Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Ask RiotACT

Buying or selling? Get the right advice

Ask RiotACT: Where is the historic rates info on the ACT Gov website?

By Masquara 27 August 2016 33

ask-riotact-default2

I just received my notice and my rates have jumped –  a lot higher (over $75 a week and that’s without the basic water supply charge). I can’t find a page on the ACT Government website with the history of rates increases  – they seem to assiduously delete the historical information exactly so that we won’t reference back and identify the incremental damage. Do any Rioters know where this info is “stored” online? (Wondering just how much more my rates would have increased if this wasn’t an election year!)

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
33 Responses to
Ask RiotACT: Where is the historic rates info on the ACT Gov website?
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
davo101 12:53 pm 31 Aug 16

Acton said :

Your extract from ACT Budget Paper #3 does not mean what you said before:

“The rates are indexed to the WPI so you can expect the average rates to be going up WPI plus 3.2% pa over the next 15 years.” (davo101 4:22 pm 29 Aug 16)

OK, you seem to be having a problem with the concept of plus. Let’s try an example with numbers:

“Increases in general rates revenue are due to the indexation of revenue from existing properties by the Wage Price Index”

Let’s say that’s currently 2%.

“expected revenue from new properties”

So the number of properties is increasing by about 2% pa.

“as well as tax reform”

As I said earlier if they transition to no conveyance duties in 15 years then this is a 3.2% increase each year.

So the total amount of rates would increase by 7.2% (the sum of 2, 2 and 3.2). The average increase for an existing property is 5.2% (the sum of 2 and 3.2).

The 3.2% tax reform component is based on the assumption that they will do it as a constant percent increase across the 15 years. They can however choose to do it in some other way and it says on p. 229 that this year’s tax reform component is 4.5%.

Acton 9:15 am 31 Aug 16

davo101 said :

Acton said :

ACT residential rates are not at all indexed to the WPI (Wage Price Index) and I challenge you to prove your claim they are, unless you are trying to be deliberately deceitful.

From 2016-17 Budget Paper No. 3 p.229:

Increases in general rates revenue are due to the indexation of revenue from existing
properties by the Wage Price Index, expected revenue from new properties, as well as tax reform.

Your extract from ACT Budget Paper #3 does not mean what you said before:

“The rates are indexed to the WPI so you can expect the average rates to be going up WPI plus 3.2% pa over the next 15 years.” (davo101 4:22 pm 29 Aug 16)

If household residential rates increases were based simply and only on the Wage Price Index that would be fair and reasonable. However, the reason for our exorbitant rates increases is the so-called tax reform aspect built into the marginal rating factors applied to the AUV of residential properties. Not the WPI.

However it is calculated and whatever spin is put on it, the reality for individual ratepayers is that our rates have gone up by an unfair and excessive 60% in four years from 2011-12. Just compare what you actually paid then, with what you paid in rates this year. Facts are reality.

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/many-canberra-householders-paying-rates-bills-60-per-cent-higher-than-four-years-ago-20150603-ghfn1v

From the same Budget Paper (pg 227) Residential General Rates Revenue is estimated at $274,764,000 in 2015-16 and $371,163,000 in 2019-20. That is another 35% increase over the next 4 years.

Here is the link to BP#3:

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjJt4LXlurOAhXHsJQKHQsODCsQFggeMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fapps.treasury.act.gov.au%2F__data%2Fassets%2Fpdf_file%2F0005%2F870890%2FChapter-6-Revenue.pdf&usg=AFQjCNEKDASZaky7_WXvD_YGHHPfDLDQ-A&sig2=ydYDNTEYcCXT0p1Lw9RUTA

davo101 9:52 pm 30 Aug 16

Acton said :

ACT residential rates are not at all indexed to the WPI (Wage Price Index) and I challenge you to prove your claim they are, unless you are trying to be deliberately deceitful.

From 2016-17 Budget Paper No. 3 p.229:

Increases in general rates revenue are due to the indexation of revenue from existing
properties by the Wage Price Index, expected revenue from new properties, as well as tax reform.

davo101 9:44 pm 30 Aug 16

Masquara said :

I just took an entirely random sample of ten houses in a street in an inner-south suburb and the stats were: 18 sales between all ten houses in the 30 years to 2015.

