Parker plans to replace RMA with three new acts in quest for new housing, but council financing and social license blocks remain; HortNZ objects to new 'urban sprawl' houses on veges land
The real Jumbo in the room, is all the money needed to pay for any infrastructure is already there except state and local Govt. allow the land bankers to walk off with it in the form of rentier gain.
And the Dumbo in the room is then to allow any money from anywhere to been given to the council to spent it via their inefficient bureaucratic process.
This sets the trend. Central government is never going to share the immigration dividend
80% rates increase for Tauranga City Council over 3 years
According to advice released under the OIA, the Minister expects Tauranga Commissioners to set a "robust" budget as councillors, chosen by you, won't "set rates at a realistic level." The Department of Internal Affairs has advised that a "realistic" level is "a rate rise of 18-20% year-on-year" over the next ten years. Taking a conservative view of compounding rates, the minister’s instruction to her commissioners will see an 80 per cent increase in TCC rates over the next three years
WOW, but here is the rub. Govt/council policy has basically done a trade-off allowing rentier capital growth at the expense of operating costs. Ie allowed far too much capital gains and too low rate operating costs. When it should have been a lower price entry point ie 3x median multiple, and higher rates to cover operating expenses and low term replacement maintenance fund. If they had done this, then it is far cheaper total cost to own a home as it ceases to be a speculative commodity.
So what we are left with when the pigeons come home to roost is the capital gains have been made off with by the land bankers, and the extra cost of that left as mortgage debt for the present property owners, and now the piper needs to be paid on the underfunding of the rates. There is no way out of this without someone losing, namely present homeowners as if these rate prices go through, then you can easily discount back to work out what the capital price should be which I'm thinking would be at least a 1/3 to a 1/2 less than its present value.
Yep. Often these situations are framed as incompetence vs competence, when in reality it's a fight over who pays. The central Govt has the biggest legal and financial blunt instruments, so usually 'wins' in the short term. In the long run local voters will keep revolting as long as populations grow without their permission.
If rates do increase at some great rate, then getting elected for this council will be very difficult.If I wanted to be elected I would simply put in writing that I would keep rates low (perhaps to inflation rate) or resign. My election would be virtually guaranteed.
Surely user pays. As a migrant i’d be in favour of a $5k -$10k levy (on all residence visas) similar to the Uk’s NHS levy. This is a small price to pay. This can either be paid as a lump sum or deducted via the IRD similar to a student loan. Net migration was close to 100k pre COVID, with residence visas through work held down to 50k per year. That’s $500m per year and will eradicate any arguments re social licence, consent and migrants not paying their way.
NZ Death Duty was introduced in 1860 and abolished in 1993
Why was it abolished?
What is the back story on the abolition in 1993
Part of the broad story of pivoting taxes to income and spending, and away from wealth, capital and land.
The real Jumbo in the room, is all the money needed to pay for any infrastructure is already there except state and local Govt. allow the land bankers to walk off with it in the form of rentier gain.
And the Dumbo in the room is then to allow any money from anywhere to been given to the council to spent it via their inefficient bureaucratic process.
Too late
This sets the trend. Central government is never going to share the immigration dividend
80% rates increase for Tauranga City Council over 3 years
According to advice released under the OIA, the Minister expects Tauranga Commissioners to set a "robust" budget as councillors, chosen by you, won't "set rates at a realistic level." The Department of Internal Affairs has advised that a "realistic" level is "a rate rise of 18-20% year-on-year" over the next ten years. Taking a conservative view of compounding rates, the minister’s instruction to her commissioners will see an 80 per cent increase in TCC rates over the next three years
https://www.theweekendsun.co.nz/blogs/15307-democracy-suspended-what-does-it-mean.html
WOW, but here is the rub. Govt/council policy has basically done a trade-off allowing rentier capital growth at the expense of operating costs. Ie allowed far too much capital gains and too low rate operating costs. When it should have been a lower price entry point ie 3x median multiple, and higher rates to cover operating expenses and low term replacement maintenance fund. If they had done this, then it is far cheaper total cost to own a home as it ceases to be a speculative commodity.
So what we are left with when the pigeons come home to roost is the capital gains have been made off with by the land bankers, and the extra cost of that left as mortgage debt for the present property owners, and now the piper needs to be paid on the underfunding of the rates. There is no way out of this without someone losing, namely present homeowners as if these rate prices go through, then you can easily discount back to work out what the capital price should be which I'm thinking would be at least a 1/3 to a 1/2 less than its present value.
Yep. Often these situations are framed as incompetence vs competence, when in reality it's a fight over who pays. The central Govt has the biggest legal and financial blunt instruments, so usually 'wins' in the short term. In the long run local voters will keep revolting as long as populations grow without their permission.
If rates do increase at some great rate, then getting elected for this council will be very difficult.If I wanted to be elected I would simply put in writing that I would keep rates low (perhaps to inflation rate) or resign. My election would be virtually guaranteed.
Surely user pays. As a migrant i’d be in favour of a $5k -$10k levy (on all residence visas) similar to the Uk’s NHS levy. This is a small price to pay. This can either be paid as a lump sum or deducted via the IRD similar to a student loan. Net migration was close to 100k pre COVID, with residence visas through work held down to 50k per year. That’s $500m per year and will eradicate any arguments re social licence, consent and migrants not paying their way.