Are Higher Council Rates For Investment Property Fair?

Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)

Steve McKnight
Keymaster
@stevemcknight
Join Date: 2001
Post Count: 1,763
May 31, 2014 - 4:58 pm
A member recently alerted me to an interesting grab for cash being undertaken in some Queensland municipalities.
It seems there is ‘one charge’ being applied when calculating rates for home owners, and another (higher) charge for non homeowners.
For instance, in respect to Brisbane City Council, it has been reported rates for homeowners at 0.3064 cents in the dollar, with a minimum general rate of $503.40 versus rates of 0.3904 cents in the dollar, with a minimum general rate of $628.72 for investors.
(View Quote Source Here)
So, is this sort of practice fair? What do you say?
– Steve
Steve McKnight | PropertyInvesting.com Pty Ltd | CEO
https://www.propertyinvesting.com
Success comes from doing things differently
Benny
Moderator
@benny
Join Date: 2002
Post Count: 1,416
June 1, 2014 - 6:43 pm
Hi Steve,
Thanks for shining a light on that one. I’ve never thought to question it…..
It is not like IP’s have an excessive amount of rubbish to be dumped, or need to provide any more water than a similar sized family living in its own PPOR. Parks in the area don’t need any more upkeep because people using it are renters. So WHERE is there any justification to rate IPs higher than other homes? I don’t see it….
Doesn’t sound very fair to me. Thanks for bringing it up,
Benny
Jpcashflow
Participant
@jpcashflow
Join Date: 2007
Post Count: 575
June 1, 2014 - 8:37 pm
It is what it is.. Before you buy a property, it’s important to look at all of the factors.
It’s like saying is it fair that Vic has a higher stamp duty rate the other states as an example
Jpcashflow | JP Financial Group
http://www.jpfinancialgroup.com.au
Email Me | Phone Me
Your first port of call in finance :)
Terryw
Participant
@terryw
Join Date: 2001
Post Count: 16,213
June 1, 2014 - 11:24 pm
hardly fair as the same services are used – garbage collection etc doesn’t differ between owners v tenants
Terryw | Structuring Lawyers Pty Ltd / Loan Structuring Pty Ltd
http://www.Structuring.com.au
Email Me
Lawyer, Mortgage Broker and Tax Advisor (Sydney based but advising Aust wide) http://www.Structuring.com.au
HProperty
Participant
@hproperty
Join Date: 2013
Post Count: 13
June 9, 2014 - 10:36 pm
Just another money grab. Councils justify it by saying that non-owner occupiers can claim it on tax and therefore should pay more than an owner occupier. This is a very bad argument.
If you work in a job that allows you to claim sunscreen, does a shop charge you more to purchase that sunscreen?
The service provided by councils is the same regardless of whether a property is owner occupied or not.
Think of two identical homes, next door to each other. Both are being used for residential purposes and both have 3 occupants. Council will charge one more than the other because the owner is not living in it. Note that it does not even need to be ‘income producing’ for the extra charges to apply ; just non-owner occupied. This is not a fair and equitable system and the Supreme Court has agreed.
Corey Batt
Participant
@cjaysa
Join Date: 2012
Post Count: 1,010
June 10, 2014 - 10:15 am
Just a cash grab. The same services are being provided to owner occupied and tenanted investments, so rates shouldn’t change.
It would be different if this was a private sector service, but this is a local government charge. You should not be slugged more for a service without adequate justification – which does not include ‘they can afford it’.
Corey Batt | Precision Funding
http://www.precisionfunding.com.au
Email Me | Phone Me
Investment Focused Finance Strategist - servicing Australia-wide