Post · bonfire.cafe

Post

@strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz · 2 weeks ago

"Councils will meet [the state-imposed rates cap], because they would be required to meet it under legislation. It will mean that we are saying no to our communities more often, and it will mean that we are deferring projects that they wanted to see go ahead.

But that might be ok, if it means they've got more money in their back pocket, because their rates bills aren't rising at such a significant rate.

#Tamah Alley, 2025

https://www.rnz.co.nz/podcast/focusonpolitics?share=3ca9302f-cf98-42e3-b73c-a13df8cd06a5

(1/?)

#podcasts #RNZ #FocusOnPolitics

Future Sprog

@futuresprog@mastodon.nzoss.nz replied · 2 weeks ago

You’ve got quite a good explainer on rates in your thread.

I think:
Council rates need to go up because of inflation, otherwise we’re getting worse services.

More services should be funded via income tax, otherwise the burden falls heavier on those on fixed incomes than on those currently employed who can afford it.

@strypey

Strypey

@strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz replied · 2 weeks ago

(1/2)

@futuresprog
> You’ve got quite a good explainer on rates in your thread

Thanks, good summary.

> Council rates need to go up because of inflation, otherwise we’re getting worse services

When you factor in inflation, the rates cap will effectively keep rates from rising *at all*. Despite years of being kept unsustainably low, given increasing populations, cost increases imposed by climate change, etc.

Strypey

@strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz replied · 2 weeks ago

(2/2)

@futuresprog
> More services should be funded via income tax

Tax in general. For reasons explained in a number of my recent threads about #LocalGovernment. Devolution of central govt responsibility to councils without ongoing funding being a *major* one.

In at least one thread I proposed that central govt return 50% of income taxes derived from an area to local bodies, and take 50% of the rates take. Then they can devolve functions, cut targeted funding, and cap rates, all they like.

Strypey

@strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz replied · 2 weeks ago

Sir Geoffrey Palmer is also concerned about the erosion of local democracy and towards the end of the interview he talks about giving local bodies guaranteed revenue sources other than rates;

https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/saturday/audio/2019004103/sir-geoffrey-palmer-on-how-to-save-democracy

(1/2)

@futuresprog

RNZ

Sir Geoffrey Palmer on how to save democracy

Sir Geoffrey Palmer outlines a roadmap for democratic renewal, urging people to look to the power of ordinary citizens in effecting change.

Strypey

@strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz replied · last week

Putting this together with Palmer's desire to protect and realise democratic ideals;

https://mastodon.nzoss.nz/@strypey/115733870636990081

I'd really like to see a federal constitution for Aotearoa, which reognises iwi and local bodies as sovereign within their own rohe. This could include localising the right to levy taxes. Leaving central government dependent on income from rates, and seeking funding from iwi and local bodies if it can't "live within its means" ; )

(2/2)

Strypey

@strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz replied · 2 weeks ago

"So that's going to be the tradeoff our communities face."

#TamahAlley, 2025

https://www.rnz.co.nz/podcast/focusonpolitics?share=3ca9302f-cf98-42e3-b73c-a13df8cd06a5

Where council services get cut, outside extractors will fund profit-seeking and rent-seeking businesses to take their place. Soaking up all that new money in their back pocket and more. Especially in places too small for a competitive market in public services formerly provided by councils. Made cheaper for the same reasons Pharmac made drugs cheapest public purchaser negotiation.

(2/?)

Strypey

@strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz replied · 2 weeks ago

Worse the benefits of limiting rates and the costs imposed by public service cuts don't fall equally on everyone. Only property owners get a direct benefit, and ownership is heavily concentrated in 2025 NZ. The more properties someone owns, the more they end up with in their back pocket from limiting rates.

(3/?)

Strypey

@strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz replied · 2 weeks ago

Whereas fixed charges for using infrastructure and accessing services ("users pays") imposes a relatively higher cost on citizens the lower our incomes are.

Say you lived on $1000 a week - just over a 40 hour minimum wage job in 2026 - and I took home $3000 a week - roughly a backbench MP salary - and we both got charged $10 for water. You'd be paying 3 times more of your income for the same water.

(4/?)

Strypey

@strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz replied · 2 weeks ago

Add that disparity to the uneven distribution of the benefits from limiting rates, and that's a massive shift of the payment burden for those infrastructure and services. From from a property owning class and a salaried middle class (often the same people), to renters on lower incomes.

Like almost everything NatACT First have done, it's taking from the poor to give to the rich. A Dark Side Robin Hood. Creating more poverty for purely ideological reasons. Disgraceful.

(5/5)

bonfire.cafe

A space for Bonfire maintainers and contributors to communicate

bonfire.cafe: About · Code of conduct · Privacy · Users · Instances

Bonfire social · 1.0.1-alpha.40 no JS en

Automatic federation enabled