Sub Main Menu
sunshine coast
noosa
coolum
national
world
10:07AM Friday 29 August, 2008 Sunshine Coast weather Possible shower min 12° - max 22°

Landlords hit with 30% rates rise

Landlords hit with 30% rates rise

Kureelpa's Colin Baber, 73, is shocked that rates for his Mapleton rental property have gone up 31%. Photo: Brett Wortman /177214

Some rental property owners have been hit with rates hikes of up to 30%, almost double the average predicted by the council.

Landlords across the Coast will receive their rates notices this week, and some can expect a nasty surprise when they see how much they have to pay.

Colin Baber, who lives at Kureelpa, west of Nambour, was shocked when he opened his rates notice this week.

The charge on his investment property, just down the road at Mapleton, has increased by 31%, meaning he will have to pay an extra $232 a year.

Mr Baber said he had owned the property since 1995 and was paying half-yearly rates of $374.50. That figure has risen to $490.50.

He said he was most concerned about the impact it would have on renters.

“I rent it out to an elderly couple who have been there since 1999 and I have just put the rent up considerably, so I’m reluctant to do it again. But all these little things just keep mounting up and it’s hard all round,” he said.

He said the weekly rent at his property was $320 and although he would not be raising the rent at this stage, the rate hikes had made him think about selling.

“If I sold it, I’d get more for it than what I do in rent and I wouldn’t have the rates to worry about, but I don’t want to put my tenants out because I don’t know where else they’d go.”

Mr Baber said he was expecting higher rates this year, as a result of the council budget, but did not expect them to go up by so much.

“I didn’t think it would be that much, I thought about 10% would’ve been enough,” he said.

Division 10 councillor Paul Tatton said a 30% rates hike was “at the higher end of the scale”.

“There may be some instances where rates have gone up because of the unimproved capital value, but I think the general community will find that ... the rates increase for the average person will be manageable,” he said.

He admitted the rises would affect renters, but said landlords should not raise rents by more than the increase.

“Landlords also need to remember that their rental properties are a tax deduction,” he said.

Mr Tatton said the rates rise was the result of “exorbitant” costs associated with amalgamation, including the fact the council was underpaid $26 million for its water assets.

The council had tried to keep the rates rise as low as possible, he said.

How much have your rates increased by under the new council? Do you think the rise is fair?

Recent Comments

Add a comment
on 24 July, 2008 at 11:36 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
This is a blatant scam and ripoff by the council. If I own one house I pay one set of rates, but if I own more than one I'm treated like I'm some kind of fat cat that the council can gouge.

Let's not forget that this is essentially a cost that will be passed straight on the renters - I DARE the council to try and sell a levy on renters to the public, they wouldn't dare.

As for that stupid line 'rental properties are a tax deduction' - the entire amount is not a tax deduction, and that's not going to help the renter who has his rent raised so the landlord can pay his rates bill.
on 24 July, 2008 at 1:21 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
How can someone complain when by their own admission they have just increased their tenants rent "CONSIDERABLY" This has obviously been a good investment on your part (Capital Gains) and you've got the hide to caplain about less than FIVE dollars a week!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
on 24 July, 2008 at 1:29 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Although wallet72 didn't say so much, I get the impression we are in different positions as I don't have a rental property. However, I agree that the increased cost will STILL be passed straight onto the tennants.

I'm not saying that's wrong either. At the end of the day we're all trying to make money by different ventures. If the costs associated with thos ventures increases, we have to look at passing those costs on to someone else to cover. That's just the way things work.

SCRC ought to have known and realised that. The tax implications are not always as clear and convenient as "well you can claim it as a deduction". Do they really think tennants across the board can cope with further pressure on their rent ? (apparently so)
on 24 July, 2008 at 1:50 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
What a load of Bunkum !

Colin Baber purchased his rental property in 1995, since then he has seen it's value at the very least double ..maybe triple ....all the while obtaining Tax Payer welfare assistance for the privelege of doing so.

Everyone was given fair notice by Big Bob regards the standard 9% hike across the SEQ region and the reasons behind that regardless as owner occupier or landlord.

I find it churlish of any Landlord squealing about the rate rise when they are happy to take the profits in the good times but squeal like stuck pigs when there is a world wide economic squeeze.

Another $464 a year Bob ? that's $306 after the tax writeoff, $14 under one weeks rent ! What about the other 51 weeks and your other Tax write offs ?

Maybe Gordon Gekko had got it right all along ???
on 24 July, 2008 at 1:52 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
and guess who is NOT going to be paying these rises......... Unreal.... talk about making an environment fit for a certain financial class .....
on 24 July, 2008 at 2:18 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
my_2_cents: I don't have a problem with costs being passed on, I have a problem with the double standard and the illogical reasoning behind this.

Why charge more rates for a rental property - does the rental property get more council services? Does it cost the council more?
Wouldn't it have made more sense to increase rates evenly across the board? If a rental property becomes a permanent residence them the council loses income. I'm guessing that the council will then cry poor and up everyone's rates anyway.