Yeah, you really can’t figure it out from a sample of 10 houses in one street. It’s much easier to figure it out from the turn over of stock as it gives you an over all average.

Now I did get the numbers back to front earlier, back in 2012 during the Quinlan tax review the turn over was 9% which gives you a average time of ownership of 11 years. If you look at the total number of sales on allhomes they’ve been falling slightly despite the increase in the number of properties. If we look at 2015 there were 8800 transfers out of a total stock of 154000, which is 5.7% or an average time of ownership of 17.5 years. As to what this decline in turnover means in a property market sense I leave to others.

chewy14 8:18 pm 30 Aug 16

rommeldog56 said :

chewy14 said :

No, you’ve got it completely the wrong way around because you’re completely ignoring the fact that increased rates (holding costs) actually reduce the opportunities for developers and property investors to make money in these areas. It will actively result in cheaper and more efficient housing for everyone over the longer term, particularly in inner city areas where there is high demand and low supply.

Your example of a family struggling to meet a budget will benefit because there will be overall cheaper and more efficient housing for them to choose from. If they need to move for employment opportunities, they are much more freer to do so.

Assuming the widower you’re talking about is living on a large inner city block, they can make a choice to remain and pay the increased holding costs or they can choose to move to more appropriate accommodation (within the same community if they wish) and pay less. The change makes downsizing far easier and doesn’t lock older people into unsuitable accommodation which is currently the case.

What you’re actually complaining about is those people not being able to avoid paying the true current economic cost of their land. That they should be able to make excessive capital gains on that land whilst actively increasing costs for other people (new families, younger workers) who would utilise that land more efficiently. I’m not the one supporting the “big end of town”, you are, by promoting inefficient use of land that mostly benefits the wealthy, whether that wealth is solely tied up in their property or not. An asset is an asset, whether it’s a share portfolio or a two million dollar inner city property.

Those who support the current situation are nearly entirely made up of older people who have made huge amounts of unrealised capital gains on their inner city properties and believe that they’ve somehow “earned” those gains. They don’t want anybody else to be able to access the same amenity that they’ve always had and begrudge having to pay anything to keep that amenity

It’s truly a case of putting the self before society wide economic benefits, even though they personally might be large beneficiaries of those changes and they just don’t realise it.

There is just so much wrong with these comments that its not worth clogging up these boards with the backwards and forwards.

Our view, particularly about fairness and opportunity, are just different. Each to their own. Better to leave u to your new Annual Rates regime fantasy land.

It’s got very little to do with “fairness” or “opportunity”, some of us are able to look at things objectively and assess economy wide economic benefits even if they will personally be negatively affected in the short term (and as a property owner who’s already paid stamp duty I will be and already am).

There are very few people who on the whole would lose out overall in the long term if the changes are fully implemented and not bastardised by political imperative and self interest. That is the biggest risk to “fairness”.

dungfungus 6:42 pm 30 Aug 16

Part of the e-brochure CSSC is circulating:
“We need your help……

I’d like to draw your attention to what is a big issue for your Club. We traditionally do not take sides when it comes to politics. Club members come from all shades of community opinion and clubs reflect that diversity. Clubs work with all political parties. Whichever party is in Government the aim is to get the best outcomes for the community through our clubs in a bipartisan way.

So what’s different this year? Why are there signs and posters in our clubs warning of the danger the current ACT Labor Government presents?

Let’s put it simply. The Labor-Green coalition government is killing community clubs. Over the last 4 years, 10% of Canberra’s clubs have been forced to close. This is a direct result of decisions taken by the ACT Government which have seen:

• Rates
UP by over 200-300% in four years for some clubs. One small club has seen their rates rise from $14,000 in 2012 to $55,000 currently, and they will rise again by 8% in the coming year.

(there is a lot more but rates is the subject of this thread)

HiddenDragon 5:16 pm 30 Aug 16

In 2011-12 – the last year before the new rates/taxation system began – general rates (residential and commercial combined) raised $208.809m – in 2016-17 they are estimated to raise $447.180m – an increase of 114%.

