mudguard:

 

I can see this going both ways. I work in finance, a few years back there was legislation (I think) that meant companies could only impose fines that reflected the cost. So if you were late on a bill you couldn't be charged a $100 late fee if it was in reality $15 work for someone. 

 

Or the other side of that, something that is heavily subsidised that suddenly becomes user pays. Take motorbikes vs cars

 

Car Rego is $106 per year.

 

50cc Scooter is $400 per year. Because of the ACC component I assume. I guess you could argue it both ways. Both users are paying an ACC portion that reflects their risk profile. 

 

ACC is an interesting beast.  More akin to a state-owned insurance company than a Govt dept.  Adjustment of earner levies from year to year reflecting risk (like insurance premium adjustments), investments to cover long tail costs (like a life assurer) etc etc.  Is it efficient?  One would have to benchmark it to be sure which is virtually impossible but the cost-to-income ratios should mirror the insurance industry.  I somewhat agreed with what was planned in terms of income insurance.  ACC could be increased in scope to cover long term health conditions and disability etc rather than just accident related benefits.  Its the right structure and should be funded by a ring-fenced levy from earnings.  [Other aspects of the scheme I disagreed with but thats moot]