Here's an idea - make the rates the same, but make the extra 'non primary residence' portion a levy that the renter has to pay. I bet the council would never do that because it's political suicide, instead we have this sneaky back door way of doing the same thing.
on 24 July, 2008 at 2:37 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Rates have gone up $5 bucks a week, yet the value has gone up a Bazillion % in the last 5-7 years,,

Get real Old Man....cash in the extra abode and go take a Holiday.
on 24 July, 2008 at 3:11 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
How can councillors use tax deductions for rental properties as a means to validate rate rises, and why was the council under paid $26million for it's water assets???
on 24 July, 2008 at 3:12 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
I agree with wallet72, rates are a service fee, and not a tax. Its discrimination to charge extra for people who can't afford their own residence.

I think this rate hike could be challanged.

Are there any solicitors out there who have recieved the rates increase? Perhaps you could assist?
on 24 July, 2008 at 4:24 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Tight-Wallet72

Well why charge more General Rates for any property?

Why is it not based on services alone; and to go one step further why not based on ease of access to those services.

Someone on a large valuable rural residential property out in the Boonies doesn't have convenient availability to all of the services of those in Town. Generally the roads are worse and there's no sewage or water provided either. But if the unimproved land value is quite high then you could be paying twice as much for rates on a vacant piece of land than on a rental unit in the heart of Maroochydore or Caloundra. Now who's getting the better value for their rates ?

Is that then rating properties in an environment fit for a certain financial class ?

If general rates have only gone up by 9% but poor old Col's investment property rates have gone up by 31% then where did the other 22% come from.

Could it possibly be the increase in the unimproved value of his parcel of land in Mapleton?

Maybe he should be blaming DNR for the new valuation ?

or maybe Colin should get onto Captain Bligh and ask for the state legislation to be changed so that everyone get's charged the same for their provided Council services.

But that would be political suicide, what they really need is some sneaky backdoor way of doing the same thing !
on 24 July, 2008 at 4:26 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Maximus is 100% correct. Rates are a service fee and not a tax however they are being applies as a wealth tax. If we apply the logic of some bloggers that "values have gone up a bazillion" then that also applies to owner occupied does it not? If not then this new rates calculation is a tax.
on 24 July, 2008 at 6:34 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Its time to Roll out .............................................................................

.................RATE BUSTERS!!


Don't ever give in to this.
on 24 July, 2008 at 7:32 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
I feel for the renters; they are the ones who will cop the increase... should have been an smaller increase to all properties, rather than to ~30% of them. Nicely put jboast- this is just a wealth tax that will simpily be passed on to those who can least afford it.

Keep an eye on the average weekly rental costs as they continue to be pushed up.
on 24 July, 2008 at 9:43 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
I don't necessarily agree wil you Jeff Boast, a rental property is an ongoing money making investment and would be purely considered as a business venture and so is deemed taxable.

The family home is just that and if sold must be replaced unless of course you're planning on permanently checking out. Owner occupied means you buy into the market and if you sell you would be foolish not to immediately buy back into the same market, unless of course you don't mind being left behind ?

and yes as property prices have been driven up just like share prices have; this has been driven by investor sentiment. Now has an extra $500 a year in rates been the major contributing factor to increased rental costs or is it attributed to the percentage rent yield required due to bloated property prices ?

Sounds like a bunch of greedy individuals screaming about something that they manufactured and took the risk on in the first instance.
on 24 July, 2008 at 11:38 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Be careful Eugene who you call greedy.

I'm not one to complain but the one eyed views I read make my blood boil.
Sure there are those who are taking tenants for a ride and laughing all the way yo the bank - but MANY are not.

Im sure there are other stories like this one.

I had to buy a place out of town cause I couldn't afford one close by - because the place I was renting was being sold. It sold..... and now it is being developed. So I can stay here for a year or so till the development starts. Phew!

I have 3 kids at school in town and we work close by so I haven't moved into our house yet. So its rented out till I really really have to move away from all this convenience
Don't particularly want to commute from out of town with 5 of us consuming all this newly expensive fuel.

Guess what? I have to pay a big mortgage ($?00 bucks per week more than the rent I get) and a big rent for this house to live in and feed 3 kids and now I have to feed this schmuck rate rise.

I don't think that's very fair - do you?

I am sure there are others like me who need to have a home but need to have it rented in order to keep head above water.

Now I will have to put the rent up on my great tenants because I can no longer afford to be charitable (because they look after the place for me) otherwise the kids will go without. (At least the council might be able to grant somebody else a pay rise, though).
(.... Was that to cynical a comment for me to maintain my credibility??.... Ah what the heck this is an emotional topic so well run with that one...)

What does the council propose to do for ones like us I wonder.

So think it through before you label all us HARD WORKING HOUSE OWNERS as greedy.
on 25 July, 2008 at 8:43 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
Ok Flash, ...then just the whingers who are well off or have six houses or purchased years ago and don't appreciate what they have.

Probably only a handful of them anyway ?

