Canberra Rates Rant

HiddenDragon said :

I am happy enough to pay progressive rates of tax on my income because it’s money I have actually received – it’s not a figure dreamt up by the ATO as a result of a periodic, cursory guesstimate of my means.

I find it interesting that many of those who are very keen on the shift from stamp duty (which is typically based on an actual market figure) to annual land taxes are also firm believers in the economic wisdom of the flattest possible income tax scales – economic theory, and the evidence quoted in support of it, seems miraculously to conform to the world view and personal circumstances of those advance it.

You’re obviously not a lefty, then.

HiddenDragon said :

I am happy enough to pay progressive rates of tax on my income because it’s money I have actually received – it’s not a figure dreamt up by the ATO as a result of a periodic, cursory guesstimate of my means.

I find it interesting that many of those who are very keen on the shift from stamp duty (which is typically based on an actual market figure) to annual land taxes are also firm believers in the economic wisdom of the flattest possible income tax scales – economic theory, and the evidence quoted in support of it, seems miraculously to conform to the world view and personal circumstances of those advance it.

But shouldn’t I just get it anyway? I mean, isn’t this massive sense of entitlement worth anything? Sheesh…

I am happy enough to pay progressive rates of tax on my income because it’s money I have actually received – it’s not a figure dreamt up by the ATO as a result of a periodic, cursory guesstimate of my means.

I find it interesting that many of those who are very keen on the shift from stamp duty (which is typically based on an actual market figure) to annual land taxes are also firm believers in the economic wisdom of the flattest possible income tax scales – economic theory, and the evidence quoted in support of it, seems miraculously to conform to the world view and personal circumstances of those advance it.

breda said :

Seriously, you are saying that because appreciation of land values are enough to cover “tax liability”, that’s the end of the discussion?

You have completely missed the point. Here is X, someone who has worked and saved and finally bought their home. Suddenly, X’s “tax liability” rises. Nothing else has changed, including X’s income. According to you, what X has to do is sell their home to someone who is wealthier and can afford the “tax liability”, or alternatively watch their asset waste away under a reverse mortgage and deferred rates. Nobody knows if or how that will last them to the end of their life.

Brilliant. You will have us all in public housing in no time. But, who will pay for it?

Welcome to progressive taxation. Your means have increased, so the proportion you pay increases.

breda said :

Seriously, you are saying that because appreciation of land values are enough to cover “tax liability”, that’s the end of the discussion?

You have completely missed the point. Here is X, someone who has worked and saved and finally bought their home. Suddenly, X’s “tax liability” rises. Nothing else has changed, including X’s income. According to you, what X has to do is sell their home to someone who is wealthier and can afford the “tax liability”, or alternatively watch their asset waste away under a reverse mortgage and deferred rates. Nobody knows if or how that will last them to the end of their life.

Brilliant. You will have us all in public housing in no time. But, who will pay for it?

Breda, honestly have you read the links provided and the arguments for this change?

Your whole whinge is that the taxpayer should subsidise asset wealthy people because you think it’s unfair for them to have to move or get a reverse mortgage even when that reverse mortgage would clearly cover the liability comfortably.

Please answer why you think the taxpayer should subsidise these people and why you think their assets should be treated differently?

PS, I’m really emotionally attached to my share holdings. I think you should give me some cash because I don’t feel like selling them to fund my lifestyle.

Seriously, you are saying that because appreciation of land values are enough to cover “tax liability”, that’s the end of the discussion?

You have completely missed the point. Here is X, someone who has worked and saved and finally bought their home. Suddenly, X’s “tax liability” rises. Nothing else has changed, including X’s income. According to you, what X has to do is sell their home to someone who is wealthier and can afford the “tax liability”, or alternatively watch their asset waste away under a reverse mortgage and deferred rates. Nobody knows if or how that will last them to the end of their life.

Brilliant. You will have us all in public housing in no time. But, who will pay for it?

breda said :

Yep, so (a) we all know exactly how long we are going to live; and (b) our equity is enough to keep us going “for the rest of our lives.”

Both of these propositions are false.

What I said was that equity was easily enough to cover tax liabilities for the rest of their lives.

Exactly how long do you intend to live that ~$2000-3000 a year in rates is going to deplete $450,000 worth of equity, plus whatever the house is worth on top (plus however much it increases in price over that period).

Unless you expect to live to 150+, live in a home with the equity of a caravan, and expect taxes to double every year in to infinity, this is absolutely true.

breda said :

I can only assume that this poster is not remotely in the situation of an older person who is trying to work out how to survive while having a decent life, when due to events beyond their control, the suburb has become trendy. Sales are not “voluntary” when the alternative is bankruptcy.

Do you know what bankruptcy means? What kind of rate increase is going to put someone in a position where they can’t cover their tax liability with $450k+ in equity?

breda said :

I am not spruiking the need to protect people who are sitting on properties worth millions. But, in Canberra, owing a property with a UCV of $450k hardly puts you in the plutocrat class. Especially when, at the time you bought it. it was because it was considered undesirable, and therefore appropriate for the plebs.

So essentially what you’re saying is that having the value of your land increase hugely is a burden because it increases your tax liability, but that despite being able to cover this tax liability and much more with the massive, unearned, windfall gains you experienced, you shouldn’t have to because reverse mortgages are a bad deal?

Unbelievable.

@ arescarti 42

“It’s not il-informed at all. Good value or not, there is no reason at all why an asset rich, cash poor retiree couldn’t take out a reverse mortgage to pay their tax liabilities for the rest of their lives, and not have to change their standard of living/other expenses one bit.

Any decision to move would be a purely voluntary one.”
———————————————————————————–
Yep, so (a) we all know exactly how long we are going to live; and (b) our equity is enough to keep us going “for the rest of our lives.”

Both of these propositions are false.

I can only assume that this poster is not remotely in the situation of an older person who is trying to work out how to survive while having a decent life, when due to events beyond their control, the suburb has become trendy. Sales are not “voluntary” when the alternative is bankruptcy.

I am not spruiking the need to protect people who are sitting on properties worth millions. But, in Canberra, owing a property with a UCV of $450k hardly puts you in the plutocrat class. Especially when, at the time you bought it. it was because it was considered undesirable, and therefore appropriate for the plebs.

HiddenDragon said :

The broader problem is that, as a nation, we have treated the mining boom, and the revenue benefits of the peak earning and tax paying years of the post war baby boom as normal, and made long term spending commitments accordingly.

