apollo11 wrote:

Anally retentive people could ask for a discount (?)

They should just loosen up.

sparkychap - 2021-05-06 19:48:00

lakeview3 wrote:

lol as if......ours just went up and what’s the bet they go up again next years - all based on the capital value, not like the land value like it used to be. It’s a stealth wealth tax and you can thank Helen Clarke’s govt for it.

Currently we are at $3900.

You're wrong, sparkychap is right.

It's based on *relative* value. Everyone's house prices go up the same percentage, no one's rates increase. There is no stealth wealth tax in that.

But then you add what the council has mooted increasing the rates by.

loose.unit8 - 2021-05-06 20:09:00

sparkychap wrote:

Number of toilets? Because I have three toilets doesn't mean I shit more than if I only had one....

tell me why one house should pay more than the house next to it on the same size section then?

lakeview3 - 2021-05-06 21:09:00

lakeview3 wrote:

tell me why one house should pay more than the house next to it on the same size section then?

So you don't mind the owners of lesser value homes to pay more rates then, and richer people pay less? I mean that works for me.

sparkychap - 2021-05-06 21:14:00

sparkychap wrote:

So you don't mind the owners of lesser value homes to pay more rates then, and richer people pay less? I mean that works for me.

no, I think that houses should be rated according to land value and services provided like they used to be.

Anyhoo we downsized over 10 years ago when we saw the way things were going. However we still are getting ripped off. I hope the govt centralises all the councils and those overpaid paper pushers get the boot and have to find a real job doing actual work.

Edited by lakeview3 at 9:20 pm, Thu 6 May

lakeview3 - 2021-05-06 21:18:00

lakeview3 wrote:

no, I think that houses should be rated according to land value and services provided like they used to be.

Anyhoo we downsized over 10 years ago when we saw the way things were going. However we still are getting ripped off. I hope the govt centralises all the councils and those overpaid paper pushers get the boot and have to find a real job doing actual work.

By my calculations, for a $4300 rates bill, your house must be worth some 950K?

sparkychap - 2021-05-06 21:23:00

lakeview3 wrote:

I hope the govt centralises all the councils

You can't be serious. Look at the shambles the Auckland Super Council has been.

apollo11 - 2021-05-06 21:24:00

sparkychap wrote:

By my calculations, for a $4300 rates bill, your house must be worth some 950K?

Ok how much is mine worth in west Auckland rates 3600? Do you have a crystal ball?

heather902 - 2021-05-06 21:25:00

sparkychap wrote:

By my calculations, for a $4300 rates bill, your house must be worth some 950K?

that was the previous house.....now says 1.2 mill and was rural

lakeview3 - 2021-05-06 21:29:00

apollo11 wrote:

You can't be serious. Look at the shambles the Auckland Super Council has been.

could it be any more shambolic than the piece meal hodge lodge matey potatey rort full of overpaid self important wowsers we have running the local councils at the moment?

lakeview3 - 2021-05-06 21:31:00

lakeview3 wrote:

that was the previous house.....now says 1.2 mill and was rural

OK circa 800K now then.

sparkychap - 2021-05-06 21:33:00

heather902 wrote:

Ok how much is mine worth in west Auckland rates 3600? Do you have a crystal ball?

About 1.6m?

sparkychap - 2021-05-06 21:33:00

lakeview3 wrote:

could it be any more shambolic than the piece meal hodge lodge matey potatey rort full of overpaid self important wowsers we have running the local councils at the moment?

It would be far worse. At least I can turn up at my local council building and harass someone. I'd rather deal with locals thanks.

apollo11 - 2021-05-06 21:35:00

heather902 wrote:

Do you have a crystal ball?

Would you believe he has two?

apollo11 - 2021-05-06 21:36:00

sparkychap wrote:

About 1.6m?