Consider yourself un-labelled. ;-P

Maybe you should ask your Councillor for a relaxation on your rating category ?
on 25 July, 2008 at 9:42 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
Eugene, rates are a service provided by the local council for water, garbage and a general contribution to the on going costs of the region. It is based on land values and user pay for water. By applying these different levels of rates it changes their intention from a service to a tax. Wealth has nothing to do with this because in reality a rental property is not occupied 365 days a year and therefore would have less of an impact on services through less water and garbage usage.
It is a tax, plain and simple.
John Boast, Buderim
on 25 July, 2008 at 12:06 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
JBoast, I agree with you in part.

So that would explain why a valuable piece of vacant rural residential land not drawing on any services for 365 days a year, has in the past paid 50% more in general rates than a single occupied unit, using all the services in the heart of town.

So who's getting all the services ?

Makes no sense, no usage, but still paying in full for the unused services.

Can a business, say in financial planning for instance, still charge clients an annual fee even if the clients haven't procured any services in that year? Send out an invoice and see what comes back.

Yes it is a TAX on a profit making enterprise and as is the norm in this world, those who make their wealth off of their society get the admirable pleasure of contributing back to their host; thus redistributing a portion of their good fortune.

Governments at all levels exercise this power.
As a wise old man once said "It is a tax, plain and simple."
on 25 July, 2008 at 12:55 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
As a side issue I believe that the charge for recycle bins has gone up.

Even if it didn't go up , people are entitled to know why Council charges for this service when it is making hundreds of thousands $ each year on the recycling ?

It makes a mockery of Bob's so called green approach when there are fee's on this recycling practice.
Surely not an INCENTIVE for people to recycle.

The $10 recycling rebate should be scrapped (pardon the pun), give everyone a recycle bin, ask them to put them out only when they're full and legislate to spot check and fine people who put designated recycle items in their general waste.

I don't see how we could impose an environmental levy on one hand and not have compulsory recycling on the other....just a wiff of hypocracy.

The whole rating scheme is out of date and doesn't measure up in this modern world.

Maybe Bill Hoffman could run a SCDaily lift out on the current system and see what alternatives may exist ?
on 25 July, 2008 at 6:29 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Good observation about the recycle bins. We put our a packed yellow bin every fortnight and struggle to half fill our green bin each fortnight. Where is the incentive other than in our own satisfaction.
Money will always get in the way of beliefs.
on 25 July, 2008 at 7:38 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
I just came back from the phillipines after a great holiday on Boracay Island. You would not believe how many australians have moved there for retirement . There reason - because they can no longer afford to live in australia. What a over-commercialized , over- governed, over-legislated society we have become. Freedom in a democracy? Yeh RIGHT!
on 26 July, 2008 at 8:54 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
Just a plain, old, mortgage holder here of one property that we live in.

I do think it's wrong to slug owners of rental properties more money. It's wrong to be upping the rates at all. Why? Because I'm fully aware of the ridiculous amounts that the council pays out to contractors. If they did some number-crunching on them, and paid them more realistic tenders then we wouldn't need rate increases for anyone. No-one should begrudge someone making some icing on the cake when they're in business. But sheesh, do we have to pay for the cream and chocolate topping as well? But hey, the contractors can buy up some more rental properties of their own when the current owners have to sell up.

Wake up council, and start running the council as a business would and stop paying top shelf tender prices when there is no need to.
on 27 July, 2008 at 10:31 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Tax or a fee for community services?

It doesn't matter people. The question is whether this rates increase for owners of investment properties is fair and equitable. I am a property investor but I am trying to maintain an objective opinion on this matter and my current opinion is that this increase is probably not fair and equitable.

Firstly, is it fair that a residential tenant (renter) is forced to pay more for the same services as an owner occupier.

Secondly, there are many owner occupiers that rent out a room or a granny flat attached to their properties and obtain extra income. Should these people be "charged" or "taxed" at the higher rate? I suspect that they have not been considered in the equation.

As for those who feel that all landlords are greedy whingers preying upon the less fortunate individuals of society. Property investors are no different to people who invest in shares, they just prefer to spend their money on things that they can control themselves and simply do not want to risk losing financial assets due to some-one elses mistakes or misfortune.

Furthermore, many people blame investors for increasing the price of housing, but they forget who is lending the money. People can only buy as much as the banks are prepared to lend them. It's the lending requirements of financial institutions that are fundamentally responsible for increasing the cost of housing to the current levels.

Now back to the issue at hand>

I suspect that the council has opted to secure the votes of the majority of residents by keeping the rate increases of single property owners as low as possible, albeit at the expense of an electoral minority (landlords and renters).

In my opinion and that of "wallet72" an allround increase would have been far more sensible although probably far less popular with the majority of the electorate. The council is obviously far less concerned with the concept of fairness and equity than it is with keeping the majority of voters onside.

Sadly for renters, if some landlords decide to sell up, and more investors are discouraged from purchasing investment properties it means only one thing - increased competition for dwellings and further increases in rent!

Have your say

We welcome comments on our stories and blogs - after all it's your site. Please note comments should be on-topic and not abusive. Comments are checked before publication.