The reality of Queensland`s forced Local Government Amalgamations is now starting to bite home.

I just received my Rates Notice and my Rates are up another 30%.( my Rates have nearly doubled in 18months) I am told that I can expect the same 30% increase each year, subject to further "Revaluation by the State Government".( I receive no services whatsoever and this is purely a General Rate) This impost applied in a locality where the original Shire Council had in excess of $3million in the kitty!

This impost has resulted from Beattie/Bligh`s "forced" amalgamation process which was never voted upon as it should have been, and illustrates once again the totalitarian attitude of a State Government out of control and intent upon the removal of all semblance of "Democracy"

I will hopefully survive the latest round of legalized extortion
(levied as an annual rent upon my own Freehold Land!) but sadly some not as fortunate will not!

It is time that something was done right across this country to prevent this current system of "revaluation" that compares Apples with Oranges and allows Local Government to exercise the power to formulate charges upon ownership of land, which can, if excessive lead to the confiscation and sale of the subject land.

I believe in "user pays" but why should you pay for something that do NOT get simply because "it has always been that way!"

Crackcup's land has increased in value due the the efforts of the surrounding community, and now Crackcup has to pay back some minuscule fraction of that unearned windfall in rates -- poor diddums.

When you buy "freehold hand", you buy it subject to the right of the local council to levy rates on it. If you bought it free of any obligation to pay rates, you would have to pay more, because your rival bidders would be willing to pay more.

Any public charge that leaves you able to sell land for more than you paid for it is not a public tax on you, but a reduction in a private tax that you impose on others -- a means test on a dole that you receive at others' expense.

Still not happy, Crackcup? OK -- I'll do a deal with you: you sign over all future increases in the value of your land to me, and I'll pay the rates. No deal? Then stop complaining.

its not really the almagamations but the greed of those who are autherised to serve us...see that power has become subversive..self serving...that money it claims in the bank isnt in the bank...its in other banks...held as securities that may simply be underwritten/debtswaps...securitised cccrap

see that councils have been approached by the money changers..who have bought up the in ground infastructure via deception....see they gave govts money...they wasted...to get councils to put up ownership of say the sew-rage system...in exchange for say a few mill...councils repay...

but with huge defaults...and the punitive/defaults have kicked in...meaning councils need to repay the full loan..or lose the sewer...or pay as much as the default reciever claims to use its sewer...its well known these servants have looted our public assets only to let them run down...

see constitutions autherise govt..and makes..rules..for govt servants...but they subverted the rules..so we serve govt..instead of govt serving us..because govt claims we as recievers..of the benifit also have the full burdon...

yet the constitution only autherises..govt to make rules for govt officials...getting powers under the act ...the people cannot legally be bound into and obligation..unless we chose to fall under the act[the act that controlls govt servants

govt cant makle law..for people only..for those who seek extra powers..via warrent or licence or other govt grants or permission's...that via constituted legal acts ....allowed the govt servant...

extra powers..obtained..via the autherising act...but only applicable[enforcable upon public servants..[gaining advantage..under the act]...but as collusivly been made into a franchise for oppressing their trust..to wit... we the people...sucking us dry......when any act is to control them..not us

Actually, I think that Crackcup has a point this time. The local government amalgamations were forced upon communities throughout Queensland in an appallingly undemocratic manner by the Qld government, and haven't produced any particular efficiencies that I have been able to identify from my rural neck of the woods.

My rates haven't increased quite as much as Crackcup's have - but the increases that have been applied have little to do with revaluation of our land. Rather, we've been slugged with various charges that emanate directly from our incorporation in a much larger municipal authority, such that we now pay the same rates as those who live in the larger towns and who get far more services for their money than we do.

The vast majority of ratepayers in our former shire strongly opposed amalgamation, but it was foisted on us anyway. If the long term object of this undemocratic exercise was the establishment of viable regional authorities that would eventually replace the stupid, arrogant and wasteful State government, then I might support it.

