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