mattwnz:
But why should rates be based on what a property is worth anyway, as rates shouldn't be a wealth tax. Why isn't it based on the resources a property uses? Eg why not a flat fee per property? Or based on how many people live in the house. You could have 10 people living in a 400k house paying $3k in rates per year, and using lots of council resources. Then you could have a single elderly person living in a 1 million dollar house paying $6k in rates, and they would be using less council resources.
The problem is keeping it simple. In your example if we pretend the ten people in the cheaper house are renting then they are paying the rates (through their rent) and on paper are considerably less well off than the pensioner next door in the million dollar house.
I've read that argument before maybe in Gareth Morgan's Big Kahuna book, where we pay people universal superannuation despite the differences in wealth, say a pensioner in Devonport, vs a pensioner in Invercargill who both own their own homes.