A FLAT rating system in the Launceston municipality is worth a look.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
There are a number of options, including dividing areas up into socio-economic categories or applying a standard rate to properties valued within certain ranges, rather than each property having an assessed annual value.
The current AAV rating system is nothing but a wealth tax. It means that in spite of governments taxing your income according to the level, governments will hit you again according to what you own.
As well, rates would increase in line with the CPI, rather than the current haphazard system of increases fluctuating in size.
A flat rating system would standardise local government imposts on properties; within a certain cohort properties would pay the same rates.
A problem with this reform is that it still fails to properly levy people who rent and who enjoy all the services available in a municipality that property owners pay for.
Owners have to cope with a monthly mortgage, plus annual rates and water charges, while renters pay rent but little else. They should pay the usage part of a Taswater bill but many refuse and non-payment is not policed. Renters don't have to maintain the property beyond occasional mowing, and rubbish or green waste removal.
If renters were also included in the mix the system would be fairer, as long as the rating component of their rent was identifiable, so landlords could not rip them off by transferring an exorbitant part of the liability.
A flat rate system would simplify rates. It would better identify what councils needed in revenue in order to provide adequate services, rather than a greedy wealth tax grab using the AAV system.
Supporters of the current system ought to explain why it should remain. What are the benefits? Why should people be taxed twice for their hard earned and accumulated wealth?