However, all we seem to have done is to have replaced a shire council that was quite a good "local" government with yet another level of faceless bureaucrats who succeed mainly in extracting more money from ratepayers with little to no improvement in services and/or representation.

Grputland, rates have very little to do with the valuation of your property, except in comparison to others in your council area. Each year a council strikes a new rate, to give then the noney they "NEED", for next year, after doing the budget.

Ours have been redesigned to 6 monthly to try to disguise the 33% increase to some extent.

Our amalgamations were simply Beattie being a spiteful bast#@d. He was showing those mayors, & councils, that resisted his grab of all the water infrastructure, paid for by us, the rate payers, that he could do what ever the hell he liked. He needed that water for Brisbane, much more than we needed it.

So not only did we loose our water infrastructure, but we lost the closer settled part, [where all the money had been spent for 15 years] to another council, [a labor one], & we got tacked onto the edge of a shire almost bankrupted by an earlier Beattie water grab. It sure doesn't pay to be in a National party held electorate, when a Beattie is in power, no matter how you vote.

Watch out for the next one. Our Anna was not his protegee for years for nothing. Never a nice lady, with Beattie training, heaven help us.

Of course, it's nothing new. The shire I lived in 25 years ago, was given to Hervey Bay City, so they could control the dam their water came from. Not only did they try to take all the water off the orchadists, our rates started increasing at such a percentage, an accountant was quoted saying that by 1999, his rates would exceed his gross income, if the increases continued.

This was picked up by a few papers, & the "city" was forced to stop trying to fund all its urban growth with country money. A pity we can't get the same result in the whole of the state.

Still Maryborough water should taste nice in Brisbane. Lets hope there's some left for them, but after all, they're only country yokels, they probably won't notice.

Yep, amalgamations can affect your rates bills. So can divisions: if Brisbane is split into multiple municipalities (like Melbourne), the City will pay less and the suburbs, which add up to rather a lot of votes, will pay more, so that Captain Bligh will have a mutiny on her hands.

But the references to "another" 30% and the doubling in "18 months" and the expectation of future rises make it clear that Crackcup is complaining mainly about the increased value of his land.

Hasbeen:

Yes, the change in your rates bill depends on how the value of your land changes relative to other land in the same municipality. But that means you have even less cause for complaint than if your bill depended solely on the value of YOUR land. If your land appreciates along with everyone else's, then the higher price you can get for your home is offset by the higher cost of acquiring an alternative home. But if your land appreciates RELATIVE to everyone else's, you don't have that problem.

If your accountant expected his rates bill to exceed his income, he must have been expecting a pretty obscene capital gain. If he wasn't willing to borrow against that capital gain to pay the rates, he would have been forced to realize his unearned capital gain earlier -- poor diddums.

"This was picked up by a few papers," you say. I'm sure it was. The media, beholden to the property lobby for advertising revenue, are always willing to pretend that property owners are suffering because their assets have increased in value, and to defend the rights of property owners sitting on obscene capital gains to sit there even longer while their capital gains grow even more obscene.

"It sure doesn't pay to be in a National party held electorate..." Correction: it doesn't pay to be in a safe seat of either colour. It pays to be in a seat that the Government hopes to win or is afraid of losing.

grputland:
Get your facts straight! I never said that I was concerned or complaining about the value of my land increasing, I was complaining and quite rightly so, about the rapidly increasing rates which are resultant from forced Amalgamation and the State Government sponsored Revaluations which compare Apples with Oranges and surmises that if Joe Blow up the road sells his land for $2 Million Dollars then my land must be vaued at $2 Million Dollars.
I have no interest in selling my land, nor do I wish to be forced to sell it simply because the Government and/or it`s agents impose a ridiculous valuation on my land in an effort to bolster the coffers of Local Government and replace the funding which the State Government has slashed in their own ludicrous grab to win votes and popularity in the metropolitan area.
By the venom contained in your response to my original post on this issue, one could be forgiven for thinking that you are yourself closely related to a Local Government organization or have some sort of a vested interest in the rapid escalation of the applied Rating structure? In hindsight I would suggest that you execise a more open mind and consider the situation that a lot of constituents who are obviously less fortunate than you yourself may find themselves in, in the near future, before adopting this mightier than thou attitude!

