it hasn't yet come up; I also hope you allow the motorcyclists you claim to represent to influence the outcome.

We've had "some discussion" but it is left unfinished. I regularly talk with a range of motorcyclists. Some like the ideas Gareth has advocated others don't. In the end I, along with others, was interested at least in having a debate on the ideas to gauge people's reactions past our immediate contacts and we agreed we did not need to have a shared view for that discussion. However, it has been put out by Gareth, not the Council albeit the Council is following the comments (reaction). However, I take your point.

Even though I don't often comment in this forum, I am regularly popping in to gauge peoples views. I can't say I agree with some of what I read, but quite a lot of it is interesting, sometimes entertaining and sometimes I wonder why people write what they do? But as I say, I am reading and keeping abreast of views expressed here.

[gammaguy]

Yes there is. Petrol should be $4.00 a litre. Sorted. Farmers fucking themselves on quads, jet skiers, moto-xers...we all pay. Mum driving the car in reverse over someone...you name it.

too sensible mate

we all know that ACC is a very very political issue,and mr Key is unlikely to upset his farming buddies(WHO ALL GET DISCOUNTED PETROL IN THE FIRST PLACE) that put him where he is today

much better to make those filthy greasy bikers pay for their pleasure.

Unfair?you bet,but since when did politics and fairness share a bed.

[GrayWolf]

The problem is there is no way to collect tax on recreational activities. Whats the matter with performance cars anyway?

Yes there is,,, levy the clubs themselves. They charge membership fees, so the levy is passed on in the membership costs,,, just like our rego' is used to reap the fruit of our labours.

[oneofsix]

Yes there is,,, levy the clubs themselves. They charge membership fees, so the levy is passed on in the membership costs,,, just like our rego' is used to reap the fruit of our labours.

And they do. That's how they collect fugby levies etc. Not sure about horse riding though and that is rumoured to be the recreational activity that costs ACC the most.

[HenryDorsetCase]

And they do. That's how they collect fugby levies etc. Not sure about horse riding though and that is rumoured to be the recreational activity that costs ACC the most.

What we need is someone who knows about statistics to have a look at ACC's published data. Because they do publish data. A statistician, an actuary, or perhaps an economist. Actually an economist would be good because they cantry and model and predict effects based on the stats, and try and explain them.

Then all the different groups (rugby players, netballers, motorbike riders (on and off road) and horse riders can whine and bitch and point the finger one at the other, while smug fucker Key and his lumpy minions erode our hard won system some more. Good going!

[oneofsix]

What we need is someone who knows about statistics to have a look at ACC's published data. Because they do publish data. A statistician, an actuary, or perhaps an economist. Actually an economist would be good because they cantry and model and predict effects based on the stats, and try and explain them.

Then all the different groups (rugby players, netballers, motorbike riders (on and off road) and horse riders can whine and bitch and point the finger one at the other, while smug fucker Key and his lumpy minions erode our hard won system some more. Good going!

Carry on, as you were then.

And then when we are all fat fuckers like me but also unfit we can complain about the cost to the health system and why people don't get out and play sport etc. Umm as I already said, carry on as we were then.

[Swoop]

rugby players, netballers, motorbike riders (on and off road) and horse riders...

They are all (guess what) individuals.

Mr Morgan's proposal to tax the individual rather than the motorcycle, is sensible. However it needs to be applied equally across every spectrum of society to be fair. Having the individual pay for their ACC levy does make sense as we can only injure ourselves doing one thing at a time (can't get injured on three bikes, a car and at work all at the same time, can we?).

Taxing the individal would mean a massive decrease to ACC as they wouldn't be able to double dip (or triple dip, etc) as they do now with multiple registrations and wage payments, so it would be a hefty price increase for some & a saving for others.
The good thing is that the net traps some who are in the non-acc zone, like cyclists and dirtbike riders, BASE jumpers, etc.

[GrayWolf]

We've had "some discussion" but it is left unfinished. I regularly talk with a range of motorcyclists. Some like the ideas Gareth has advocated others don't. In the end I, along with others, was interested at least in having a debate on the ideas to gauge people's reactions past our immediate contacts and we agreed we did not need to have a shared view for that discussion. However, it has been put out by Gareth, not the Council albeit the Council is following the comments (reaction). However, I take your point.

Even though I don't often comment in this forum, I am regularly popping in to gauge peoples views. I can't say I agree with some of what I read, but quite a lot of it is interesting, sometimes entertaining and sometimes I wonder why people write what they do? But as I say, I am reading and keeping abreast of views expressed here.

Hello MrKiwi,
Firstly a brief history of myself.. started riding in 1974 and been a full time motorcyclist ever since. Lived in Uk (London) till 32, then moved to NZ. Rode in UK, Europe and here. Passed IAM in the UK, and also did some extra training with the old RAC/ACU scheme's.