Spot on.

HiddenDragon said :

On an important point of detail, I am touched (almost) by the optimism of those who think that reductions in stamp duty will benefit buyers – whether they be first home buyers or investors/speculators adding to their portfolio – rather than sellers. Likewise those who think that a reduction in land tax on rented properties will benefit renters, and also those who think that desirable inner-city properties will magically come within reach of younger people who are currently struggling to afford outer-suburban dog boxes.

Reduced stamp duty in particular will benefit new home buyers. Government charges and taxes in some states make up as much as 40% of the cost of new homes. Developers actually struggle to build new homes that a typical new home buyer can actually afford to buy (hence the dramatic plunge in both FHB activity and new homes built in recent years). Ditching stamp duty would do a lot to improve that.

It’s just that I’ve seen too many older people have to sell up their home and, depending on whether the threshold is indexed, it could even happen to people like me in the future. I’m aware of reverse mortgages but older people don’t tend to like to carry debt in any form.

Just because someone doesn’t “like to carry debt in any form” does not mean they are forced to sell. If you have both the option to sell your home and cash in, or get a reverse mortgage and continue doing exactly what you’ve been doing, then you have a choice, and are not being forced to do anything.

I bet some people would feel differently if the feds brought in death duties (which would much better target the wealthy and trusts etc) or reduced the deduction allowed from negative gearing (which would help to bring down property prices).

Both excellent ideas, bring them on.

breda said :

“No asset rich, cash poor retirees anywhere would be forced to move by increased rates/land tax. A reverse mortgage on their house would allow them to pay any tax liability on it for well in excess of the rest of their lives.”

is the sort of ill-informed nonsense that helps no-one. I have investigated reverse mortgages. They are a bonanza for the banks. Every month, your interest payments increase, and your equity reduces. And, there is zero chance of default or even late payment. But you get the fees and charges (for what?) as well. As currently structured, they are a lousy deal.

It’s not il-informed at all. Good value or not, there is no reason at all why an asset rich, cash poor retiree couldn’t take out a reverse mortgage to pay their tax liabilities for the rest of their lives, and not have to change their standard of living/other expenses one bit.

Any decision to move would be a purely voluntary one.

OK, let’s run the gamut, then:

http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2013/10/look-to-land-taxes-for-equity-and-efficiency/

And if it hasn’t already happened, the likes of Gittins or Colebatch will doubtless soon chime in to persuade the Fairfax constituency of the wisdom of this idea.

I’ll just stick to my view that support will dwindle, and second thoughts will grow over time, particularly as the numbers of Canberrans who are “relaxed and comfortable” diminishes.

HiddenDragon said :

Rioters who have embraced the new rates system for its supposed equity and economic elegance, or who have simply struck a pose of airy indifference (“I’m alright – for the time being – Jack”) might like to reflect on the fact that it is now being pushed by the Evil Empire, which I take as a good clue that it’s ultimately for the benefit of the few (particularly speculators and developers) than the many:

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/business/jessica-irvine/growing-divide-between-rich-and-poor-in-the-australian-housing-market/story-fnj45kvd-1226735071503

Had it been done in conjunction with a similarly-timed phasing out of negative gearing (not bloody likely), with some of the savings from that shared with the States and Territories, it would have made more sense, and would be far more plausible on equity and affordability grounds.

If you’ve read many of Jessica Irvine’s pieces you’d hardly be likely to think she was a supporter of increasing inequality or economic inefficiencies even if she does work for News. Unless it’s some sort of reverse psychology to those who rail against the Murdoch media.

I was actually going to post the same link as a concise explanation of my position.

Unless it’s some sort of reverse psychology to those who rail against the Murdoch media.

Rioters who have embraced the new rates system for its supposed equity and economic elegance, or who have simply struck a pose of airy indifference (“I’m alright – for the time being – Jack”) might like to reflect on the fact that it is now being pushed by the Evil Empire, which I take as a good clue that it’s ultimately for the benefit of the few (particularly speculators and developers) than the many:

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/business/jessica-irvine/growing-divide-between-rich-and-poor-in-the-australian-housing-market/story-fnj45kvd-1226735071503

Had it been done in conjunction with a similarly-timed phasing out of negative gearing (not bloody likely), with some of the savings from that shared with the States and Territories, it would have made more sense, and would be far more plausible on equity and affordability grounds.

breda said :

IP, I have been quiet because I have meanwhile been checking with “The Authorities” and found that indeed there is an error in my rates notice. My rates have in fact only risen by about $300, just a bit more than a single age pensioner’s weekly payment. Just a week’s income in a year.

I apologise to readers about the mistake. And, there has been some good discussion. But:

“No asset rich, cash poor retirees anywhere would be forced to move by increased rates/land tax. A reverse mortgage on their house would allow them to pay any tax liability on it for well in excess of the rest of their lives.”

is the sort of ill-informed nonsense that helps no-one. I have investigated reverse mortgages. They are a bonanza for the banks. Every month, your interest payments increase, and your equity reduces. And, there is zero chance of default or even late payment. But you get the fees and charges (for what?) as well. As currently structured, they are a lousy deal.

This notion of “old people” hanging on to property out of greed or senility is crap. If someone offered me $2 million for my place, I would take it like a shot. My humble shack is worth nothing like that. What I would get, after moving and transaction costs – including stamp duty – would just be a gift to the government and all the agencies and businesses that have to be involved (asbestos certifiers, building reports, EER and so on).

Thanks to everyone who commented, and sorry for the (inadvertent) mistake. I still have to find another $300 next year from my fixed income.

Glad to hear you weren’t raped of money and it was just a mistake. Still, $300 equates to almost $6 a week. I would sympathize, but I had to find $300 a week [after tax] to keep my own mortgage afloat at the start of this year due to forced redundancy and change of job. Now, due to some unfortunate circumstances, in a month’s time I will have it slashed by another $250 per week. Basically after the mortgage our family of 5 will have $270 per week to survive on. To have almost a 50% cut in your wages in the space of less than a year hurts a lot more than a $1000 hit on your rates bill.

IP, I have been quiet because I have meanwhile been checking with “The Authorities” and found that indeed there is an error in my rates notice. My rates have in fact only risen by about $300, just a bit more than a single age pensioner’s weekly payment. Just a week’s income in a year.