Crackup, I have two different angles here.

Firstly, I think the way that rates continue to increase, based on the increased valuation of your land, is wrong, esspecially if your land is your principle place of residence and, you have resided there for a period of 10 years or longer. After that point, I feel 'value based rates' should be capped. This way we would not see the people being forced out of their homes simply due to 'unaffordable' rate increases. It simply makes many people 'assett rich' and 'cash poor'.

Another problem with rate increases is that they are generally in line with 'public inferstructure spending' within the community and such improvements are often enjoyed by many who don't reside there. This stinks to some respect.

However, when it comes to rate valuations, they are bassed on the 'unimproved value' of your land and, in most circumstances these values are 'well below' 'real values'. So in essence, we are being treated with some leaniencey.

Now my new region has gone through 'imaglimation' and we pay much higher rates than the other two shires we now share with, yet the money collected gets pooled. That's also wrong in my view.

You simply cannot trust ANY GOVERNMENT as they are simply made up of incompitent personel (that's the brains trust) who are incapable of balancing the books and continually have to search for ways to rectify their blatent money wasting endevours and, the rate payers are the easiest targets.

The up side is that if you also own rental properties, you will simply be able to increase your rents to cover your out of pocket expenses.

Labor in QLD has lied about rates, power and I even fear they will have some catch with the solar power that seems to be gaining momentum.

Their idea of democracy is that you can have your say so long as it is to their liking, otherwise, they will simply change the rules anyhow. 7 day shopping is a clasic. Ambo levey another.

They stink! But at least I didn't vote for them.

Dear Crackcup,

You wrote:

> grputland: Get your facts straight! I never said that I was
> concerned or complaining about the value of my land increasing, I
> was complaining... about the rapidly increasing rates which are
> resultant from forced Amalgamation and the State Government
> sponsored Revaluations...

Yes, revaluations. So you *are* complaining about the value of your land increasing and I *did* have my facts straight.

> which compare Apples with Oranges and surmises that if Joe Blow up
> the road sells his land for $2 Million Dollars then my land must be
> vaued at $2 Million Dollars.

Great news: such comparisons are valid; you're rich.

> I have no interest in selling my land, nor do I wish to be forced to
> sell it...

If the council won't let you defer the rates as a lien against the risen land value, you can borrow against it. The only people who are forced to move by rising land values are RENTERS. But so determined are the property lobby and the media to lie about this point that I have caved in and recommended caps on rate rises just to shut 'em up: http://blog.lvrg.org.au/2009/09/lessons-on-politics-of-rates-reform.html .

> one could be forgiven for thinking that you are yourself closely
> related to a Local Government organization...

No. But I do happen to know a thing or two about land values.

> or have some sort of a vested interest in the rapid escalation of
> the applied Rating structure?

Worse -- I'm one of those evil residential tenants who own no property at all and pay 10 or 15 times as much in rent as their landlords pay in rates, but receive none of the capital gains. The ingrates. The parasites.

> consider the situation that a lot of constituents who are obviously
> less fortunate than you yourself may find themselves in...

Yes, yes, how terrible that their assets are rising in value for no effort on their part, and that the rating system is clawing back a few percent of their unearned gains.

Grputland, what problem do you have with comprehension.

The only thing to compare your rates with, is your income. In the 18 years I have lived here, at no time has the increase in my rates been any where near the rate of inflation. It has always been way above inflation, & way above income increases, meaning a greater proportion of my income has been required just to pay them, & that was before I became a pensioner. Now it's much worse.

