smithy09 50 Posted April 22, 2012 Author Share Posted April 22, 2012 Yeah, I'm not quite sure where you're coming from Wheels. Almost seems like a bit of jealousy there.. "If I can't do it why should they?" There's lots of alternate ways to earn a living if your costs are low. These guys don't take anything from us from what I can see, but pay way to much for what are really crappy services. Even the schedualed Ferry only comes Friday and Sunday... Otherwise it's water taxi.. Stewart Island as well?? For flock's sake.. I dunno, I alsways thought that if everything went to poo and I had to go and hide somewhere, then living on a little island on the bones of my arse, or sailing off, would be an alternative that I could have a go at, but both options are looking more and more expensive sadly.. Link to post Share on other sites
wheels 543 Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 No Jealousy. Let me word this differently. You said they were leaving Rakino because the rates were too expensive. Have I understood that correctly??? As several have said, at $100/month, it's half the cost of rates in Auckland. So why would you want to leave Rakino??? It is going to cost you more to live in Auckland. I am no more jealous than anyone else that has already said it would be a great life to live on an island and if a Home is cheaper and rates are cheaper, why wouldn't one. Link to post Share on other sites
Steve Pope 243 Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 whose to say they are going to live in Auckland, maybe Nightcaps, Mataura or perhaps Blackball, cheap as! Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 Last time we stayed on Rakino they did get the grass mown, rubbish collected and removed to mainland and roads are in reasonable condition. Plus I understand one of the ferry companies gets an $80000 subsidy from Auckland City for running a Friday night and Sunday trip. If you divide all that by the number of residents, looks like the rates are a good deal to me. The thing that really gets up my nose is that the people that say they can't afford there rates leave their junk cars all over the island for the council to remove some day. Link to post Share on other sites
Dagwood 57 Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 They're certainly not alone with rates not being linked to services received. We pay more in rates for a property on the Coromandel than we do in Auckland. Again no sewerage or water etc but because there's a pretty view the current rating system hammers us. One of those things really.... Link to post Share on other sites
tuffyluffy 76 Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 It greatly erks me that the current rating system is based on property value and not the number of occupants/amount of services consumed. A $500K house consumes no services, the occupants consume the services. A $500K house with 1 occupant will pay considerably more in rates than a $300K house with 5 occupants, yet only consume 20% of the services. Go figure. It could also be argued that each occupier in the $300K residence consumes proportionally more services because they live in a lower decile area, and therefore more likely to use subsidised transport, librarys, community services etc Bloody socialism! Rant over Link to post Share on other sites
Fogg 427 Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 It greatly erks me that the current rating system is based on property value and not the number of occupants/amount of services consumed. A $500K house consumes no services, the occupants consume the services. A $500K house with 1 occupant will pay considerably more in rates than a $300K house with 5 occupants, yet only consume 20% of the services. Go figure. It could also be argued that each occupier in the $300K residence consumes proportionally more services because they live in a lower decile area, and therefore more likely to use subsidised transport, librarys, community services etc Bloody socialism! Rant over Which is exactly why Margaret Thatcher introduced the UK Community Charge or "Poll Tax" system in the 90s based on individuals rather than houses. But despite the logic behind it, only a tiny minority supported it and it caused riots - literally - which ultimately led to her downfall a few months later. It was replaced by another tax which took some account of ability to pay, can't recall the exact details. Link to post Share on other sites
ab1974 1 Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 Do you mean Council Tax in the UK?? Paid by the dwelling occupier. Can't recall if it was based on the total number of bedrooms or the actual number of occupants, but certainly seemed more in line with user pays rather than simply a property value. Link to post Share on other sites
Megwyn 2 Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 But then there is the problem of gathering the tax. How can you extract a tax from someone who is here today and gone tomorrow? Most people who rent do not stay long in their abodes. It ends up being the home owners that pay again. Lets tax the middle class - wring them dry until there is nothing left but dried out carcasses. . . Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 We pay per toilet. It pisses me off ( ) that we have three of the bloody things and a lot of the time there's only two of us in the house. Link to post Share on other sites
Megwyn 2 Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 We pay per toilet. It pisses me off ( ) that we have three of the bloody things and a lot of the time there's only two of us in the house. Pay per toilet? How does that work? My Mother told me that businesses pay per toilet, and that she reckoned that it was coming to domestic residences too. Darn - we have three in our new house - maybe we needs to close one in and call it something else? Link to post Share on other sites
rigger 47 Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 We pay per toilet. It pisses me off ( ) that we have three of the bloody things and a lot of the time there's only two of us in the house. Notify council that you only use one toilet and that you have temporarily disconnected the other two as you no longer have children living at home. Might cost a bit to get them reinstated but.... Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.