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.