I apologise to readers about the mistake. And, there has been some good discussion. But:

“No asset rich, cash poor retirees anywhere would be forced to move by increased rates/land tax. A reverse mortgage on their house would allow them to pay any tax liability on it for well in excess of the rest of their lives.”

is the sort of ill-informed nonsense that helps no-one. I have investigated reverse mortgages. They are a bonanza for the banks. Every month, your interest payments increase, and your equity reduces. And, there is zero chance of default or even late payment. But you get the fees and charges (for what?) as well. As currently structured, they are a lousy deal.

This notion of “old people” hanging on to property out of greed or senility is crap. If someone offered me $2 million for my place, I would take it like a shot. My humble shack is worth nothing like that. What I would get, after moving and transaction costs – including stamp duty – would just be a gift to the government and all the agencies and businesses that have to be involved (asbestos certifiers, building reports, EER and so on).

Thanks to everyone who commented, and sorry for the (inadvertent) mistake. I still have to find another $300 next year from my fixed income.

I notice Breda has gone quiet and has not addressed the factual problems with his/her post. I also checked with the online rates calculators (this year’s and last year’s) and couldn’t create a viable scenario whereby the rates would have gone up that much.

IP

Looks like I hit a nerve. So what’s your issue? Is it tall poppies? Environmental? Or do you just want more money for yourself without putting in the time or effort?
.

My issue is that we need real tax reform in this country, that we need to make the most efficient use of our resources (hint: inner city land is one of them) and that we need to end the entitlement mentality in this country.

Part of which involves standing up to people who often pay little to no tax whilst sitting on million dollar assets yet constantly complain about others who “don’t want to work hard like I did.” Which is rather ironic coming from those who expect the taxpayer to subsidise their existence and have been successfully lobbying governments for decades to skew the system in their favour so they can enhance their wealth and give their kids a massive inheritance.

Even then, I do have sympathy for current pensioners who worked through a period where there was no Superannuation and the pension was expected to be universal. Which is why I think its good that this change happens over 20 years at which time workers will have had Superannuation for 40 odd years.

And just to once again clear a point up, land taxes are not a tax on the wealthy. They are an efficient tax, that minimises distortion of the market and ensures more efficient use of the resource. Maximising land taxes whilst minimising transfer costs actually make it far easier for the elderly to move into more appropriate accommodation when the time arrives. They aren’t forced to pay them.

deepsouf said :

I’m emotionally connected to my large, inner-suburb, brick house and moving isn’t something I’d like to do. Therefore, because of my feelings and desires, I shouldn’t have to pay a higher, progressive tax of 0.5% on my million-dollar net worth, while 30 year olds with a $500k mortgage for their far-flung shoebox ought to pay 35% on their salary. My wealth was “accidental” and hence I needn’t (a) contribute more to health, education and infrastructure in our growing city or (b) be incentivised to move and allow young people who actually work in the city/triangle to live closer and not spend hours in traffic each day. Is that the argument?

Those young people – did they get first home buyers’ grant for their house? And if they have kids, will they get some more subsidy money? Lucky those useless oldies were paying a bit of tax somewhere along the line…

Ryoma said :

I am not sure what is the “correct” approach to this issue, as I can see pluses and minuses on both sides of the issue.

Innovation (#36) mentioned something about the ACT government acting differently to the Feds, and to me, this is the crux of the much bigger issue of tax reform more generally.

At present, the ACT Government gets (forgive me if the figures are off, I’m going from memory) roughly 40% of its revenue from the Feds, and another roughly 20% from various land taxes.

However, the GST is not necessarily the “growth tax” it was held out to be 20 years ago, due to the aging of the population generally. On average, older people consume less, and spend less, and thus (surprise,surprise!) a consumption tax does not keep revenues growing at the same rate each year as it did when the population was younger on average.

But while land tax is simple (i.e buildings and the land under them cannot get up and run away in the dark of night), and it is true that those with wealth should contribute, for many of the older generation, their house IS their retirement plan. Many do not have much by way of super saved, nor many other assets, and many do rely upon pensions.

The trouble is that our State governments are stuck with a set of inefficient taxes that didn’t work all that well in the halcyon days, and even less so now that the country needs to pay more for health and aged care services. These taxes are not usually elastic to demand, and so they hurt and distort economic activity. By contrast, the Feds have control of the “better” taxes, and they can easily pass the blame off onto State and Territory governments, without doing anything to actually fix the multiple problems this Mexican standoff creates.

So we have people getting screwed at both ends of their lives: older people such as the op who are nervous about losing everything they have worked for (and by the way, it is cheaper for people to “age in place”), whilst many people in the younger generations cannot get a foothold on the property ladder in a world full of unstable, casual employment.

The ultimate results of this can be seen in the USA at present, with various cities having gone bankrupt, partially due to a similar Pontius Pilate style attitude from larger governments.

So I ask Riot Act readers to think long and hard about this: if the ACT Budget depends heavily upon taxes from the Feds, and from land sales, what happens to recurrent expenditure when we run out of land to sell? And will this be at exactly the time when Canberra’s elderly residents need more of the Budget spent upon them?

We currently have pretty good libraries, schools, and migrant services, and adequate transport and health services. Which services are you willing to pay more for, or to have cut? How are you planning to contribute to keeping Canberra a good place to live?
Or do you have the entitlement mentality that wants all of these services, but for someone else to pay for it?

Let the flaming begin 😉

Its a good point regarding land. I still think getting rid of an ineffective tax like stamp duty is worth it. My rates have hardly increased, but i live in the suburbs, 20-30 minutes from work. The problem is while stamp duty is there the choice to move is harder and move expensive.

The issue is they are removing stamp duty over a 20 year period I believe, so as to not affect those who bought recently. We could probably remove it quicker with subsidised rates in the short term based on when the property was last sold. Then the other issue is, if you were in your house for 20 years rates going up would then be a big jump, because you’d get little subsidy on them…

So its not an easy issue. I believe the end result is a good one though. And not spending money isn’t the issue here either. Its how does the ACT government continue to earn revenue over the long term.

I’d also expect houses to be cheaper to buy because the government would be less inclined to drip fee land to developers. More land released means more to choose from, more competition etc. Currently the ACT government needs to maximise the stamp duty earned, so releases land sparingly.

+1 to just about everything Ryoma said at #44.