No, but you probably wouldn’t be far off if it wasn’t a lifestyle type property. But are you talking old rates valuations quite close

Edited by heather902 at 9:42 pm, Thu 6 May

heather902 - 2021-05-06 21:38:00

heather902 wrote:

No, but you probably wouldn’t be far off if it wasn’t a lifestyle type property. But are you talking old rates valuations quite close

If its lifestyle, then I'd guess 1.8

sparkychap - 2021-05-06 21:45:00

sparkychap wrote:

OK circa 800K now then.

for this place here? I guess.....it’s only worth to me what we paid for it.....still gotta live somewhere

lakeview3 - 2021-05-06 22:13:00

lakeview3 wrote:

what you don’t seem to be understanding is the concept of buying a house and actually being able to ever pay it off. See my thread on the ‘new renters’.

We have bought 4 houses over our time, each paid off before moving to next.
First was $80k, second $125, third $200 and present one $396 (16yrs ago)

smallwoods - 2021-05-06 22:22:00

smallwoods wrote:

We have bought 4 houses over our time, each paid off before moving to next.
First was $80k, second $125, third $200 and present one $396 (16yrs ago)

good on you but not sure how that was relevant to what I what saying about young people buying a house and perhaps never being able to pay it off since you’re not really in the same demographic as them, and the same goes for me. We had our chances to get in on the property ladder 30nyears ago or earlier, when everything was more relative

lakeview3 - 2021-05-06 22:41:00

lakeview3 wrote:

it isn’t fair to base it on capital value, it should be based on land value and the number of toilets etc etc etc.

Why should my newer house be higher rates than the old sh*t box down the street on the same land size/value/toilets? Same services.

Anyways back to this old chestnut.

Perhaps you've missed the fact that around $1,600 of your rates bill is fixed charges covering the overall general services, such as water, waste collection, sewerage etc. Everyone pays the same for these services.

The remaining services, such as roads, libraries, parks, etc etc. are covered by the variable charge based on capital value, following the general theory of distributing the charges based on some form of economic status, in this case rateable value.

But the process is:

1: council determines how much money it needs to run those services
2: that amount is divided by the total rateable value of property to create a $rates per $value
3: that is then assigned to each property's rateable value to determine their share of rates.

But any suggestion that rising values causes rising rates is simply wrong.

Edited by sparkychap at 8:15 am, Fri 7 May

sparkychap - 2021-05-07 08:15:00

Now, economists argue that land value based rates is "fairer" and has the effect of discouraging land banking as they pay more than under a CV system, but in general it just causes a redistribution of tax, often impacting the lower end who end up paying more as there is less variance in land values than capital values.

sparkychap - 2021-05-07 08:18:00

lakeview3 wrote:

good on you but not sure how that was relevant to what I what saying about young people buying a house and perhaps never being able to pay it off since you’re not really in the same demographic as them, and the same goes for me. We had our chances to get in on the property ladder 30nyears ago or earlier, when everything was more relative

Our eldest son, decided to OE for 5 years (his choice) and bought their first home a year or 2 back.
$460ish in Hamilton.
Now if they hadn't OE'ed he would have been the same age as us(at purchase time) and the house they bought would have been cheaper.

In this case, nothing has changed over a generation.
Just depends on WHERE the kids want to start from!

smallwoods - 2021-05-07 08:52:00

sparkychap wrote:

Anyways back to this old chestnut.

Perhaps you've missed the fact that around $1,600 of your rates bill is fixed charges covering the overall general services, such as water, waste collection, sewerage etc. Everyone pays the same for these services.

The remaining services, such as roads, libraries, parks, etc etc. are covered by the variable charge based on capital value, following the general theory of distributing the charges based on some form of economic status, in this case rateable value.

But the process is:

1: council determines how much money it needs to run those services
2: that amount is divided by the total rateable value of property to create a $rates per $value
3: that is then assigned to each property's rateable value to determine their share of rates.

But any suggestion that rising values causes rising rates is simply wrong.

SOME will never get it sparky.
I get tired of telling people this, each RV time.
Some go up, some go down.
Some wish too much and the council then need extra rates to build it.

smallwoods - 2021-05-07 08:56:00

smallwoods wrote:

SOME will never get it sparky.
I get tired of telling people this, each RV time.
Some go up, some go down.
Some wish too much and the council then need extra rates to build it.

yep smallwoods and it often blows their minds when they’re arguing that property values are pushing up rates and you point out that their rateable value hasn’t changed for 3 years but their rates go up every year…

sparkychap - 2021-05-08 10:51:00

lakeview3 wrote:

Either way the govt needs to start taxing empty houses/ air BnBs or asset and income testing pensions.

