No cut in motorcycle ACC levies

[Katman]

Yeah right, along with all those rabidly delinquent diesel van drivers who have to pay well over the odds.

Hey, I don't claim to understand what the government's beef with diesel van drivers is but considering my immersion in the motorcycling culture of New Zealand, I can quite easily see why they believe they can crucify us with impunity.

[Ocean1]

Hey, I don't claim to understand what the government's beef with diesel van drivers is but considering my immersion in the motorcycling culture of New Zealand, I can quite easily see why they believe they can crucify us with impunity.

Exactly the same reason: both target groups have money.

And that's about the only reason. No fucking point in taxing poor fuckers, innit?

[Oakie]

Those who defend ACC levies, please explain why I need to pay them on my car AND my main motorbike AND my other motorbike. I get use them all at once - why wouldn't I just pay the highest levy and be done with it?

They can fuck themselves, frankly.

I'll go and fuck myself shortly after I explain - basically:

Assume 'they' have to collect $10,000,000 to cover our bike accidents
Also assume there are 40,000 motorbikes owned by 25,000 owners

If ACC levy was per bike then it's $10mil div by 40,000 = $250 per bike
If ACC levy was per owner then it's $10mil div by 25,000 = $400 per owner

So the result is that the majority of bike owners (who we assume have just one bike) would have to pay a lot more than they already do. ARGHHH! Possibly the one levy per person is arguable but with the poor people who can only afford one vehicle having their levies increased substantially to cover the levies from those of us who are better off and have perhaps a couple of cars, a bike for each day of the week and a cement mixer ... it would never fly. If you really want to go there, can you imagine the administrative nightmare sorting out who has to pay what given the different classes have different levy rates.. The costs invloved in that would be lumped in as an admin fee so we'd be even worse off.

Okay, off to fuck myself now.

[Katman]

Exactly the same reason: both target groups have money.

Diesel van drivers are wealthy, are they?

What fucking planet are you on?

[Ocean1]

Diesel van drivers are wealthy, are they?

What fucking planet are you on?

The same planet where a comfortable majority of diesel vans are registered as company vehicles.

[Oakie]

What fucking planet are you on?

Ha ha ... reminds me of David Cunliffe on TV earlier this week ... "I don't know what planet John Key is on but it's sure not NZ". Rejoice ... Aotearoa has been promoted to 'planet' status!

[neels]

I'll go and fuck myself shortly after I explain - basically:

Assume 'they' have to collect $10,000,000 to cover our bike accidents
Also assume there are 40,000 motorbikes owned by 25,000 owners

If ACC levy was per bike then it's $10mil div by 40,000 = $250 per bike
If ACC levy was per owner then it's $10mil div by 25,000 = $400 per owner

So the result is that the majority of bike owners (who we assume have just one bike) would have to pay a lot more than they already do. ARGHHH! Possibly the one levy per person is arguable but with the poor people who can only afford one vehicle having their levies increased substantially to cover the levies from those of us who are better off and have perhaps a couple of cars, a bike for each day of the week and a cement mixer ... it would never fly. If you really want to go there, can you imagine the administrative nightmare sorting out who has to pay what given the different classes have different levy rates.. The costs invloved in that would be lumped in as an admin fee so we'd be even worse off.

Okay, off to fuck myself now.

Make sure you make a good fist of it.

Still can't see the logic of paying the ACC levy for the motorcycle that is sitting in my garage while I'm out riding the other one. Can't be in 2 places at once. Same goes for 4 cars in a household of 3 drivers.

More logic would be to charge your motorcycle licence with an ACC levy, if not paid and you get caught then you get fined. If you don't intend to ride a motorcycle, put the levy on hold for a year, makes sense to me a there appears to be no relation in the current system between use and amount paid.

[Ocean1]

I'll go and fuck myself shortly after I explain - basically:

Assume 'they' have to collect $10,000,000 to cover our bike accidents
Also assume there are 40,000 motorbikes owned by 25,000 owners

If ACC levy was per bike then it's $10mil div by 40,000 = $250 per bike
If ACC levy was per owner then it's $10mil div by 25,000 = $400 per owner

So the result is that the majority of bike owners (who we assume have just one bike) would have to pay a lot more than they already do. ARGHHH! Possibly the one levy per person is arguable but with the poor people who can only afford one vehicle having their levies increased substantially to cover the levies from those of us who are better off and have perhaps a couple of cars, a bike for each day of the week and a cement mixer ... it would never fly. If you really want to go there, can you imagine the administrative nightmare sorting out who has to pay what given the different classes have different levy rates.. The costs invloved in that would be lumped in as an admin fee so we'd be even worse off.

Okay, off to fuck myself now.

When you're done...

So all of those supposedly wealthy multiple vehicle owners cop it coming with the progressive income tax and then get stung going by being required to pay several times for the same product they subsidised in the first place?

One or t'other I could take.

[AllanB]

The main problem with the don't pay people is that they still complain. Shutup - you are not paying anything so stop bitching

Myself on the other hand with a registered bike - I can bitch as it has actually cost me


Here's a good proposition for government, stop fining for not having registration - ACC covers medial payments - so if you don't register your vehicle and have a accident no free cover. Push the risk back to the vehicle owner - worth it?

[Katman]

The same planet where a comfortable majority of diesel vans are registered as company vehicles.

Why does that automatically equate to wealth?

[Katman]

Here's a good proposition for government, stop fining for not having registration - ACC covers medial payments - so if you don't register your vehicle and have a accident no free cover. Push the risk back to the vehicle owner - worth it?

Sounds fair to me.

[Ocean1]

Why does that automatically equate to wealth?

Because while there's plenty of private owners that can't afford higher rego costs there's no such thing as a business that can't afford them, they've simply got to either wear it or go under.

You only discover you've been taxing the "productive sector" too much when your economy starts shrinking... Oh, wait.

[Ocean1]

Here's a good proposition for government, stop fining for not having registration - ACC covers medial payments - so if you don't register your vehicle and have a accident no free cover. Push the risk back to the vehicle owner - worth it?

Here's a better one: give those that are charged more than most for a service what they fucking paid for.

[Voltaire]

Interesting that insurance companies are happy to pay out with no rego or wof if its not your fault, thought they would take the no rego or wof should not have been on the road in the first place view.
Annoys me the price of rego on my private diesel van more than bike rego, Commando and R90s are only $115 a year each, must be safer with those awesome 70's brakes

[AllanB]

Here's a better one: give those that are charged more than most for a service what they fucking paid for.

Ah - see the theory with high motorcycle ACC costs is that we are spending a disproportionally high amount on medical costs, thus get charged more. Fall off less ACC goes down......... in theory.