Federal Governments of both political persuasions have been playing low-rent blame game politics with state and territory governments. Howard and Costello overstated the revenue benefits of the GST and Rudd/Gillard pushed expensive initiatives (especially Gonski and NDIS) on to already stretched States and Territories while taking the lion’s share of the credit. The costs, particularly of NDIS, look very open-ended.

The broader problem is that, as a nation, we have treated the mining boom, and the revenue benefits of the peak earning and tax paying years of the post war baby boom as normal, and made long term spending commitments accordingly. Compounding this, as Ryoma points out, here in the ACT we have treated unsustainable, boom time land sale and property turnover revenues as normal. Stripped of all the spin (a selective mixture of fashionable economic and social engineering dogma and the politics of envy) the new ACT rates system is simply an effort to cement, and build upon, a significant element of the boom time revenues.

I see the occasional report of some efforts at containing ACT Government spending, but nothing like what needs to be done to make the ACT Budget and tax take sustainable in the medium to longer term – and that is not a partisan comment, because I thought the Liberals’ promises in the last election did not sit well with their campaign against rate rises. For that campaign to have been truly credible, they needed to present a plausible picture of managing with somewhat less.

On an important point of detail, I am touched (almost) by the optimism of those who think that reductions in stamp duty will benefit buyers – whether they be first home buyers or investors/speculators adding to their portfolio – rather than sellers. Likewise those who think that a reduction in land tax on rented properties will benefit renters, and also those who think that desirable inner-city properties will magically come within reach of younger people who are currently struggling to afford outer-suburban dog boxes.

I am not sure what is the “correct” approach to this issue, as I can see pluses and minuses on both sides of the issue.

Innovation (#36) mentioned something about the ACT government acting differently to the Feds, and to me, this is the crux of the much bigger issue of tax reform more generally.

At present, the ACT Government gets (forgive me if the figures are off, I’m going from memory) roughly 40% of its revenue from the Feds, and another roughly 20% from various land taxes.

However, the GST is not necessarily the “growth tax” it was held out to be 20 years ago, due to the aging of the population generally. On average, older people consume less, and spend less, and thus (surprise,surprise!) a consumption tax does not keep revenues growing at the same rate each year as it did when the population was younger on average.

But while land tax is simple (i.e buildings and the land under them cannot get up and run away in the dark of night), and it is true that those with wealth should contribute, for many of the older generation, their house IS their retirement plan. Many do not have much by way of super saved, nor many other assets, and many do rely upon pensions.

The trouble is that our State governments are stuck with a set of inefficient taxes that didn’t work all that well in the halcyon days, and even less so now that the country needs to pay more for health and aged care services. These taxes are not usually elastic to demand, and so they hurt and distort economic activity. By contrast, the Feds have control of the “better” taxes, and they can easily pass the blame off onto State and Territory governments, without doing anything to actually fix the multiple problems this Mexican standoff creates.

So we have people getting screwed at both ends of their lives: older people such as the op who are nervous about losing everything they have worked for (and by the way, it is cheaper for people to “age in place”), whilst many people in the younger generations cannot get a foothold on the property ladder in a world full of unstable, casual employment.

The ultimate results of this can be seen in the USA at present, with various cities having gone bankrupt, partially due to a similar Pontius Pilate style attitude from larger governments.

So I ask Riot Act readers to think long and hard about this: if the ACT Budget depends heavily upon taxes from the Feds, and from land sales, what happens to recurrent expenditure when we run out of land to sell? And will this be at exactly the time when Canberra’s elderly residents need more of the Budget spent upon them?

We currently have pretty good libraries, schools, and migrant services, and adequate transport and health services. Which services are you willing to pay more for, or to have cut? How are you planning to contribute to keeping Canberra a good place to live?
Or do you have the entitlement mentality that wants all of these services, but for someone else to pay for it?

Let the flaming begin 😉

I’m emotionally connected to my large, inner-suburb, brick house and moving isn’t something I’d like to do. Therefore, because of my feelings and desires, I shouldn’t have to pay a higher, progressive tax of 0.5% on my million-dollar net worth, while 30 year olds with a $500k mortgage for their far-flung shoebox ought to pay 35% on their salary. My wealth was “accidental” and hence I needn’t (a) contribute more to health, education and infrastructure in our growing city or (b) be incentivised to move and allow young people who actually work in the city/triangle to live closer and not spend hours in traffic each day. Is that the argument?

I thought the “structural reform about stamp duties” was the reason rates were rising?

PS still haven’t seen anyone come up with a fairer system that will generate the income needed to run this city. Other than GST income, which comes from the feds (clearly), rates are about the only way to raise the substantial amount needed to run the joint. Most other income sources either recover costs, make a loss or are things like fines etc.

Grrrr said :

Of course rate payers are allowed to be annoyed at people who don’t declare their incomes, or abuse a loophole in the law. Close the loophole, audit the fraudulent. Obviously changing the assessment frequency to be the same as or shorter than the period of assessment would fix that. Hell, just deduct the appropriate amount of rent from their pay every fortnight before they get their hands on it.

As rent is based on your income, as opposed to private rentals where the rate is fixed you need an assessment period. The reason for the assessment period is over such a long period of time is so to average out the income, so that people know what their rent is for a 6 month period, which seems fair.

Contrary to what someone wrote above the assessment period is for the complete 6 months not a two week period in that 6 months. Once the rent has been set then it can easily be deducted. Assessment, be it 6 monthly or weekly however won’t help either way if someone is getting cash in hand and not declaring though. Don’t know of any system that can avoid that.

Whoops, last quote got mixed up.

The last two paragraphs are attributable to chewy14, and the quoted text to innovation.

milkman said :

Land tax and rates are both forms of tax based on land value. ‘Land Tax’ is paid by investors, ‘Rates’ is paid by both owners and investors.

There are plenty of people who have retired from full time work still living in the home they bought many years previously. The land value of such properties has often risen because it tends to be better located than newer homes (those newer suburbs didn’t exist when these people bought).

Agreed.

milkman said :

Taxing these people more, which is exactly what higher rates does, puts more pressure on these people simply because they chose to buy a home decades earlier.

Yes, they may have more wealth, but their cashflow is often poor. I don’t think taxing retirees on their home is a good thing.

Paying rates for services received is entirely reasonable, but taxing owners more so non-owners can pay less stamp duty when they buy, especially considering current owners already paid stamp duty, is not fair or reasonable and will discourage people from buying/building, putting more pressure on the rental market.

Taxing people based on their income and consumption is a better approach, I think.

