I find myself entirely in agreement with Mike Hosking on this subject in today's Herald.

Yup totally agree. Why do I pay $600 year more than the house next door? They have the same footprint and utilities connections.

They also have 5 residents compared to my 2. But I pay more, purely because I bought my house recently so the council just made that the RV.

Geektastic:

 

I find myself entirely in agreement with Mike Hosking on this subject in today's Herald.

 

You are in agreement as you do not want to pay any more money. I created this thread for the same reason and its wrong, thanks to those that corrected me. 

If every home rose 18.7654984856%, nothing changes, as you all "own" the same % of the city rates bill. If my house rose 25% I may more as I "own" more of the city rates bill. If my house rose 10% I "own" less than my % share of the city rates bill so I pay less. I think that is very fair.

But if you dont like poor people, or kids or paying money, maybe its unfair. 

Oldmanakbar:

 

Yup totally agree. Why do I pay $600 year more than the house next door? They have the same footprint and utilities connections.

 

They also have 5 residents compared to my 2. But I pay more, purely because I bought my house recently so the council just made that the RV.

 

 

 

 

 

That seems odd. same footprint etc. Is your house super cool and the other is a bit not so much? Rates valuations dont include many things, but age, section size, improvements should provide a base comparison.

Just seen this in NZH. Clearly ACC are spending ratepayers money very prudently.

"An Auckland Council report found $1.1 million had been spent on international travel from the 20 months up until August this year. Of that almost half, $509,212 was spent on 62 business-class flights."

Value for money??? Yer Right....

Simple - The government needs to cap the borrowing abilities of councils based on the number of rating units a council has in it's district. For example - max council debt is $10,000*Number of rating units in that council area. This mean that councils with quickly growing populations will be able to borrow more money. As they will also be getting more rates income due to having more ratepayers. And it would give an incentive for councils such as Auckland - to allow more houses to be built.

Part of the problem, is that it is mostly older people who lobby their council. Who in turn simply complain that the rates are too high. So the council just increases debt, to try and keep rates low. If you are aged 70+, you are not going to mind about asset sales or debt increases. As you will probably be dead before the credit crunch happens.

But as Auckland and Hamilton councils are now finding out - they can't borrow much more without risking credit rating downgrades. AFAIK both councils have been borrowing to fund operating expenditure, let alone capital expenditure. As simply borrowing more money has been the easiest way to balance the budget.

Council's need to have the threat of payment defaults overhanging them, to force them to stick to a sensible budget. And to cut unnecessary spending to achieve it. The councillors and the executive will make sure that the budget is balanced - if not doing so means that their wages won't get paid.

tdgeek:

 

 

 

That seems odd. same footprint etc. Is your house super cool and the other is a bit not so much? Rates valuations dont include many things, but age, section size, improvements should provide a base comparison.

 

I was actually being generous to my house. The house next door is of the same quality and in fact larger.

The difference being a recent purchase above the massively out of date RV on my one, and no recent purchase on the one next door.

The councils are super lazy and just make the RV whatever you paid for it and the houses around you seem to go up on a different set of criteria if they are not being bought and sold.

The house on the other side of me has never been sold since it was built in 1969, same size, same quality, nicer section. RV on that is $150k less

I challenged the rating when it went up after I purchased using that logic and got told to bugger off. Not much I can do, going any further would cost far more in legal fees.

Rateable value should not be Market value, they are not the same thing.

My house has 2 people( one income earner) and has a rates bill of close to $2500/annum. Next door is approx. the same value property and 7 people live there including 4 income earners.

Surely I should pay way less rates as I use way less Council services?

Pumpedd:

 

My house has 2 people( one income earner) and has a rates bill of close to $2500/annum. Next door is approx. the same value property and 7 people live there including 4 income earners.

 

Surely I should pay way less rates as I use way less Council services?

 

Exactly. Refuse, water, etc. Most things are user based. We are two here now, $4000 pa

tdgeek:

Geektastic:

I find myself entirely in agreement with Mike Hosking on this subject in today's Herald.

