How much have your rates increased over the years?

Forums › Home Workshop DIY › How much have your rates increased over the years?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

236 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 117

Subscriber

#3434063 13-Nov-2025 11:57

Tauranga basically doubled since purchase:
Rates in 2014 $2,509
Rates in 2025 $5,012

Slight argument to my own point, the Capital value is 2.5 times what it was in 2014, so the fact the rates are "only" twice what they were... But then if you take into account Regional Council being split out in 2023... and they were around $700 this year.

Sorry for bringing you along on my conversation with myself... 🤷‍♂️

Tauranga
Quic Fibre (use R213449EPZJ3R for free setup)

cddt

1973 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1906

#3434077 13-Nov-2025 12:40

tripper1000:

Amalgamation of the IT alone was forecast to cost $100 million. I'm sure it won't have come in under budget.

Many multiples thereof.

My referral links: BigPipe | Mercury

gregmcc

2173 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 836

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3434097 13-Nov-2025 13:30

bigreddog:

Tauranga basically doubled since purchase:
Rates in 2014 $2,509
Rates in 2025 $5,012

Slight argument to my own point, the Capital value is 2.5 times what it was in 2014, so the fact the rates are "only" twice what they were... But then if you take into account Regional Council being split out in 2023... and they were around $700 this year.

Sorry for bringing you along on my conversation with myself... 🤷‍♂️

the capital value rise (IMO) isn't valid as you may own something that is worth more, yet the council get to demand more money from you because of that.

I think it's time that council rates should be called what they are - Property tax and should tax deductible.

garbonzai

317 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 51

#3434099 13-Nov-2025 13:34

Since 2021, rates 42.5% increase Christchurch, and yes another increase is coming.

wellygary

8821 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5303

#3434101 13-Nov-2025 13:44

gregmcc:

the capital value rise (IMO) isn't valid as you may own something that is worth more, yet the council get to demand more money from you because of that.

No, that's not how rates work...

Every year councils workout how much money they want to spend,
They then take to total value of property in the town or city and workout the appropriate ratio of $/$ of valuation and bingo you get a rates bill,

If the value of properties across across a city halved, the council wouldn't spend half as much, they simply double the rate/$ of valuation to get back to what they spent last year...

The only thing that Valuations do is determine whether you will pay more or less than your neighbour, ( if your house doubles in value but your neighbour doesn't -then you'll end up paying more than them)

Rickles

3109 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 448

Trusted

#3434107 13-Nov-2025 14:14

I'm in Wellington and for the new Rating year $5914 pa ... and as previously pointed out we also pay for rubbish bags.

Nearest bus between 700 and 1km away.

Mighty Ape

Shop now at Mighty Ape (affiliate link).

cddt

1973 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1906

#3434110 13-Nov-2025 14:22

Is this the right place to state my support for rates being proportional to land value, rather than "capital value"? Far easier to estimate, and encourages efficient use of land.

I also support punitive rates (e.g. five times, ten times) on vacant land which has remained unused for a certain time (e.g. three years). It would bring in more revenue, and encourage those land speculators to sell. It's a travesty that we have sites in the CBD which have remained gravel parking lots for more than three decades without any sign of development.

My referral links: BigPipe | Mercury

mattwnz

20520 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4798

#3434112 13-Nov-2025 14:36

Our council used to rate based on land but changed to CV rates two years ago because other councils charged this way. It increased rates significantly. IMO one reason the current rating method is unsustainable and not fit for purpose is because it pays for services that are proportional to the population number. But if someone lives alone in a house they could be paying 5k a year in rates. But if the house has 5 people living on it, they would be paying 1k a year each in rates but each using the same quantity of services as a single person. Eg they are using 5 times the services. . Not only is this not fair to someone living alone or as a couple, but it prevents rates being increased very much. Obviously if someone is only paying 1k a year in rates they are getting very good value and are subsidised by those paying more. It is one reason some cultures have multigenerational families all living at the same property. With the granny flat law coming in soon, it could get even worse as they may not pay much more in rates despite the extra resources a new dwelling with extra people in it puts on the councils infrastructure.

John19612

86 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 96

#3434113 13-Nov-2025 14:43

cddt:

Is this the right place to state my support for rates being proportional to land value, rather than "capital value"? Far easier to estimate, and encourages efficient use of land.

Rates should be based on the quantity of services used not the value of land or improvements to that land.

mattwnz

20520 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4798

#3434125 13-Nov-2025 15:22

John19612:

cddt:

Is this the right place to state my support for rates being proportional to land value, rather than "capital value"? Far easier to estimate, and encourages efficient use of land.