If people think they can live through all the good times, rip the carpet out from everyone else who they expect to pay for their pensions and healthcare then they are absolutely dreaming.

dont you dare suggest they start income testing pensioners. These people have worked hard all their lives, they are entitled to the pension

sheryl13 - 2021-05-08 21:40:00

smallwoods wrote:

Our eldest son, decided to OE for 5 years (his choice) and bought their first home a year or 2 back.
$460ish in Hamilton.
Now if they hadn't OE'ed he would have been the same age as us(at purchase time) and the house they bought would have been cheaper.

In this case, nothing has changed over a generation.
Just depends on WHERE the kids want to start from!

Totally agree. Sick and tired of being told by a younger generation "its just too hard" or "you guys had it so easy". If you didn't live our lives at that time, shut up and get on with saving. Don't buy all the latest toys, take on another job and just do what we all did. Buy the minimum (not the flashest house), pay the most, sit tight and don't spend. It may take a few years but you will be proud of yourself at the end. Eldest is just looking now, its going to be cheaper than the rent they pay now, both have finished paying off their student loans and have put off having kids. If you look around (down here) you can find decently priced properties. Nothing wrong with a fixer upper either.

brightlights60 - 2021-05-08 22:30:00

sheryl13 wrote:

dont you dare suggest they start income testing pensioners. These people have worked hard all their lives, they are entitled to the pension

it will happen. We can’t afford to pay for everyone in the current circumstances. Don’t you think it’s a little bit sick that young people are struggling to afford a roof over their head, and are expected to work to pay for the pension of the landlord who owns their house?

As for working hard all their lives, some havent, some have gotten rich just because of the time they lived through, good on them but for goodness sake greed and entitlement is ugly and makes people blind to reality. The money paid by taxes of those receiving pensions today was paid to THEIR parents generation and there were a lot less of them to pay for, unlike the absolute exponential number of people now receiving a pension. What’s wrong with income testing it? Australia and many other countries do it. Do you want to see your grandchildren living in poverty just so a whole bunch of entitled people can indulge themselves in luxury?

Edited by lakeview3 at 10:40 pm, Sat 8 May

lakeview3 - 2021-05-08 22:39:00

https://www.oneroof.co.nz/news/39413

The kind of people who just buy these sorts of places clearly don’t need a pension.

Time this country faces some good hard questions really.

Edited by lakeview3 at 5:35 am, Sun 9 May

lakeview3 - 2021-05-09 05:28:00

lakeview3 wrote:

https://www.oneroof.co.nz/news/39413

The kind of people who just buy these sorts of places clearly don’t need a pension.

Time this country faces some good hard questions really.

then we can reduce the amount of tax they pay then. I mean why should they be paying for everyone else’s retirement?

Edited by sparkychap at 7:12 am, Sun 9 May

sparkychap - 2021-05-09 07:04:00

lakeview3 wrote:

it will happen. We can’t afford to pay for everyone in the current circumstances. Don’t you think it’s a little bit sick that young people are struggling to afford a roof over their head, and are expected to work to pay for the pension of the landlord who owns their house?

As for working hard all their lives, some havent, some have gotten rich just because of the time they lived through, good on them but for goodness sake greed and entitlement is ugly and makes people blind to reality. The money paid by taxes of those receiving pensions today was paid to THEIR parents generation and there were a lot less of them to pay for, unlike the absolute exponential number of people now receiving a pension. What’s wrong with income testing it? Australia and many other countries do it. Do you want to see your grandchildren living in poverty just so a whole bunch of entitled people can indulge themselves in luxury?

Intergenerational blaming and generalizations are also ugly and not particularly truthful or accurate reflections of what has and is happening.
I prefer universal livable provisions for older and younger people.

upfront1 - 2021-05-24 19:17:00