OK I'll bite! There has been 'discussion' in the council? Firstly what most here see I feel, is a lack of 'transparency' in these discussions. Mr. Stoney (Brent) aside, there is very little 'feedback' from Motonz, said Council etc. What I have seen over many years is frequent attempts to legislate 'protection' at motorcyclists. THAT is the crux of many of the ill feelings, legislated AT, rather than for or with. The recent Uni survey here, for Hi-vis, when they synopsis-ed their findings it was basically to display we are just downright 'ANTI' Hi-vis, rather than considering many valid points raised against. As I have mentioned here a few times, I was in the UK when Peter Bottomley attempted the ill researched and ill-fated compulsory leg protectors. The research was based on a BMW on an anti skid frame with boxer cylinders removed, against a Morris marina car... no research into drop, pointed 'nosed' vehicles, let alone vans, trucks, etc etc. There was also much concern from the Surgeons as to possible massive knee trauma being caused by the ACTUAL leg protectors.
The UK Police in the 1980's were using diffused beam 'day riding lights' As I no longer live there i cant comment if that is still the case. It has been researched as to the effect of headlights affecting distance judgement for drivers when assessing approach speed and distance for overtaking/junctions. Yet we are not allowed to use diffused light 'day lights' but compulsory headlights!
Now as to Hi-vis..
I work in an industy where Hi-vis is a requirement (safety critical work environment). We have track workers who can appear ANYWHERE along a line and can be working under ITD (individual train detection). This means they have no 'safety area' designated by warning boards and stop boards for drivers to observe. They rely on their own alertness and the train drivers alertness. Track workers wear orange, drivers, train crew wear yellow hi-vis when on the 'ballast" (tracks). If my train breaks down or develops a fault I may well as the Locomotive Engineer HAVE to go on the track (double line) to remedy a fault, or 'cut out' the air supply to a faulty brake, replace a burst air hose etc. This has an inbuilt 'knowledge' by the colour WHO is in view trackside. So I have a respect and agreed knowledge of hi'vis clothing ability to be noticed at a distance. HOWEVER, we are being asked to wear (it is inevitable I feel with the current lack of 'fight' shown by groups like MotoNZ) Hi-vis as a safety aid to help prevent injury, make us conspicuous when approaching junctions, turns, head on traffic etc. Simply put MrKiwi total BOLLOX. When I am approaching a track crew or platform, or train crew who are behind/beside a strong light at dusk/dawn/night what I see is the REFLECTIVE striping not the Hi-vis. Also I can assure you if they are BEHIND a strong light in the DAY the hi'vis is far less effective. Now if you relate this to a motorcycle? the rider is seated, the headlight is approximately 'hip height' and these days a powerful halogen type beam. You do NOT see hi-vis at any distance in this situation, rather it is only noticable effectively at close range, this really 'negates' the idea of Hi-vis getting peoples attention at a distance. NOW if I am following a motorcyclist? Yes I have to agree I can see Hi-vis quite reasonably.
So MrKiwi, my challenge to MotoNZ, the Council is this.. if you really DO intend to represent Motorcyclists as a whole, it's time to start to advocate EFFECTIVE measures for safety. Start to be seen to PUSH at the Govt, to subsidise? organise? Rider training similar to the systems being produced in the UK. My RAC/ACU and IAM had a Police Motorcyclist in attendance, instructing... we have some IAM qualified instructors in NZ. As much as it is not generally accepted or agreed, stepped licensing similar to Europe, with either a time per step, test or passing an improved level of riding skill (Star rider in London in the 1980 had a bronze/silver/gold skill system in place) before advancing to more powerful machinery. Looking at the age of those on the MotoNZ webpage, most of those people would be very aware of the massive increase of power/performance compared to the 'superbikes' of our youth. We all know EGO, and a over confident attitude to ability is often the driving force to "can never have too much power"... "I can ride a 1000cc hypersports bloody well on the back roads" etc... yet reality is only a very small percent of folks have that level of 'talent' to ride a high power bike 'effectively' in safety and control.. Unless NZ really is populated by Aaron Slight clones.
I am sure you have read comments here from members who have commented about a lack of response to inquiries and suggestions, that in itself should give a headsup as to how MotoNZ is perceived by its 'customers' and as a part of our rego pays for MotoNZ, we really ARE the customer.
Thanks for reading this,
and I will await your response with interest,
yours, GW

[bogan]

A most excellent post GrayWolf, but here is where you went off the rails (so to speak)

I am sure you have read comments here from members who have commented about a lack of response to inquiries and suggestions, that in itself should give a headsup as to how MotoNZ is perceived by its 'customers' and as a part of our rego pays for MotoNZ, we really ARE the customer.

We aren't seen as their customer, just a cash cow, bet it would be a lot different if we could opt out of paying them though... probably the only feedback that would get through to the economist.

[Paul in NZ]

There are a few things I just don't get out of these stats.

Apparently we are 45 times (per km traveled) to have an injury related accident. Yet in all my years riding I have never made an ACC claim related to riding motorcycles. I know a few others in this situation as well. So I must assume that there are some people out there that are serial serious crashers of motorcycles....

Mr Morgans ideas have some merit but I think everyone should get a couple of get out of jail free cards. If after that you don't mend your ways or at least attend advanced training and continue crashing the bike, your fees need to go up.

Or something along those lines???

[Katman]

So I must assume that there are some people out there that are serial serious crashers of motorcycles....

A fairly safe assumption Paul.

[Paul in NZ]

A fairly safe assumption Paul.

Wow - how can they afford it?? Physically and materially....

[oneofsix]

There are a few things I just don't get out of these stats.

Apparently we are 45 times (per km traveled) to have an injury related accident. Yet in all my years riding I have never made an ACC claim related to riding motorcycles. I know a few others in this situation as well. So I must assume that there are some people out there that are serial serious crashers of motorcycles....

Mr Morgans ideas have some merit but I think everyone should get a couple of get out of jail free cards. If after that you don't mend your ways or at least attend advanced training and continue crashing the bike, your fees need to go up.

Or something along those lines???

Your problem would most likely be with the stats. How do they determine the ks travelled, especially with so many riders having more than one bike?

[bogan]

Apparently we are 45 times (per km traveled) to have an injury related accident. Yet in all my years riding I have never made an ACC claim related to riding motorcycles. I know a few others in this situation as well. So I must assume that there are some people out there that are serial serious crashers of motorcycles....

If you got look into the stats Gareth used to get those shonky figures, you're probably recorded as having at least one crash

Per vehicle it is 3.5x more likely
Per km it used to be 16x, then 18x, then 20x, now its 45x, I better get some riding in before we have to crash twice for every km we ride!