Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

VIC Multiple regos sucks. The TAC charge should be levied per license. Good or bad idea?

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' at netrider.net.au started by robsalvv, Oct 1, 2014.

  1. I hear a lot of riders complain about paying multiple regos. And almost right after that is the popular idea that you can only ride one bike or drive one vehicle at a time, so why not levy the TAC premium on a license? Sounds reasonable.

    I am going to declare my hand up front. It's not a good idea - at least as far as I can logic it out. So happy to hear from the wider rider community.

    One TAC premium per license is a popular idea that makes sense to riders who usually have another registered vehicle and a good portion who have at least another motorcycle (I have four regos in my fleet so I understand the appeal of this idea). But it's truly a case of "careful what you wish for" and every time I think this through, one premium per license comes up as a probably a short sighted and bad idea.

    Let's break this down.

    1./ The majority of licensed Victorians own one registered vehicle.

    2./ There are fewer licences than registered vehicles.

    3./ The TAC will want the same revenue from the road going community to run the CTP system, in other words, the size of the TAC $ pie has to remain the same.

    When you put that all together, what does it mean?

    If the size of the pie doesn't change and it is spread over fewer licenses, then the premium levied per license can only do one thing - it must go up. It can't do anything else.

    So this means that the majority of Victorians (who only have one vehicle) will see their TAC premium rise on a one license one premium basis. They will probably also see that this was driven by motorcyclists who complained about multiple regos... which is going to have some major downsides for motorcycle community relations. It will also probably be political suicide for the party that pushed this through - which suggests it will never happen.

    Leaving the bike and political negatives aside, the other main negative will be that the most disadvantaged in our community will struggle to pay this increased premium, leading to either more unlicensed / unregistered people on the roads which benefits no one, and/or a higher cross subsidising rating on the premium levied to some, possibly linked to income levels, in order to keep premiums affordable for the disadvantaged in our community.

    So how's this idea working for you so far?

    The other thing about this idea is that such a fundamental change to the premium structure would give the TAC a chance to levy a premium based on a risk rating on your license, based on demerit point history, traffic conviction history, address location, number and types of vehicles owned, age, sex etcetera... leading to very complex system with TAC prying heavily into our private lives to work out a premium to levy against a license.

    The punch line in all this is that those of us complaining about multiple regos are the ones most likely who can afford it and that means that when TAC weighs up what premium to levy our license, it's very likely that the overall net effect will be literally no change in the overall premium paid at all.

    That hasn't worked out as expected at all has it?

    So the bottom line of such a change to the CTP system will be that it is no longer a relatively evenly spread (huge simplification for the sake of argument) charge levied across all registered vehicles but lumpily spread across licenses, demographics and income levels/bank balances.

    Like I said, be careful what you wish for.

  2. I think the easiest way to think through the argument would be to find out what TAC and MUARC favours and then do the opposite :p
    • Like Like x 3
  3. You also need to consider families that only have one vehicle but two licenced drivers in the household.
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Is this coming from somewhere Rob? Are the Govt considering this? If so you can bet their approach will be whatever generates most money
  5. It doesn't work as a disincentive for more vehicles on the road which is the other cost/benefit. It's an ill thought through grasp at credibility from the usual egotist.
  6. One thing to think about is vehicle gps black boxes are not far off unfortunately. Insurance will push this and it won't be far off before vehicle kms are logged and insurance will be based off this.

    One step further leads to a complete nanny of how we ride all the time.

    One advantage of moving to a license based system would be that it would delay the inevitability of vehicle data loggers as it's the person getting taxed not the vehicle hence logging kms is less desirable to push for.

    Though I agree with rob completely on the other points.
  7. It may act as an incentive for people who aren't using their mc licence to not renew them. No idea if that is an agenda item or not. Might appeal to TAC since there was some suggestion returning riders were at risk.
  8. You also dont account for all the government and corporate fleet cars that currently pay into the scheme but wouldn't as they would just require it as a condition of employment instead.

    Assuming same sum of funds, that means higher premiums for everyone else.

    I own multiple bikes but it is a dumb idea.

    It would also mess with second hand prices on used bikes. Any savings even if there were any would be eaten up in purchase costs anyway.
  9. I think the other option is to charge a couple of cents more per liter for petroleum and pay your TAC premium that way. This means the more you use the roads the more exposure you have to accidents therefore then more you pay to the TAC. Follows the government lines of user pays.
  10. Electric vehicles dont pay?
  11. #11 robsalvv, Oct 1, 2014
    Last edited: Oct 1, 2014
    Um, there are fewer licenses than regos - that's how it's accounted for. But you bring the disparity into even greater relief, so cheers.