It doesn’t put pressure on them simply because they chose to buy a home decades earlier, it puts pressure on them because they have high net worth in the form of land assets.

Land is an inherently efficient asset class to tax because it doesn’t distort the economy. The problem with taxing incomes is that people working is what produces goods and services, and thus value in the economy. Consumption taxes are a better way to raise revenue than company and income taxes, but still no where near as efficient as land taxes.

Current owners having already paid stamp duty is an issue, but that could be easily resolved by simply crediting the value of the stamp duty to the rate/land tax liability since the home was bought.

Stamp duty is a huge deterrent to buying a new home or moving from an existing home; getting rid of it would massively increase the number of houses being built.

You have to give the ACT Government credit though. Charging rates (land tax is a separate issue) based on land value – and now exaggerating that charge for higher value land – will force many older persons to sell up only to watch their home of 30, 40 or even 50 years get bulldozed by some developer intending to maximise the value of the land. Older people don’t cope well with change and these types of events can shorten their lives – saving the ACT Government money – and many other surviving older persons might leave town – hence passing the cost burden onto other Governments. Very clever!

This is just pure emotional, manipulative bullshit.

No asset rich, cash poor retirees anywhere would be forced to move by increased rates/land tax. A reverse mortgage on their house would allow them to pay any tax liability on it for well in excess of the rest of their lives.

The decision to move is purely by choice.

chewy14 said :

As I mentioned in my previous post, even the Federal Government typically ignores the family home for a variety of purposes, eg assets and income tests for age pension, aged care etc. What is their thinking for effectively not forcing older persons to sell their homes and why do they behave differently to the ACT Government?

Because they don’t have the balls to take on difficult issues that will cost them votes. It makes complete sense to treat homes like other financial assets. Why should the taxpayer effectively subsidise well off people to give their children an inheritance?

Land taxes are an effective way of raising government revenue. If you don’t like paying them, then you can simply move to an area with lower land values or access some of the equity in your home and stay where you are. Pensioners living in large inner city properties are not utilising the land in the most efficient way and should pay a premium for doing so.

+100000000000000

arescarti42 said :

milkman said :

One of the difficulties with the land tax approach is that it favours the young at the expense of the elderly, in that retirees with homes in desirable areas tend to get hit with far higher taxes even if their homes, and means, are modest.

I’m surprised that no-one has thought that perhaps this policy effectively discriminates against the aged and may even be a human rights issue.

No. Lets be perfectly clear here, land taxes do neither of those things. They advantage, relatively, people with low land wealth over those with high land wealth.

Age doesn’t enter in to it.

Increasing taxes wealthy is not a human rights violation.

I suspect that an assessment of the age profile of home owners would show that a higher percentage of older persons would own higher value properties. Most of these people would have bought their properties when those suburbs were very cheap or even undesirable. These home owners would now, typically, be retirees on low or fixed incomes and are not cash rich.

You have to give the ACT Government credit though. Charging rates (land tax is a separate issue) based on land value – and now exaggerating that charge for higher value land – will force many older persons to sell up only to watch their home of 30, 40 or even 50 years get bulldozed by some developer intending to maximise the value of the land. Older people don’t cope well with change and these types of events can shorten their lives – saving the ACT Government money – and many other surviving older persons might leave town – hence passing the cost burden onto other Governments. Very clever!

As I mentioned in my previous post, even the Federal Government typically ignores the family home for a variety of purposes, eg assets and income tests for age pension, aged care etc. What is their thinking for effectively not forcing older persons to sell their homes and why do they behave differently to the ACT Government?

Because they don’t have the balls to take on difficult issues that will cost them votes. It makes complete sense to treat homes like other financial assets. Why should the taxpayer effectively subsidise well off people to give their children an inheritance?

Land taxes are an effective way of raising government revenue. If you don’t like paying them, then you can simply move to an area with lower land values or access some of the equity in your home and stay where you are. Pensioners living in large inner city properties are not utilising the land in the most efficient way and should pay a premium for doing so.

Masquara said :

Breda’s rates are, though, subsidising public housing tenants who in some cases are paying $50 a week for inner north three-beddies while on undeclared incomes – either back-pocket incomes plus welfare, or contract work that conveniently ceases for the “declaration fortnight” every six months … which you’d have to say ratepayers should be allowed to find rather annoying.

Of course rate payers are allowed to be annoyed at people who don’t declare their incomes, or abuse a loophole in the law. Close the loophole, audit the fraudulent. Obviously changing the assessment frequency to be the same as or shorter than the period of assessment would fix that. Hell, just deduct the appropriate amount of rent from their pay every fortnight before they get their hands on it.

Meanwhile, Breda has 2 separate issues which despite her attempts to relate them, aren’t .. and as far as I can see, the only way for your rates to have gone up by almost $1k is to have an AUV of $5million.

arescarti42 said :

milkman said :

One of the difficulties with the land tax approach is that it favours the young at the expense of the elderly, in that retirees with homes in desirable areas tend to get hit with far higher taxes even if their homes, and means, are modest.

I’m surprised that no-one has thought that perhaps this policy effectively discriminates against the aged and may even be a human rights issue.

No. Lets be perfectly clear here, land taxes do neither of those things. They advantage, relatively, people with low land wealth over those with high land wealth.

Age doesn’t enter in to it.

Increasing taxes wealthy is not a human rights violation.

Land tax and rates are both forms of tax based on land value. ‘Land Tax’ is paid by investors, ‘Rates’ is paid by both owners and investors.

There are plenty of people who have retired from full time work still living in the home they bought many years previously. The land value of such properties has often risen because it tends to be better located than newer homes (those newer suburbs didn’t exist when these people bought).

Taxing these people more, which is exactly what higher rates does, puts more pressure on these people simply because they chose to buy a home decades earlier.

Yes, they may have more wealth, but their cashflow is often poor. I don’t think taxing retirees on their home is a good thing. Paying rates for services received is entirely reasonable, but taxing owners more so non-owners can pay less stamp duty when they buy, especially considering current owners already paid stamp duty, is not fair or reasonable and will discourage people from buying/building, putting more pressure on the rental market.

Taxing people based on their income and consumption is a better approach, I think.

Are we discussing land tax or rates? As far as I know only people with investment property here need to pay the land tax.

milkman said :

One of the difficulties with the land tax approach is that it favours the young at the expense of the elderly, in that retirees with homes in desirable areas tend to get hit with far higher taxes even if their homes, and means, are modest.

