Rates
by admin 11:00pm, 28 April 2008
You will need to login
or sign up to do that
The draft 2008/09 budget is based on the 3.2% increase provided for under the State Government rate cap.
Two options are being considered. One option is increasing the existing base charge while option two is for a return to the land value basis with a minimum.
Option 1.
(27.4% base charge)
Increases contributions by Strata Units. A uniform increase applies to all ratepayers (ie $27) Narrow range of increase 0.9% to 7.48%
Option 2.
($568.50 minimum)
Significant increases for strata units. Large range of impact from 56.81% increase to 11.43% decrease. Redistributes rating burden – rates decrease for land values between $150,000 and average land value. Rates increase significantly for upper and lower ends of the valuation ranges.
Which option do you prefer?
This discussion topic is closed. You can still review the discussion but it will no longer accept comments or votes.
Reformer Comment 1
1:44pm, 29 April 2008
3
4 
Neither. This idea of giving Councillors a "choice of 2 is insulting to Councillors, who have not been given sufficient information or time or access to independent capable, professional resources to enable them to adequately challenge the Administration's bid for pay rise.
i vote for a NIL increase, or a reduction.
dipsy Comment 2
9:00pm, 1 May 2008
2
4
I dont agree with Reformer that rates should be cut. I think option 2 is better because the rich would pay more bt am worried so would the poor. Could we have a hybrid? I do not really understand the full system but think the more expensive home owners should pay more than the rest of us.
goog64 Comment 2.1
9:58pm, 1 May 2008
4
0
Why do people like Dipsy think that "the rich" are the only ones living in high land value areas? Please, Dipsy, think about it...For ten years, my income has been under $30,000 per annum. But I scrimped and saved my whole life and now I live in Merewether. My children and I wear second hand clothes and they buy their toys at garage sales but I'll bet I pay higher rates than you (and I'll bet I earn less than you, or at least most of your neighbours). Why should I pay more than someone else for the SAME services?
If people earn more money they ALREADY pay more tax PLUS they also probably paid a lot more for their home.
Bigfeller Comment 2.1.1
12:11pm, 4 May 2008
1
2
I bet Dipsy is not even a ratepayer.
Goog64 you are like so many Newcastle people in Newcastle LGA.
I would like to know how Council determined that ratepayers were capable of paying more rates and household charges.
If Dipsey is a tenant she pays nothing because it is against the Law (Residential Tenancies Act) to pass on increases in rates and taxes to tenants.
goog64 Comment 3
10:06pm, 1 May 2008
3
2
Option 1.
Council Rates should not have anything to do with land value. It is divisive, irrational and unfair. Wealth re-distribution is already done by the taxation department.
If you want to force people to pay more because they are wealthy - fine! But don't ASSUME people are wealthy based on where they live.
If you continue to have a land value component to the rates, we will end up with exclusively "rich" suburbs as the poor are forced out by the high rates.
Bigfeller Comment 3.1
12:26pm, 4 May 2008
1
1
Careful Goog64, If you have a flat rate without land value then we would all be paying about $825. That would be not good for small and lesser quality land owners. It would also mean that a block of flats with 100 units would also only pay $825 or $8.25 each!!!!!
The answer is user pays because unit dwellers, visitors to the LGA and tourist would all share paying for the cost of services provided by Council. Seems reasonable for me.
Drabble Comment 4
11:39am, 2 May 2008
2
1
Option 1 is fairer.
justine Comment 4.1
1:40pm, 13 May 2008
1
1
option 1 seems fairer to me too
pony Comment 4.2
1:10pm, 14 May 2008
2
0
Don't get diverted from the real issue, which is the money wasted and the lack of governance and customer focus, by staff and councillors.