In the same period, land tax revenue has fallen slightly, from $115.116m in 2011-12 to an estimated $110.345m in 2016-17. By comparison, conveyancing duties (residential and commercial), which raised $238.775m in 2011-12 are estimated to raise $266.974m in 2016-17 – an increase of 11.8% over the five years.

So in order to achieve a small nominal reduction in land tax revenue, and keep conveyancing revenues increasing at about CPI, we have had general rates revenue more than double – tripling, or more, of rates for many may well be what it would take to achieve the originally claimed objectives of ACT Labor’s tax changes.

On the detail of residential rates – in 2011-12, there was a fixed charge of $555.00, an Emergency Services Levy of $101.80, and a Valuation Based Charge calculated as (Average Unimproved Value – 16,500) x 0.2727% – the same percentage applied regardless of the value of the property.

There has also, of course, been the elimination of duties on some insurance policies, but people might wonder whether that has resulted in premiums in the ACT being lower than would otherwise have been the case, or perhaps in a better bottom line for insurance companies, and more scope for cross-subsidising premiums in other places.

[The revenue figures quoted for 2011-12 are taken from the 2012-13 ACT Budget Review, which was released in February 2013. The 2016-17 figures are from Budget Paper No.3 for 2016-17]

rommeldog56 4:21 pm 30 Aug 16

chewy14 said :

No, you’ve got it completely the wrong way around because you’re completely ignoring the fact that increased rates (holding costs) actually reduce the opportunities for developers and property investors to make money in these areas. It will actively result in cheaper and more efficient housing for everyone over the longer term, particularly in inner city areas where there is high demand and low supply.

Your example of a family struggling to meet a budget will benefit because there will be overall cheaper and more efficient housing for them to choose from. If they need to move for employment opportunities, they are much more freer to do so.

Assuming the widower you’re talking about is living on a large inner city block, they can make a choice to remain and pay the increased holding costs or they can choose to move to more appropriate accommodation (within the same community if they wish) and pay less. The change makes downsizing far easier and doesn’t lock older people into unsuitable accommodation which is currently the case.

What you’re actually complaining about is those people not being able to avoid paying the true current economic cost of their land. That they should be able to make excessive capital gains on that land whilst actively increasing costs for other people (new families, younger workers) who would utilise that land more efficiently. I’m not the one supporting the “big end of town”, you are, by promoting inefficient use of land that mostly benefits the wealthy, whether that wealth is solely tied up in their property or not. An asset is an asset, whether it’s a share portfolio or a two million dollar inner city property.

Those who support the current situation are nearly entirely made up of older people who have made huge amounts of unrealised capital gains on their inner city properties and believe that they’ve somehow “earned” those gains. They don’t want anybody else to be able to access the same amenity that they’ve always had and begrudge having to pay anything to keep that amenity

It’s truly a case of putting the self before society wide economic benefits, even though they personally might be large beneficiaries of those changes and they just don’t realise it.

There is just so much wrong with these comments that its not worth clogging up these boards with the backwards and forwards. Our view, particularly about fairness and opportunity, are just different. Each to their own. Better to leave u to your new Annual Rates regime fantasy land.

chewy14 3:47 pm 30 Aug 16

Acton said :

There are many ‘losers’ and few ‘gainers’.

Everyone who pays rates that rise over 60% in four years is a loser because such rises are unfair and excessive. That makes most of the ACT rate paying population ‘losers’.

Look particularly at the family of two adults and two kids struggling to budget for rising rates on average incomes. The widower who has lived most of her life in the one community and does not want to be forced out. Anyone else who likes where they live and has no intention to move. They are not going to benefit from a reduction in stamp duty.

Explain to them your plans for the “economically efficient use of their scarce inner city land”. They and many others are the true losers of this policy which has the effect of making people’s own home less and less affordable, unless they are so wealthy they can afford to pay residential rate increases well in excess of their income growth.

Rates hit hardest on those people who are not wealthy or on fixed incomes. Rates are paid for out of income and the pension, not from the value of the property the house happens to sit on. The value of the property you live in does not help you pay rates. Or can we expect a ‘let them eat cake’ type response from Labor aristocracy along the lines of ‘well, they can rent out a spare room’ or ‘they can take out a reverse mortgage’ or ‘ they should leave their home for an outer suburb so that we can make more economically efficient use of their scarce inner city land.’