I’m surprised that no-one has thought that perhaps this policy effectively discriminates against the aged and may even be a human rights issue.

No. Lets be perfectly clear here, land taxes do neither of those things. They advantage, relatively, people with low land wealth over those with high land wealth.

Age doesn’t enter in to it.

Increasing taxes wealthy is not a human rights violation.

Tony said :

So the total property has remained the same, but somehow the land value is healthily increasing.

UV’s
2013 – 230k
2012 – 210k
2011 – 190k

That’s usually what happens. The actual building depreciates, the land appreciates and $20k seems about right too.

I was shocked at the unimproved value of my recent rates, in particular with the values of the land over the past 3 years – I purchased the house in 2011 for 530k, I had a valuation do a couple of weeks ago which came back at 520-530k.

So the total property has remained the same, but somehow the land value is healthily increasing.

UV’s
2013 – 230k
2012 – 210k
2011 – 190k

Deref said :

The basis of equitable taxation is that it should be progressive – i.e. linked to a person’s ability to pay.

No, that’s the basis of Marxism.

The basis of equitable taxation is every person paying the same amount. That’s the arrangement for all the other goods and services we buy, why should goods and services purchased from government (by way of income taxes) be any different?

Just out of interest, what are “the rorts that make income tax voluntary for the wealthy”? The ATO’s own statistics disprove that bit of left-wing populism.

breda said :

JC, it’s not about “generating income” in ever increasing amounts. It’s first and foremost about managing on what you have. The solution for a person who consistently overspends is not to give them more of (your) money, which you have because you managed your finances prudently.

Firstly I didn’t say generate income in increasing amounts, you said that, I just said come up with an solution (read alternative way) for generating income that is fair.

Now you may well be right, the ACT government may well be spending more than it earns, but that is a different issue. But as you mentioned it what are you prepared to give up as a result? Again no talk of public art etc, that normally comes up, what are you really prepared to give up to allow the government to live within their means? How about less roads maintenance, less spent on schooling or hospitals, or maybe less on community programs for the elderly.

JC, it’s not about “generating income” in ever increasing amounts. It’s first and foremost about managing on what you have. The solution for a person who consistently overspends is not to give them more of (your) money, which you have because you managed your finances prudently.

From yesterday’s CT:

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/tams-agency-overspends-by-337m-20131005-2v1et.html

” Last financial year TAMS exceeded its budget by 8 per cent. In 2011-12 it spent 5 per cent more than the amended budget. In 2010-11 this figure rose to 12.7 per cent. Last year’s bottom line was not helped by a $9 million deficit reported in Enterprise Services, which is made up of three government-run businesses: the Capital Linen Service, the Yarralumla Nursery and ACT Property Group.

The 2012-13 annual report does not list an individual result for the businesses with their profits and losses reported together.

The three business lost $9 million last year, up from $7.8 million in 2011 and despite predictions of a $1.1 million profit for the three businesses in 2012-13.”

The article notes that this is the fifth year in a row that TAMS has overspent its budget.

If you or I do this, we go broke. When the government does it,they look for new ways to slug taxpayers, or borrow, passing the debt on to the next lot. The incentives are completely wrong.

Note from the article that we are still funding the losses of completely unnecessary ACT government “businesses”, as we have been doing for years. They never go broke, they just get more money from us, based on unrealistic promises of a pot of gold over the horizon. No-one is ever held accountable.

Until they demonstrate the capacity to manage the money they already get, even if it means going without some of their favourite things (just like long suffering taxpayers have to), giving them more is like giving a compulsive gambler your PIN and credit card.

I just Googled ACT Rates and used the calculator for a $450,000 property for 2012-13 and 2013-14 and the rates increased from $2026 to $2159 p.a. So there’s something that isn’t right in your figures or calculations or your rates notice.

http://www.revenue.act.gov.au/rates/rates_calculation

djk said :

“Also, isn’t this a bit like whingeing about getting a promotion which pushes you into a higher tax bracket?

Not quite. If you go into a higher tax bracket, contrary to what many beleive the higher amount only applies to the money above the previous cut off. The end result is you will always earn more.

What the OP is talking about here is hitting a ceiling and then being substantially out. For your analogy to be true, all income when you go into a higher tax bracket would have to be taxed at the higher amount.

That said, lots of complaining on here, but can someone please give me a solution that generates the income to run the city and is fair? And whining about waste, fraud and public art doesn’t cut it, as in the grand scheme of things the cost of these is bugger all and may actually (in the case of waste and fraud) cost more to eliminate.

Deref said :

…In my previous (more than modest) dwelling, I lived next to a pensioner couple who had lived in the area since they were young marrieds and the area was very much a “low rent” district. Because that area suddenly became attractive to parasitic developers, the “value” of their land increased dramatically, so their rates followed suit. Eventually they had no option but to sell up to the parasites and move out of the home they’d loved since they were young. ….

Pensioners get a big discount just because they are pensioners – if they applied to the ACT government – which I did, so my discount being a pensioner is $682.

breda said :

Why can’t they just do what we had to do – live within their means and put a bit aside for a rainy day?

Do you really expect a generation that behaves as adolescents well into their 30s is going to do this?

HiddenDragon, good point re the 3 year average – so I checked. Nope, it’s been exactly the same for the last 3 years. But because it is just over the magic $450,000 figure, my rates have risen almost $1,000. I’m guessing that given the property prices around town, many people will get a nasty shock when they get their next rates notice. And a lot of them won’t be in any better position to find the extra money than my retired neighbours and me.

The endpoint for many of us will be public housing. Which will be another drain on the budget. As our capital diminishes through forced sales, relocation costs and ownership costs (you can’t own and maintain a home on just the average retiree’s income), eventually our nest egg will be gone into the maw of this extravagant government.

Why can’t they just do what we had to do – live within their means and put a bit aside for a rainy day?

poetix said :

Deref, my understanding is that there is a way for pensioners to have their rates put off until they die, or their house is sold, so that there should be no need for the situation you describe in #8. I don’t know if this also applies to people with a disability, or if it is only available to older people.

Please correct me if that is wrong. However, I can understand older people who bought their house for a few thousand dollars having conniptions about annual rate bills for the same amount. There are people in O’Connor who probably don’t realise that their house (or rather, the land) is now worth nearer to a million dollars than ten pounds fifty pence, or whatever it was back when they bought it.

