All Topics / General Property / Are Higher Council Rates For Investment Property Fair?

Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)
  • Profile photo of Steve McKnightSteve McKnight
    Join Date: 2001
    Post 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.

    (View Quote Source Here)

    So, is this sort of practice fair? What do you say?

    – Steve

    Steve McKnight | Pty Ltd | CEO

    Success comes from doing things differently

    Profile photo of BennyBenny
    Join Date: 2002
    Post Count: 1,416

    Hi Steve,
    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,


    Profile photo of JpcashflowJpcashflow
    Join Date: 2007
    Post 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 :)

    Profile photo of TerrywTerryw
    Join Date: 2001
    Post 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
    Email Me

    Lawyer, Mortgage Broker and Tax Advisor (Sydney based but advising Aust wide)

    Profile photo of HPropertyHProperty
    Join Date: 2013
    Post 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.

    Profile photo of Corey BattCorey Batt
    Join Date: 2012
    Post 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

Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic. If you don't have an account, you can register here.