However it has never been anything like the 33% required to cover Beatties rip off. I wonder if that't why he fled the country. This has nothing to do with any increase in land value. It is to cover all the extra costs incurred in amalgamation. All rate payere in the new shire copped it, not just my district.

I did try to explain that councils set the rate, after deciding how much they are going to spend. They only use values to split that rate up to the rate payers. These days there is vary little difference in relative valuations across a shire, so the ballance is maintained.

As an old bloke, who plans to die right here, any increase in my valuation is totally meaningless, & of no value. My accountant's land value was unchanged, but the "city" council had decided to rip off the rural landholders, to fund city development, similar to the way our state government, mine the rest of Queensland, for money to spend in Brisbane.

grputland,
At least we now know that you belong to the ever increasing group of 'under-achievers'. The 'tall-poppies'!

You people think that assetts are just something that we land owners find in a sample bag at the eka, or something.

Now unless you were fortunate enough to have rich relies that left you a fortune, land owners have worked damned hard to achieve what they have.

They have taken huge risks at times, made many sacrifices all in an effort to become one who does not have the attitude that the world ows me a living.

Meanwhile, we will simply continue to put our rents up so we can at least get some reward for the risks and sacrifices we have made along the way.

By the way, thanks for paying the rent at 10 to 15 times the rates, you're a landlords dream come true.

Cheers!

Hasbeen wrote:

> The only thing to compare your rates with, is your income.

What if your land value is falling while your income is rising or staying the same?

> ... the increase in my rates ... has always been way above
> inflation, & way above income

Yep, and it's always been the same with income tax and indirect taxes, no matter what party is in government. That says something about politics in general, not about rates in particular.

> ... any increase in my valuation is totally meaningless, & of no
> value.

So if the value of your land falls, due to general economic conditions or some nearby development, is that also meaningless?

But let me concede that your accountant might have been adversely affected by differential rates. In submissions and papers, I have often said or implied that differential rates are open to abuse.

rehctub wrote:

> you belong to the ever increasing group of 'under-achievers'.

The initial acquisition of land may be an achievement. The subsequent increase in the value of that land is a means of capturing the fruits of other people's achievements. Whether that amplifies or offsets the initial achievement is a value judgment.

No, land owners don't have the attitude that the world owes them a living. They have the attitude that renters and first-time buyers owe them a living. They are moving up the pyramid of the greatest Ponzi scheme in history -- the one that will never run out of suckers as long as people keep reproducing.

> we will simply continue to put our rents up...

Ipse dixit.

grputland,

The initial acquisition of land may be an achievement

So what about the times when interest rates increase, or, in the case of rentals where there are vacancies. It takes quite a bit of financial pain and often hardship and sacrifices to own and maintain property.

Now on the other hand. If anyone is aged 65+, just remember, you have lived through what were possibly the most opportune times as far as opportunities go to build and maintain financial independence.

Many of you inherited properties that were 'gifted' to your forefathers who god bless them, returned from the war.

Now excluding the genuine ‘hardship cases’, the rest of you should be ashamed of yourselves to have been presented with such opportunities and simply piss them away.

Remember, I said 'excluding the genuine hardship cases'.

Then, you have the hide to expect the future generations to pick up the slack and, rather than be great full, you have this ‘tall poppy’ attitude that the world owes you a living.

So now the rest of us continue to battle with increased rates and taxes just so the 'under achievers' can enjoy their retirement.

I wish all the underachievers out there a miserable existence. You made your nest, now you must lie in it!

Be greatfull for ANYTHING you are given!

rehctub wrote:

> So what about the times when interest rates increase, or, in
> the case of rentals where there are vacancies...

Yep, buying property involves risks and sacrifices. If it didn't, more people would have been more keen to do it and would have driven prices higher, making it harder for you to get into the market.