That is a shame, as they could access some equity to have some fun. Owning such an asset is a form of wealth. The fact that you don’t use it is irrelevant.

I believe you’re right, Poetica, though not everyone would see that passing off debts to the next generation is a Good Thing. (Of course to those for whom there is no next generation, it’s perfectly sensible.)

Re the family home being an asset, I can’t agree completely: it’s an asset that’s only worth its replacement value. Our hypothetical O’Connor couple could, as you say, sell their house for a couple of million, buy something cheaper elsewhere and enjoy spending the change. If they’re happy to do that, then yes, the house was a realisable asset. Not everyone is happy to do that, though – the asset is not realisable for them without, sometimes significant, sacrifice. Similarly, if at some stage they need to move into assisted care, there could well be little or nothing left of that value to pass on.

Taxes based on such illusory and practically unrealisable wealth are simply unfair. That principle is recognised by governments and is the reason that the proceeds of the sale of the family home are not taxed. Rates based on its value, though, are in direct contradiction of that principle.

Investment properties are, of course, an entirely different matter.

Taxes are fine. We should pay equitably for the services we want and need and governments should provide those with efficiency, openness and transparency. But our payments should be proportional to our real wealth.

breda said :

Thanks for responses. In answer to questions and comments:

I live in Narrabundah (not the upmarket part). Half of the people in my little street are either retired or close to it. Retirees like me don’t suddenly have an extra $1,000 year lying around because the ACT government can’t manage its finances. My UCV is exactly the same as last year, my very modest income has not increased, I’m not getting any extra services, but am, with my neighbours,expected to absorb my rates almost doubling overnight.

It’s just as well the ACT elections are not coming up.

I should point out that the fact that our suburb has recently become more desirable to developers and yuppies is beyond our control. It has no measurable benefit to us unless we sell up. Most long term residents are far from privileged – 20 years ago it was regarded as one of Canberra’s less desirable areas, and most of the people who bought here were at the lower end of the income scale.

As for the politics of envy, such as saying that my neighbours and I should be grateful to have a roof over our heads, that is precisely the attitude that is dragging this country down. Instead of applauding people who have worked and scrimped and saved to buy a modest home in a modest suburb, we are accused of being heartless plutocrats.

And, while stamp duty is a dreadful way of raising revenue, as has been pointed out, we have already paid it. Again, the only upside for us is if we sell up and buy elsewhere. A tax system that relies on forcing people out of their homes is hardly equitable, IMO.

Perhaps I should apply for a grant? I could call my house a heritage project (it’s old enough!) or spray some graffiti on it and call it public art.

I assume you have checked your rates notice VERY carefully to ensure that there has not been some odd mistake in calculating your assessment? I ask this because if your valuation is just above the $450,000 level where the highest rate of marginal rates is charged, and your valuation has not changed from last year, it is difficult to see how it could have gone up by quite so much in one year.

Is it, perhaps, because there was a very large upwards revaluation a few years ago, and under the three year averaging system, the earlier, much lower valuation figure, was dropped from the average valuation figure this year?

PS – I really like Silentforce’s idea of a separately identified “stuff up tax” – I would call it a “stuff-ups, wankery, gravy-train, patronage, expensive and annoying propaganda, re-inventing-the-wheel, and general “I make no apologies for this affront to the taxpayers” tax”.

Thanks for responses. In answer to questions and comments:

I live in Narrabundah (not the upmarket part). Half of the people in my little street are either retired or close to it. Retirees like me don’t suddenly have an extra $1,000 year lying around because the ACT government can’t manage its finances. My UCV is exactly the same as last year, my very modest income has not increased, I’m not getting any extra services, but am, with my neighbours,expected to absorb my rates almost doubling overnight.

It’s just as well the ACT elections are not coming up.

I should point out that the fact that our suburb has recently become more desirable to developers and yuppies is beyond our control. It has no measurable benefit to us unless we sell up. Most long term residents are far from privileged – 20 years ago it was regarded as one of Canberra’s less desirable areas, and most of the people who bought here were at the lower end of the income scale.

As for the politics of envy, such as saying that my neighbours and I should be grateful to have a roof over our heads, that is precisely the attitude that is dragging this country down. Instead of applauding people who have worked and scrimped and saved to buy a modest home in a modest suburb, we are accused of being heartless plutocrats.

And, while stamp duty is a dreadful way of raising revenue, as has been pointed out, we have already paid it. Again, the only upside for us is if we sell up and buy elsewhere. A tax system that relies on forcing people out of their homes is hardly equitable, IMO.

Perhaps I should apply for a grant? I could call my house a heritage project (it’s old enough!) or spray some graffiti on it and call it public art.

Deref, my understanding is that there is a way for pensioners to have their rates put off until they die, or their house is sold, so that there should be no need for the situation you describe in #8. I don’t know if this also applies to people with a disability, or if it is only available to older people.

Please correct me if that is wrong. However, I can understand older people who bought their house for a few thousand dollars having conniptions about annual rate bills for the same amount. There are people in O’Connor who probably don’t realise that their house (or rather, the land) is now worth nearer to a million dollars than ten pounds fifty pence, or whatever it was back when they bought it.

That is a shame, as they could access some equity to have some fun. Owning such an asset is a form of wealth. The fact that you don’t use it is irrelevant.

djk said :

They have already started reducing stamp duty.

Ratepayers have already paid stamp duty when they bought their homes. Now we’re being made to pay for it again as rates replace stamp duty. The only fair (!) way to do that would be to exempt people who’ve already paid.

djk said :

Also, isn’t this a bit like whingeing about getting a promotion which pushes you into a higher tax bracket?

How does an increased valuation equate to a higher income?

HiddenDragon said :

It’s early days yet, but in time, I think more people will have second thoughts about the increasing emphasis on rates as a source of revenue for the ACT Government, and will come to look more closely at how their money is being spent – which would be a healthy development for democracy in this town.

Even if the majority, or a substantial minority, are protected from substantial increases in their rates, the further slowing, or even reduction in federal spending in Canberra (with an obvious impact on the incomes of many households) will make more people more conscious of even modest increases in living costs.

Local govt doesn’t change their tax take much based on property values dropping, they effectively work out how much rates revenue they want and then work out a taxable value of each $1000 worth of land in their jurisdiction. If land value increases or decreases across the board they will just change the rate.