    Lots of downsides to the idea.

    There is a TAC premium review in the works, but no, this is a populist idea being trotted out at the moment by the IRG to garner more members. But it's also an idea that has been stated to me by many in the last four years in the VMC... I cannot see a plus side when you step back and take a bigger picture view.

    Pretty narrow upside to the license based premium proposal.

    I think the solution to your concerns is to engage the privacy and civil rights organisations.

    Hadn't thought of that, but they don't need this proposal to get licensed non riders to relinquish their MC license. They only need to charge a separate renewal for that motorcycle license rating on their license - folks who aren't riding will probably just let that part of their license lapse.

    Yeh maybe. Hypothecated taxes are problematic though but I think the idea isn't without merit. It certainly removes the downsides of levying a premium on a license.

    VC makes a valid point though - with the rise of electric vehicles, this idea does have a flaw.
    • Winner Winner x 1
  12. #12 Vertical C, Oct 1, 2014
    Last edited: Oct 1, 2014
    If they announce it, I am going sell stock and go out to buy dozens of used bikes as a speculation investment. Can someone rent me a vic address?

    Edit...hmm that is a good point as well, what stops other riders from other states just getting their bike registered with their mate in victoria, paying $0 for the bike then? But increasing the costs if the other state rider crashes. This means that premiums would rise.

    Edit 2. This change is never going to happen
  13. The TAC does not acknowledge the additional premiums that most motorcyclists (and others) pay into the system, but I agree that they would certainly resent not getting it.
    TBH, the premiums are the least of my gripes with them.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  14. Good point! That's really going to hurt one car families/households. That will build massive resentment towards riders whose complaints about paying multiple regos brought about the change to the system.

    I can't see an upside to this populist idea.
    • Like Like x 1
  15. The legal action that would happen if this is brought in would take years to be concluded.

    What is the government going to do with the data collected? Try to work out who meets up with who, where, when, then try to work out the reason why so they can find a way to fine people more to pay for the GPS units?

    What are the insurance companies going to do with the data? You can bet that the beige will save a token amount of money so they'll think it's great, and the non-beige will cop it up the clacker, even if they have a stirling driving record.

    You can bet your bottom dollar that there will be enough backlash on the grounds of invasion of privacy to get it challenged in court, and in doing so, delayed by years.

    Don't get me wrong: I wouldn't be surprised if the government tries to introduce it within a few years, but I don't think it will actually happen for quite a while.

    Now, on topic, I agree with Rob. What I want for rego cost reduction is for the motorcyclist persecution levy to be abolished.
  16. Another thought. What about a one off premium that comes with the purchase of the vehicle?

    When you sell the vehicle it adds to the sale price.

    You use a vehicle less the premium depriciates less.

    Set an amount of kms and if the vehicle becomes unroadworthy before then you can sell the premium back.
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
  17. There are a million ways to do this but there will never be a way which suits everybody. There will always be winners and losers
    • Like Like x 1
  18. What would stop people disconnecting the odometer? Thats easy on a lot of bikes.

    Plus i think the biggest issue is that kms driven actually is higher amongst the poorest in oz, no matter what Hockey says. Or at least the battlers are going to be hit hard who sit in all those marginal seats in western sydney and melbourne.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  19. First thing I would do in any TAC premium review is remove the government's ripoff of millions of dollars that they take from the TAC every year.

    Then I would take the TAC and give it a very good shake up...
    * no more wasting money on BULLSHIT road safety(sic) campaigns,
    * no more wasting ANY money on any form of advertising or sponsorship,
    * no more wasting money paying lawyers instead of paying out claimants

    ...and that's just for starters...

    BTW. don't the poms have a system where the person buys the TP insurance not the vehicle ???
    • Agree Agree x 1
  20. Licences would need to be renewed annually instead of every 3 or 10 years, which would be added to licencing costs (annual photos, VicRoads staffing, etc). Very few people could afford to pay the TAC charge multiplied three or ten times over (with interest) in one hit.

    I don't like the idea that private citizens will become responsible for the cost of big business and their employers (ie. covering the TAC charge for taxis, trucks, hire cars, fleet/company vehicles, police/fire trucks/ambulances, etc.)? The Unions are unlikely to allow their members to bear the costs of their employer's vehicles.