But does a 2-4% band simply mean we're going to pay more in other fees?
Rates aren't the only way these guys make money off us, we also pay for specific things like resource and building consents, LIM requests, dog registrations, and campgrounds.
Will hairdressers have to pay more to register under the Health Act? Yes, this is a thing, and in Kaipara, for example, it'll cost your business $423 bucks, thank you very much.
Will we pay more for a burial plot at the local cemetery? That's another fee.
Will we pay more to register our dogs?
The options are endless.
Waikato District Council has a document setting out the fees it whacks ratepayers with. It's 45 pages long.
The government may take a revenue lever away from councils with one hand, but councils will no doubt get creative and hit us up from another angle.
Actually, this is exactly what the Government itself has been doing. We're seeing the rise of the fee. 2026 will be the year of the fee.
Yes, the Coalition may have cut taxes, but they're also overseeing one the biggest hikes in fees and charges of any government in recent history.
Road user charges, user-pays, road tolls, congestion charging is coming, fines are going up, immigration fees, airport fees - you name it, chances are it's heading north.
It's a strategy. The top line number comes down, but all the little bits they hope we won't notice go up.
Councils will be no different. Add in the Water Done Well fee, which will be massive in some places, and the reality is that no ratepayer will feel like they're getting a batter a deal post-cap band.
The question is whether this a reason not to do it. And the answer is probably not.
But it should come with tempered expectation that we won't feel fleeced when the council emails those pesky quarterly rates bills or charges you for sending a hard copy by snail-mail!
Ryan Bridge is a New Zealand broadcaster who has worked on many current affairs television and radio shows. He currently hosts Newstalk ZB's Early Edition - where this article was sourced.
2 comments:
This is in trouble in Auckland where the Council faces financial problems possibly requiring a 7-9 % rates rise.
So what Bridge is saying is that the people who receive a service provided by the local council shouldn't have to reimburse council for the full cost of providing that service. They are entitled to be subsidised by everybody else.
I don't have a dog. If I had my way dogs would be banned from urban areas. So why should my rates be used to subsidise dog owners' registration fees. Full cost recovery is the only business model option. If you don't like it, don't keep a dog. Quite simple really.
Rates are levied for the purpose of spreading the cost of a council's core services over all the residents within its boundaries. Government must therefore move to curtail the definition of core services to concentrate on those which a resident cannot reasonably opt out of. Hence my doggy example.
Capital costs deliver intergenerational benefits and would be covered by borrowing, repayable over the useful life pf the assets acquired and serviced out of rates. All non-core services must then logically go onto a full cost recovery basis.
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.