Sunday, August 06, 2006

Rates on TV 1

The value of your house DOES relate to your ability to pay - INFACT it may relate more closely than your income. If your rates increase because your house price went up then you by definition have more money to pay those rates probably several times more money. In a sense these peopel seem to be crying "poor me" over net making a considerable amount of money for doing nothing.

the alternative is for other people to pay for example paying out of their income. Ie the people who have NOT just had tens of thousands of dollars handed to them in terms of house price rises would then have to pay for the services for those who had. talk about having your cake and eating it too!


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh really? Let's assume you are retired, on a fixed income, and are just meeting your cost of living bills like rates, utilities, groceries, insurance etc.

How about I come over to your house, tell you your property is worth more if you sell it and thus is to be rated harder. However, you keep your house and don't sell it. But I still give you a bigger rates bill (say 30% higher) for no extra services, and for infrastructure you'll never see or use.

This despite the fact that you've already spent a lifetime paying rates for existing infrastructure.

Sound like a good deal? Didn't think so.

Rates based on a paper value of worth that you don't actually realise until you sell is a lousy way on which to decide who should pay more or less than others. Especially if you happen to live in an area that becomes "vogue" to live in over time.

12:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Now the less, the value does reflect one's real benefit from the infrastructure's operation as a whole.
One's land property would be without any value at all if you removed the roads and links to the services.
In addition , the property just by being there, and irrespective of how much you use services, imposes costs on those who MUST travel past your occupied space. must pay for the service links past that land. This is because land ownership is a monopoly excluding others .
The land value, ( seen perhaps more clearly if described as the rental value) ...equals the value you can get in hand IF YOU MAKE NO INPUT IN TO THE COMMUNITY WHATSOEVER. it is a claim of ownership alone.

As the community and productive ability and wealth grows, invitably some areas are more favourable locations than others.
YOu may not choose to immediately realise the increased value of your property, but you have that benefit available.
If the commnunity is sympathetic and will carry the cost it could be arranged that pensioners and those of limited resource had their rates held at inflation values only till they died or sold out.

The other problem is that any change in rating to help those with better assets , MUST hit very hard others whose means are low, or in cheaper housing which can't be sold to compensate.

You would be changing one unpleasant( if you don't like change) consequence for a worse.

david L.

8:04 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home