Yes tis the season for higher charges for motorists.
*
*
ACC, the compulsory statutory monopoly for road use personal accident insurance is increasing levies to you all - and being a monopoly, it wont differentiate on the basis of risk, or past performance, so the dangerous driving accident prone lunatic will pay the same as the safe suburban driver with a clean record. What does it all mean?
*
The ACC levy on petrol goes up 2.01c/litre (and the 12.5% GST on top of that). The argument being those drive more are more exposed to risk.
*
The ACC levy component for petrol car motor vehicle registration and licensing goes up from $183.22 to $211.48 (GST inclusive). ACC is already most of the cost of registration and licensing.
*
For non-petrol driven vehicles the ACC levy component of motor vehicle registration and licensing goes up from $281.46 to $336.69 (GST inclusive). You see as there is no diesel tax and no ACC RUC charge, the cost is higher.
*
Of course you could ask this. What would happen if there were other companies you could pay your motor vehicle ACC levy to, ones that charged based on your generalised risk, such as age, driving record and location? You would be more incentivised to drive more safely, and wouldn't be cross subsidising the reckless. Labour opposes this. National had talked about it before it lost the 1999 election.
*
So when you pay a higher registration/licensing fee next time, fill up the tank and see it has gone up over 2c/l more, ask yourself "did I have an accident or two last year and so i should pay this additional risk" or "did I have a clean driving record so I'm paying for someone else's mistakes"?
*
Labour says we all have to pay for the recklessness, negligence and mistakes of a few - that's why you're paying more.
2 comments:
Would the increase in the ACC levy have been necessary if the government hadn't turned it's back on the National Road Safety Committees's proposal to add 10 cents a litre to the ptrol tax back in 2000 to fund a $360m increase in highway safety ebgineering? ie clear up the 30 year backlog by 2010 and cut the road toll in half.
Kevyn, quite. Or simply hypothecated the extra funds.
I wouldn't have agreed to that, as I believe safety and congestion both need funding on an economically efficient basis, but safety has definitely been neglected under Labour - as big Auckland motorways have had priority.
Post a Comment