So who are the real ‘gainers’? Identifying them explains a lot.

The real beneficiaries of this policy are those who are pushing hardest for a reduction in stamp duty. The property industry.

Property developers and real estate agents make more commissions with a higher turnover in houses and make higher commissions if they can push people into higher priced homes without the buyer also having to budget for high stamp duty. Less stamp duty obviously means a person can buy a more expensive house. The property industry is behind this policy because they are clearly the greatest beneficiaries. They don’t care that you pay higher rates once you move into the house they sell you.

Note also the recent reports of rising property industry donations and interest in political party memberships. Greed is always a strong motivator.
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/property-developers-buying-up-act-labor-party-memberships-20160718-gq86ob.html

Those who promote the ACT Government’s rates policy are either members of the property developing and selling industry, or their useful dupes.

No, you’ve got it completely the wrong way around because you’re completely ignoring the fact that increased rates (holding costs) actually reduce the opportunities for developers and property investors to make money in these areas. It will actively result in cheaper and more efficient housing for everyone over the longer term, particularly in inner city areas where there is high demand and low supply.

Your example of a family struggling to meet a budget will benefit because there will be overall cheaper and more efficient housing for them to choose from. If they need to move for employment opportunities, they are much more freer to do so.

Assuming the widower you’re talking about is living on a large inner city block, they can make a choice to remain and pay the increased holding costs or they can choose to move to more appropriate accommodation (within the same community if they wish) and pay less. The change makes downsizing far easier and doesn’t lock older people into unsuitable accommodation which is currently the case.

What you’re actually complaining about is those people not being able to avoid paying the true current economic cost of their land. That they should be able to make excessive capital gains on that land whilst actively increasing costs for other people (new families, younger workers) who would utilise that land more efficiently. I’m not the one supporting the “big end of town”, you are, by promoting inefficient use of land that mostly benefits the wealthy, whether that wealth is solely tied up in their property or not. An asset is an asset, whether it’s a share portfolio or a two million dollar inner city property.

Those who support the current situation are nearly entirely made up of older people who have made huge amounts of unrealised capital gains on their inner city properties and believe that they’ve somehow “earned” those gains. They don’t want anybody else to be able to access the same amenity that they’ve always had and begrudge having to pay anything to keep that amenity

It’s truly a case of putting the self before society wide economic benefits, even though they personally might be large beneficiaries of those changes and they just don’t realise it.

rommeldog56 12:11 pm 30 Aug 16

chewy14 said :

The people you mention aren’t “losers”, in fact they’re some of the biggest winners because it allows them to downsize their properties or move far easier than before because they don’t get hit with a massive stamp duty penalty that can lock them into unsuitable housing. It increases housing mobility.

Nice spin. Under the old stamp duty regime, the cost of conveyancing stamp duty was built into a buyers decision to move. What I’m trying to point out is that under the new Annual Rates/Stamp Duty regime, people who probably can least afford it, will be forced to move because they can not afford the artificial escalation in Annual Rates – which is at least double or triple what they probably had planned for in their retirement planning or decision to buy in the ACT.

Are readers aware that the ACT Labor/Greens Gov’t has now also “capped” the Annual Rates concession (a discount) that Centrelink beneficiaries have access to – u know, including the disabled, aged pensioners, low income earners, etc. Vulnerable people who just might by hard work or good fortune, have been able to afford their own home (or inherited it) in the burbs. What this means is that as Annual Rates continue to rise at avg.10% pa forever, the concession will not increase with that. Eventually, they will be forced out.

Might as well round them all up from the suburbs and forceably relocate them and hand the land over to developers, instead of by this stealth method. This sort of re-engineering by ACT Labor/Greens is reminiscent of a totalitarian society. This is not a “Labor” Government.

Acton 11:31 am 30 Aug 16

chewy14 said :

The people you mention aren’t “losers”, in fact they’re some of the biggest winners because it allows them to downsize their properties or move far easier than before because they don’t get hit with a massive stamp duty penalty that can lock them into unsuitable housing. It increases housing mobility

It also allows far more economically efficient use of scarce inner city land that then benefits us all through increased growth as well as reducing pointless speculation on land value appreciation by increasing the holding costs of property for those people who you claim are better off financially.

