Thieving banks act as agents for thieving councils:

11 Responses to Thieving banks act as agents for thieving councils:

1. The Gantt Guy says:

   November 20, 2012 at 11:55

   Thank you Helen Clark and the Local Government Act 2002. From my reading of the Act, the banks don’t have a choice. Not suggesting they’re *not* thieving bastards, just saying the law says they gotta hand over the money to Council.

   I wonder if this provision, or any part of the LGA2002, applies to Maori Land?
2. KG says:

   November 20, 2012 at 12:45

   “I wonder if this provision, or any part of the LGA2002, applies to Maori Land?”
   I very much doubt it. :rant
   Whatever the law says, this is still theft and it also removes the right of ratepayers to withhold money from corrupt councils. But don’t worry–that nice smiling Mr Key will amend or repeal the Act.
   • The Gantt Guy says:

     November 20, 2012 at 13:01

     You’re operating under the mistaken (but quaint) notion that homeowners actually own their homes. In fact they don’t; they merely rent them from their local council and/or their bank.

     The simple fact is local government is where theft and corruption begin. Councils are much more corrupt than central government, because they can reach out to you very directly, in ways central government can’t.
     • KG says:

       November 20, 2012 at 13:05

       Ain’t that the truth!
3. Darin says:

   November 20, 2012 at 14:42

   Ah the joys of being a property owner Renter never end.

   Here the tax assessor puts a laughable appraisal on the property and taxes based on that,not what the market value really is.My shack was appraised for $125,000,by shack I mean 40 year old wood frame farm house in bad need of a remodel.Of course I complained to which the assessor said it was a fair value.I said fine,then cut me a check for it if you think it’s so great :rant I’m still waiting for it by the mailbox.
   • Anonymous says:

     November 20, 2012 at 16:18

     Haha, good one Darin. My rates went up 33% this year (but capped by legislation at 10% increase for, I think, 3 years. So year 4 will be a doozy). Thanks Len.

     PS So does the renter pay the rates/land tax in the US of A? Or are you just having a laff?
     • Darin says:

       November 20, 2012 at 16:58

       Just pointing out that we “property owners” don’t really own anything do we?We just pay rent to the government in the form of property taxes.
       Property rights were among the first rights to come under attack from the progressive arseholes here.I live in one of the more conservative states and even here real estate tax is deeply ingrained.The county school board can raise rates %5 per year with no vote or even consent of the county board all in the name of edukastion.

       As far as renters in the classical form they pay real estate taxes indirectly through the landlord’s assessment which is higher by the way since it’s rental property.The irony being one of the most common bleats from the progs is concerning the “lack of affordable housing for poor and minority families”
       • jonno1 says:

         November 21, 2012 at 10:59

         Point taken Darin. Property taxes (called rates here in NZ) are just the tip of the iceberg – try getting a building consent for even a minor alteration; the consent fees are horrendous. As for a new section – reserve contributions etc add at least $40k to the land cost before even thinking about building. One of my sons is a builder and drainlayer so he knows a bit about this stuff.

         Mind you, if the council bought my house at market value and rented it back to me for $5k/year I’d be very happy as it has a market rental value of at least $80k! I’d even continue to maintain it at my own expense.

         The MUL (metropolitan urban limit) is another point of contention in Auckland. The intensification brigade want it retained and are pushing for high rise apartments near railway stations etc, while the sprawlers want it pushed out. Now I think both extremists have their points, eg the intensifiers also point to brownfield development (old industrial sites rezoned as residential) which is quite a good idea, except the infrastructure isn’t up to it so there would be a lot of external costs (ie on ratepayers). OTOH greenfields development is relatively cheap and easy to achieve, although the intensifiers point to increased travel time and costs, which may or may not be valid depending on proximity to places of work.

         There’s another argument raging here about “affordable housing”, meaning entry level housing. The problem is that when comparing today’s entry level house of say 200m2 with a fully landscaped section, with a 70s house of 90m2, 3 beddy, 1 bathroom, no garage, in a sea of mud, the difference in size and quality is often overlooked (my first house was that 90m2 box in a sea of mud, in an outer suburb. OK, my current house is 4x the size in a central location with fewer occupants, but I think I’ve earned it, haha. I guess I’m lucky, although I’ve noticed that the harder I work the luckier I get).

         Anyway, the cost difference isn’t as stark when comparing like with like, it’s just that expectations have shot through the roof. Current interest rates are also much lower than in those early years, which can of course be another trap for the unwary.

         I guess this rant has gone a bit off topic, but too bad!
         • The Gantt Guy says:

           November 21, 2012 at 14:13

           Sir Bob on the “affordable housing” myth

           http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10848596
     • jonno1 says:

       November 21, 2012 at 10:07

       Sorry, wasn’t meant to be anonymous.
4. KG says:

   November 21, 2012 at 12:07

   Good rant, Jonno. Very informative. :cheers