Rates should be based on the quantity of services used not the value of land or improvements to that land.

Yes, currently they are a form of wealth tax, and apart from things that are charged per unit, such as water, they have little relationship to the services being used. But it is an easy way for councils to charge, and it means that they can charge more to those people with higher value properties, eg new houses, became those people have more of an ability to pay more. They even say this is the case. But they end up with the current problem where the amount they can charge is very limited.

alasta

6894 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3368

Trusted

Subscriber

#3434126 13-Nov-2025 15:23

mattwnz:

Our council used to rate based on land but changed to CV rates two years ago because other councils charged this way. It increased rates significantly. IMO one reason the current rating method is unsustainable and not fit for purpose is because it pays for services that are proportional to the population number. But if someone lives alone in a house they could be paying 5k a year in rates. But if the house has 5 people living on it, they would be paying 1k a year each in rates but each using the same quantity of services as a single person. Eg they are using 5 times the services. . Not only is this not fair to someone living alone or as a couple, but it prevents rates being increased very much.

I can tell you from experience that living alone is very expensive, but not just because of rates. I also have to cover the full household cost of maintenance, utilities and insurance.

Dell

Shop now for Dell laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

sir1963

3428 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3756

Subscriber

#3434128 13-Nov-2025 15:45

cddt:

Is this the right place to state my support for rates being proportional to land value, rather than "capital value"? Far easier to estimate, and encourages efficient use of land.

I also support punitive rates (e.g. five times, ten times) on vacant land which has remained unused for a certain time (e.g. three years). It would bring in more revenue, and encourage those land speculators to sell. It's a travesty that we have sites in the CBD which have remained gravel parking lots for more than three decades without any sign of development.

That's a bad idea.

you will get 2 identical sections, one has an old house on it, the other has a brand new $1M+ house built on it.

This is becoming more common as older homes on large sections are slowly consumed by developers. And because large sections get subdivided into 2 or more small sections it has the effect of pushing up land value independent of any other reason.

Oh, and ours also went up because of the bus routes, which ended up being completely changed a year later so all the rezoning that went on was a waste of time and money.

It tells you nothing about if a person can afford the pay the higher rates, some people have lived in their homes for over 50 years.

It tells you nothing about the number of people in the house, an elderly couple will consume fewer resources than a family of 6, or a flat of 4+ young working people.

Some land is also an issue where it belongs to Maori Trusts, so punitive action against them would not be appropriate. You can also have family land where one family member refuses to sell, so its either very expensive legal battles, or everyone (including those who want to sell) get hammered.

I have a large section

We have dogs, an above ground swimming pool, kids/grandkids who come and use the pool, ride their scooters on the driveway, we have all the family gatherings at our home because we can fit everyone inside and out.

I have hobbies (Lathe/mill/air compressor/electronics workshop) I have a Piano in the lounge, about 2000 books, lots of family history items, etc etc etc.

There are 2 options. Either house people (much like you house stray dogs) , OR, give people a HOME where they can have gardens, space for family, space for hobbies, space for a BBQ, etc .

A LOT of social issues are because people have no "outside" to relax in, unwind. No place for hobbies, no place quiet because your neighbours are just a meter away from you at all times.

I have heard of the results of Kainga Ora stuffing as many people as they can into multi storied units, disagreements/fights started within months.

And a lot of commercial land sits empty because of traffic and parking issues. Go ask businesses how much they suffer when parking goes away. We stopped going to one bakery here in palmy because car parking was just too hard.

mattwnz

20520 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4798

#3434130 13-Nov-2025 16:08

alasta:

I can tell you from experience that living alone is very expensive, but not just because of rates. I also have to cover the full household cost of maintenance, utilities and insurance.

Yes, although rates are probably one of the biggest single costs each year

wellygary

8821 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5303

#3434137 13-Nov-2025 16:23

mattwnz:

alasta:

I can tell you from experience that living alone is very expensive, but not just because of rates. I also have to cover the full household cost of maintenance, utilities and insurance.

Yes, although rates are probably one of the biggest single costs each year

That and insurance (particularly in the shaky parts of the country)

tweake

2650 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1139

#3434141 13-Nov-2025 16:38

mines gone up a few hundred in 10 years.

however they where high to start with. i have entry level house in a cheap town. yet the same rates bill as mates 2 million dollar home across the border. a lot of that is to do with very old services that previous ratepayers didn't want to pay to maintain, until it all failed and we get landed with the repair bill. rates went way up before i moved here.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5