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.