One of the difficulties with the land tax approach is that it favours the young at the expense of the elderly, in that retirees with homes in desirable areas tend to get hit with far higher taxes even if their homes, and means, are modest.

“Meanwhile, at some point in the future, the ACT government promises that structural reform about stamp duties and so on will materialise.”

They have already started reducing stamp duty.

Also, isn’t this a bit like whingeing about getting a promotion which pushes you into a higher tax bracket?

It’s early days yet, but in time, I think more people will have second thoughts about the increasing emphasis on rates as a source of revenue for the ACT Government, and will come to look more closely at how their money is being spent – which would be a healthy development for democracy in this town.

Even if the majority, or a substantial minority, are protected from substantial increases in their rates, the further slowing, or even reduction in federal spending in Canberra (with an obvious impact on the incomes of many households) will make more people more conscious of even modest increases in living costs.

You should be happy, rates were supposed to triple! 😉

Well I think a $1000 increase in one year is quite large, regardless of the value of the land. Some people are homeless, but the OP will be a taxpayer who makes contributions at least to the Government (and maybe to charity also), who strive to help these people, so I’m not sure anyone should tell him not to whinge on the basis that someone somewhere is having a worse time. Yes, it might be a first world problem, but it’s his and he or she may have other worries to also contend with that you know nothing of.

I don’t support the whinge in quite the way it was written but I’d be a bit tee’d off if I opened my rates to find this level of increase.

I agree with “breda” that to pay extra for the government to waste our money on unnecessary litigation, defences to litigation, over the top human rights compliance, accountants, quantity surveyors who can’t count and monopoly corporations who blow out publicly funded projects; and do not address the homeless and mentally ill voters (yes, they and their supporters vote too) is rude. The government should call a spade a spade and impose a separate ‘stuff up tax’ to be transparent on the amount of their financial waste we being imposed to pay.

Pause to think of older residents still in good health who are retired that bought their house and land in “the next new suburb along.” They raised families, paid off their mortgage and retired not knowing their property would jackpot and become unaffordable to live in and maintain due to the Government’s policy of not rating blocks on the actual cost of maintaining public infrastructure around it, but on the market value.

Labor has used Canberra and its residents as guinea pigs for various forms of social engineering. Sounds like a form of Elder Abuse for people caught in this situation.

Typical hipster leftie Canberrans “you should be grateful for whatever the Government leaves you of your income”.

The basis of equitable taxation is that it should be progressive – i.e. linked to a person’s ability to pay.

Income tax is (at least to degree) progressive – it increases as income increases (don’t start me on the rorts that make income tax voluntary for the wealthy). The GST, by comparison, is regressive: it’s a flat tax, so it falls more heavily on the poor than on the wealthy.

Rates, as they’re calculated in the ACT at least, are worse than a flat tax – they’re based on two entirely fictitious concepts: a) land “values” and b) that someone whose land “value” is higher than someone else’s is more able to pay a higher amount. This is worse than bullshit.

In my previous (more than modest) dwelling, I lived next to a pensioner couple who had lived in the area since they were young marrieds and the area was very much a “low rent” district. Because that area suddenly became attractive to parasitic developers, the “value” of their land increased dramatically, so their rates followed suit. Eventually they had no option but to sell up to the parasites and move out of the home they’d loved since they were young. Tragically, and understandably, they didn’t live long after that.

I have no idea where breda lives or what his/her income may be. But the basis of rates is an abomination.

I have no problems with paying taxes – on the contrary – but the only fair basis of taxation is ability to pay. If breda’s income has increased commensurately with his/her income, then let him/her suck it up. If not, his/her complaint is fully justified.

The basis of rates needs an urgent overhaul.

homoincognitus said :

Same, stop whingeing. You have a home and security. From the increase you mention you are in a high value land and property area. If cash flow is a problem, sell up, size down and take the probably tax free capital gain.
Also Masquara, you seem to paint all public housing tenants with the same brush, and current public housing tenant talking now, the 6 month declaration is for the preceding 6 months income, not the last fortnight. And my view is that’s its a small minority of tenants who have the ability to rort the system.
And another thing while I’m here, small wage working tenants ( under $50,0000 gross) who are still occupying 3 beddies cannot size down in the public system because they have to re-qualify under the current income limits, which means you have to be virtually unemployed. There is no such mechanism with Housing as a voluntary downsize under your existing circumstances.

Yes that’s why I said “in some cases” …

…I would not mind so much if it was being matched by genuine attempts to rein in over-expenditure, and structural reform…

You realise this is the ACT government we’re talking about here, right…?

Oh, and +1 to arescarti.

Same, stop whingeing. You have a home and security. From the increase you mention you are in a high value land and property area. If cash flow is a problem, sell up, size down and take the probably tax free capital gain.
Also Masquara, you seem to paint all public housing tenants with the same brush, and current public housing tenant talking now, the 6 month declaration is for the preceding 6 months income, not the last fortnight. And my view is that’s its a small minority of tenants who have the ability to rort the system.
And another thing while I’m here, small wage working tenants ( under $50,0000 gross) who are still occupying 3 beddies cannot size down in the public system because they have to re-qualify under the current income limits, which means you have to be virtually unemployed. There is no such mechanism with Housing as a voluntary downsize under your existing circumstances.

poetix said :

Stop whingeing. Some people are homeless. Others pay ridiculous rents. Enjoy your security and be thankful.

If I ever really whinge about rates can someone take me out and shoot me?
Thanks.

+1

Stop bitching.

An additional $1000 levied on your land is a massive 0.2% of its value, one fifth of a percent.

If it were up to me rates would be more like 2-3% of the value of your land.

Consider yourself lucky.

Just curious but what suburb are you in. Don’t have to answer if you don’t like but that’s a pretty decent land value.

poetix said :

Stop whingeing. Some people are homeless. Others pay ridiculous rents. Enjoy your security and be thankful.

If I ever really whinge about rates can someone take me out and shoot me?
Thanks.

Breda’s rates are, though, subsidising public housing tenants who in some cases are paying $50 a week for inner north three-beddies while on undeclared incomes – either back-pocket incomes plus welfare, or contract work that conveniently ceases for the “declaration fortnight” every six months … which you’d have to say ratepayers should be allowed to find rather annoying.

Stop whingeing. Some people are homeless. Others pay ridiculous rents. Enjoy your security and be thankful.

If I ever really whinge about rates can someone take me out and shoot me?
Thanks.