You are in agreement as you do not want to pay any more money. I created this thread for the same reason and its wrong, thanks to those that corrected me. 

If every home rose 18.7654984856%, nothing changes, as you all "own" the same % of the city rates bill. If my house rose 25% I may more as I "own" more of the city rates bill. If my house rose 10% I "own" less than my % share of the city rates bill so I pay less. I think that is very fair.

But if you dont like poor people, or kids or paying money, maybe its unfair. 

Geektastic:

tdgeek:

 

Geektastic:

 

 

 

I find myself entirely in agreement with Mike Hosking on this subject in today's Herald.

 

 

 

 

 

 

You are in agreement as you do not want to pay any more money. I created this thread for the same reason and its wrong, thanks to those that corrected me. 

 

 

 

If every home rose 18.7654984856%, nothing changes, as you all "own" the same % of the city rates bill. If my house rose 25% I may more as I "own" more of the city rates bill. If my house rose 10% I "own" less than my % share of the city rates bill so I pay less. I think that is very fair.

 

 

 

But if you dont like poor people, or kids or paying money, maybe its unfair. 

 

In what way is your house related to your use of services?

People use services, not the buildings they live in.

The only fair solution is a per capita charge levied on every adult in a rating district.

Thats right, 2 people in a house pays less than 7 in a house

Doesnt the UK operate Poll Tax where Cities tax individuals rather than property?

I seem to recall a long time ago where the UK went basically went on strike as the population were against such a tax.

Pumpedd:

 

Doesnt the UK operate Poll Tax where Cities tax individuals rather than property?

 

I seem to recall a long time ago where the UK went basically went on strike as the population were against such a tax.

 

They tried this (community charge), but there were protests and they caved in and replaced it with Council Tax, which is based on property value.

The problem is, if you change the rates/tax system there are always going to be winners and losers.  In this case, the losers were the sort of people who were happy to resist the change by protest and not paying their share, so the change failed.  I'm sure the same would happen here - any move to reduce rates burden on "rich pricks" in expensive houses and shift it to those consuming the services would cause outrage

I think that one of the reasons that there's perception of large rate increases, is that unlike the CPI "basket of goods" used to calculate inflation when many manufactured consumer goods and foodstuffs have either fallen in real price or remained static over the past few decades (thanks mainly to shifting manufacturing production to China etc) , the costs for councils haven't benefitted from this.  Wages, building materials etc have increased at above the CPI.  If I back calculate our rates bill for the same house with approximately the same relative value to other houses of Chch, back to 1990 when we bought it, using the RBNZ inflation calculator, then our rates have increased at more than double the CPI, from about $1200 PA to over $3,000 PA.  

Q3 1990 $1200, Q3 2017 inflation adjustment by sector:

Clothing $1298

CPI $2022

Wages $2568

Housing $5960

It doesn't surprise me that rates increases are much higher than CPI, most of their expenditure isn't on clothes, mass-produced food, and cheap home appliances.

shk292:

 

Pumpedd:

 

Doesnt the UK operate Poll Tax where Cities tax individuals rather than property?

 

I seem to recall a long time ago where the UK went basically went on strike as the population were against such a tax.

 

 

They tried this (community charge), but there were protests and they caved in and replaced it with Council Tax, which is based on property value.

 

The problem is, if you change the rates/tax system there are always going to be winners and losers.  In this case, the losers were the sort of people who were happy to resist the change by protest and not paying their share, so the change failed.  I'm sure the same would happen here - any move to reduce rates burden on "rich pricks" in expensive houses and shift it to those consuming the services would cause outrage

 

Yes, the peasants revolted because all of a sudden they actually had to pay for the endless visits from Social Services etc . It gives the lie to all the much touted blathering about "fairness", since there is nothing fairer than user pays and nothing less fair than simply charging someone more because they earn more or have a house that is worth more.