> ... the rest of you should be ashamed of yourselves to have
> been presented with such opportunities and simply piss them
> away.

If we had not squandered these alleged opportunities, we would have driven property prices higher, so some people now in the market would have been locked out. The theory that people will succeed if they try harder ASSUMES that one person's success does not come at another's expense.

> ... you have this `tall poppy' attitude that the world owes you
> a living.

Yes, I know: the people who think the world owes them a living are not the recipients of the rising rents or the potential recipients of the rising prices, but those who are paying the rising rents and seeing the prices rising further out of their reach.

> So now the rest of us continue to battle with increased rates
> and taxes just so the 'under achievers' can enjoy their
> retirement.

And that's bad. But it's good that the under-achievers battle with rents, income tax, prices inflated by payroll tax & GST, etc. so that the achievers can enjoy their retirements. I understand perfectly.

> You made your nest, now you must lie in it!

And that somehow doesn't mean "You bought your property; now you must pay the rates on it."

> Be greatfull for ANYTHING you are given!

As I pay tax and rent but don't receive any rents or capital gains or welfare or charity, what am I "given"? Oh! - silly me: those who receive the rising rents and property prices are the givers, and those who pay the rising rents while prices rise further out of their reach are the receivers.

grputland:
You give the general impression that you a very bitter person who seems to resent other people owning land and who at the same time have absolutely no right at all to complain about these rapidly escalating rates.

Have you ever considered that in most cases people have had to sacrifice to purchase "their own land" (which it appears they are simply caretaking for future greedy governments) and have done without a great deal of personal comfort to ensure their own future security from having to, like you, pay rent and then bitch about all the "fat cat" landowners who are taking advantage of them.

I myself paid rents for many years and subsidized the owners incomes, but I was at all times aware that the only way to escape that situation was to purchase my own piece of Australia, which I foolishly believed that once I had paid the full purchase price, and considering it was Freehold, I would then own outright that said piece of land,(and would have to grudgingly pay Rates on it for services rendered) and like many, many others never believed that I could have my Rates increased at a set level of 30% each year......I have always believed that this was the ultimate reason that we have suffered through 2 World Wars and many other skirmishes, to maintain our freedom and independance, BUT obviously I was sadly mistaken, and in reality tyranical Governments like the Beattie/Bligh ingrates can manipulate the removal of my land from my possesion, by continuing their own greedy and misdirected policies, aided and abetted by selfish one-eyed persons like yourself!

Crackcup wrote:

> You give the general impression that you a very bitter person
> who seems to resent other people owning land...

Not only do I not resent their owning land; I pander to their interests in so far as they are compatible with other people's interests: see http://blog.lvrg.org.au/2009/07/smart-growth-through-tax-reform.html (section 3 onwards). In section 2.3 of the same submission, I go out to bat for landowners against stamp duties and Victoria's Growth Area Infrastructure Charge. But it gets a bit awkward to defend people who pretend to be worse off when they're better off.

> ... I foolishly believed that once I had paid the full purchase
> price, and considering it was Freehold, I would then own
> outright that said piece of land

And obviously whoever sold it to you wanted you to believe that, so that you would pay the highest possible price.

> ... never believed that I could have my Rates increased at a
> set level of 30% each year...

No, of course the real-estate agent didn't tell you that. Neither did he tell you that the government could buy back the land on its own terms at any time, or that it could make decisions that devalued your land without being obliged to compensate you, or that it could tax the purchase and resale of the land in ways that leave you with a net loss -- all of which can hurt you far more severely and unpredictably than mere rates.

> we have suffered through 2 World Wars and many other
> skirmishes...

You suffered through all that in pursuit of other people's unstated agendas -- not yours, and not mine.

> ... tyranical Governments like the Beattie/Bligh ingrates ...

The tyranny didn't start there and won't end there.

> ... aided and abetted by selfish one-eyed persons like
> yourself!

But it's still all my fault. :-D