There are many ‘losers’ and few ‘gainers’.

Everyone who pays rates that rise over 60% in four years is a loser because such rises are unfair and excessive. That makes most of the ACT rate paying population ‘losers’.

Look particularly at the family of two adults and two kids struggling to budget for rising rates on average incomes. The widower who has lived most of her life in the one community and does not want to be forced out. Anyone else who likes where they live and has no intention to move. They are not going to benefit from a reduction in stamp duty.

Explain to them your plans for the “economically efficient use of [[their]] scarce inner city land”. They and many others are the true losers of this policy which has the effect of making people’s own home less and less affordable, unless they are so wealthy they can afford to pay residential rate increases well in excess of their income growth.

Rates hit hardest on those people who are not wealthy or on fixed incomes. Rates are paid for out of income and the pension, not from the value of the property the house happens to sit on. The value of the property you live in does not help you pay rates. Or can we expect a ‘let them eat cake’ type response from Labor aristocracy along the lines of ‘well, they can rent out a spare room’ or ‘they can take out a reverse mortgage’ or ‘ they should leave their home for an outer suburb so that we can make more economically efficient use of their scarce inner city land.’

So who are the real ‘gainers’? Identifying them explains a lot.

The real beneficiaries of this policy are those who are pushing hardest for a reduction in stamp duty. The property industry.

Property developers and real estate agents make more commissions with a higher turnover in houses and make higher commissions if they can push people into higher priced homes without the buyer also having to budget for high stamp duty. Less stamp duty obviously means a person can buy a more expensive house. The property industry is behind this policy because they are clearly the greatest beneficiaries. They don’t care that you pay higher rates once you move into the house they sell you.

Note also the recent reports of rising property industry donations and interest in political party memberships. Greed is always a strong motivator.
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/property-developers-buying-up-act-labor-party-memberships-20160718-gq86ob.html

Those who promote the ACT Government’s rates policy are either members of the property developing and selling industry, or their useful dupes.

chewy14 9:05 am 30 Aug 16

rommeldog56 said :

JC said :

Oh as for my rates someone asked above, in 2012 they were $1465 pa they are now $2045 so about 39% increase over 5 years. However I just sold that place and brought a new one. I paid $26k in stamp duty however before the reforms started would have paid $35k. So I am actually better off.

And thats the crux of the issue. $35K in stamp duty under the old regime ?

That was a fair whack of a purchase price then. So, those who can afford to move “are actually better off” – but those losers under the new regime who can not (eg. self funded retirees, low paid workers, those with a disability, etc) who by hard work actually try to become financially independent (and not rely on the public purse via Centrelink payments) & can afford their own home in the ACT, probably can not.

Again, the better off financially who can afford to move every 10 years, can use the new Annual Rates regime to their financial advantage. Stuff everyone else.

The people you mention aren’t “losers”, in fact they’re some of the biggest winners because it allows them to downsize their properties or move far easier than before because they don’t get hit with a massive stamp duty penalty that can lock them into unsuitable housing. It increases housing mobility

It also allows far more economically efficient use of scarce inner city land that then benefits us all through increased growth as well as reducing pointless speculation on land value appreciation by increasing the holding costs of property for those people who you claim are better off financially.

rommeldog56 7:41 am 30 Aug 16

JC said :

Oh as for my rates someone asked above, in 2012 they were $1465 pa they are now $2045 so about 39% increase over 5 years. However I just sold that place and brought a new one. I paid $26k in stamp duty however before the reforms started would have paid $35k. So I am actually better off.

And thats the crux of the issue. $35K in stamp duty under the old regime ? That was a fair whack of a purchase price then. So, those who can afford to move “are actually better off” – but those losers under the new regime who can not (eg. self funded retirees, low paid workers, those with a disability, etc) who by hard work actually try to become financially independent (and not rely on the public purse via Centrelink payments) & can afford their own home in the ACT, probably can not.

Again, the better off financially who can afford to move every 10 years, can use the new Annual Rates regime to their financial advantage. Stuff everyone else.

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2018 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site