District Council gold diggers...

**MadDuck** · 11th March 2009, 19:36

Originally Posted by Mom

I specially love paying a levy for public transport

We have none!

Damn thats one I forgot. We get levied for public transport in the form of rail. Buggered if I have ever seen a train hooning down the Peninsula! Might go looking for some tracks one night when I am bored or drunk.

OK thats ARC as opposed to RDC...but cummon.

**Winston001** · 11th March 2009, 19:50

Originally Posted by firecracker

If property values are on the decrease then why are my rates increasing??

Would it not be an ideal context for government to make a difference at grass roots level?

Reducing rates to reflect the current market place while putting a wee bit more moolah for the boojah in our pockets to spread around?

I need some enlightenment

Nice idea but what you are asking is for me (or your neighbour) to pay higher rates to make up for your drop.

Bit like lowering your tax, the rest of us have to pay increased tax to make up for it.

The only way it could possibly work would be for the costs of street works, sewers and waterlines, electricity, buses, council workers wages, basically everything Council pays for - to drop in price. Yeah right!

**Winston001** · 11th March 2009, 20:00

Rates: this is one of my hobby-horses but I'll never get anywhere with it.

Council rates are a tax placed on land-owners. The money is used to pay for running the council for a year. If it costs $1 million and there are 1000 sections of land, the rate on each will be $1000 - if they are valued the same.

There are three ways to calculate rates - unimproved value, capital value, and rental value. Capital is most popular.

The rating system is a crude sledge-hammer instrument. An old lady in a good suburb will pay $3000. Her dead-beat nephew in a poor suburb with 5 kids and their hangers-on will pay $1000. Who uses the sewers, roads, water, buses etc more....?

**firecracker** · 11th March 2009, 20:03

Originally Posted by Finn

Are you sure you're a woman? You seem to speak logic and common sense which are male traits...

Oh, I'm super sure my dear

**Winston001** · 11th March 2009, 20:05

Ok. My answer. A POLL TAX.

Yes I thought so, lost youse guys immediately. Tim Shadbolt and his Councillors didn't like it either when I made a submission.

A poll tax is a tax on individual residents. So if 7 of you live in a house, you pay accordingly. Only one of you, not much to pay. Its based on the rational idea that humans use council facilities and thus benefit from them. Makes complete sense yet I don't know of anywhere it has been successfully implemented. Even Maggie Thatcher backed down.

PS - Japan has a nightmarish rates system including a poll tax for non-residents. Calling Brian-de-Marge........

**firecracker** · 11th March 2009, 20:21

Originally Posted by Winston001

Nice idea but what you are asking is for me (or your neighbour) to pay higher rates to make up for your drop.

Bit like lowering your tax, the rest of us have to pay increased tax to make up for it.

The only way it could possibly work would be for the costs of street works, sewers and waterlines, electricity, buses, council workers wages, basically everything Council pays for - to drop in price. Yeah right!

I'm hearing what you're saying mate.

My point is that in the current climate, everybody's property values are on the decline. My understanding is that rates are based upon property values albeit on a fickle basis. Times by that, divide by this, average out by shit knows what.

Then the bastards whack us with environmental tax as well. WTF? Was'nt that already covered in the rates under a different heading?

Bottom line is that based on this model, it would be logical and fair if rates were a reflection as opposed to fickle projections of the marketplace.

It seems that we're keeping the fat cat's whiskey decanter full whilst they indulge in deligating and scratching their balls.

**Skyryder** · 11th March 2009, 20:23

Originally Posted by Finn

The councils were fucked long before National were elected you dumb old cow.

MMMoooooooooooo or is BBBaaaaaaaaaa Nope its BBBBlleeeeaaaattt.

Skyryder

**MadDuck** · 11th March 2009, 20:26

Originally Posted by Skyryder

MMMoooooooooooo or is BBBaaaaaaaaaa Nope its BBBBlleeeeaaaattt.

Skyryder

Gosh that was a reasoned and well rounded contribution towards the debate or discussion.

**BMWST?** · 11th March 2009, 20:38

even funnier is that the weely council has deemed we will now go ona a three year valuation cycle.....
Poll tax...you pay indirectly through your landlord if you not a ratepayer...

**Winston001** · 11th March 2009, 20:42

Originally Posted by firecracker

My point is that in the current climate, everybody's property values are on the decline. My understanding is that rates are based upon property values albeit on a fickle basis. Times by that, divide by this, average out by shit knows what.

Bottom line is that based on this model, it would be logical and fair if rates were a reflection as opposed to fickle projections of the marketplace.

I know but it doesn't work like that. The value of your property - high or low - has nothing to do with the amount of money required to run the council. You house could be worth literally $1. If every other house was valued at $1, each owner would still have to pay your $1000 rates bill.

And the council can't do much about a lot of its bills. Council projects and loans are often spread over 10 - 20 years and paid for yearly through rates. Just like a mortgage.

Here is a real life example. In the late 1980s the town of Nightcaps in Southland installed a new sewage system - had been on septic tanks, children getting sick etc. Cost $1 million. About $6000 each household payable over 10 years, on top of normal rates. So individual properties paid about $1,200pa in 1988.

At the same time NZ entered a pretty serious recession and houses in Nightcaps sold for $1. Yes $1. I dealt with quite a few of them. The rates however remained the same. Which made sense because the sewage system loan still had to be paid.

**Skyryder** · 11th March 2009, 20:43

Originally Posted by MadDuck

Gosh that was a reasoned and well rounded contribution towards the debate or discussion.

So what is the discussion.

The councils are gold diggers or the councils are fucked.

I'd tend to say both to that here in Chch. The last council voted for a new council building two or three days before going into councill elections. F**k all consultation.

Bob Parker seems to spend more time spending our money than doing anything worthwhile.

Like bailing out devolpers with our money. Raising the rent then getting mud on his face for not following procedures

Ya got Hide as the Minister of Local Government.

Like what's he done so far??

F all.

Finn actually said something that I agreed with.

.........but hell I'm not telling him that on principle.

So all in all the Bleat thing was an appropiate response one way or the other.

Skyryder

**MadDuck** · 11th March 2009, 20:46

But Mr Parker brought you the Ellerslie flower show

**McJim** · 11th March 2009, 20:56

I think the point that has been missed is that the rates are charged using a proxy that is politically palatable to the majority.

Although it appears that you are being taxed on the value of your property they are looking for a benchmark through which to define how heavily you use local authority amenities (streets, streetlights, sewage, rubbish collection etc.)

If the local authority needs say $10,000,000 per year of general rates to operate and it has 100,000 rateable properties it takes the total capital value of the rateable properties, lets say $25,000,000,000 and divides the required amount by the total value of properties in it's territory..in this hypothetical case this means the local authority will charge each person $0.0004 per dollar of quotable value in their property.

Logically if ALL properties drop in value then the total amount required remains the same, the total number of households remains the same but the total value drops this means (if everyone were to experience the same %age drop in property value) that the apportionment of general rates would remain exactly the same...the reason it goes up is usually because the councillors decide to do more stuff...which costs money.

Winston makes a good point about poll tax - this was attempted in Britain and was the direct cause of the downfall of the Conservative Government. The Tory party have never recovered and probably never will - this ultra right methodology of local taxation handed a free reign of power to the left - ironic but it got the bastards out of Scotland so all good

:

I have another idea. A secondary income tax paid to local authorities. this has no bearing on how heavily you use the amenities but is very socialist in the same way as the poll tax is capitalist.