State Land tax 2011 imposed on Central Coast Council areas NSW

This data discloses the extent State Land Tax (SLT) was imposed in 2011 on rental housing (residential) and business in NSW Central Coast Council Areas of:

  • Gosford
  • Lake Maquarie
  • Newcastle
  • Wyong

The data shows the number of rental housing and business properties liable for SLT and the amount of SLT imposed (data rounded).

Council Residential properties SLT Business properties SLT Total properties Total SLT
Gosford 6041 $25,436,000 2489 $19,290,000 8530 $44,726,000
Lake Macquarie 6138 $8,457,000 2423 $15,520,000 8561 $23,976,000
Newcastle 4613 $9,697,000 2914 $28,892,000 7527 $38,589,000
Wyong 4352 $9,437,000 1841 $13,036,000 6,193 $22,473,000
Total 21,144 $53,027,000 7625 $76,738,000 28,769 $129,765,000

Letter to Barry O’Farrell

 

26th July 2011

Barry O’Farrell

Premier of NSW

Level 40

Governor Macquarie Towers

1 Farrar Place

SYDNEY NSW 2000

 

Dear Premier,

 

Regarding State Land Tax. [SLT]

 

First, congratulations on the Coalitions resounding election success in March and wish you and your government good government for NSW.

 

We have waited the customary period of 100 days before raising some issues and concerns with you about the impact and administration of SLT and would appreciate your response.

 

Michael Baird the member for Manly appointment as State Treasurer was a welcomed change to Labor’s tactic to “quarantine the Treasurer in the Legislative Council, however, after the March election SLT and Superannuation were transferred from the Treasurer to the Hon Greg Pearce MLC Minister for Finance, raising concern your government proposes to continue in part, the previous government tactic. This is disappointing, as Michael Baird indicated a desire to examine the difficulties SLT inflicts on private freehold land, used exclusively as rental housing and small business. Your comment appreciated.

 

Also, to combine SLT and Superannuation in the move to Minister for Finance suggests they are connected or codependent on each other. Is this correct? if so, to what extent are they codependent?

 

The Labor Governments [Bob Carr’s] SLT legacy is. “ The undermining of private Freehold land used exclusively as rental apartment blocks and small business, a deliberate SLT agenda that exacerbated the rental housing crises”.[it continues] Done! While government inversely expressed concern about rental crises, promoting social housing programs and their management groups, also, serves Labors concerns about urban gentrification. In NSW original SEPP 10 council areas, 1000’s of examples exist where Freehold land previously used as private exclusively rental housing, has succumbed to strata subdivision, SLT agenda being a prime factor, consequently, removing this freehold land use as private exclusively rental housing stock.

 

SEPP 10 a government-planning policy intending retention of exclusively rental housing apartment blocks on freehold land failed, primarily, because government SLT policy intending to undermine exclusively rental housing apartment blocks. Despite duplicity of government policy, Labor ensured SLT agenda prevailed, primarily, because it generates and proliferates State property taxes and GST; undermining freehold land, promoting freeholds conversion strata lots. Your comment appreciated.

 

Government involvement in social housing is an essential social safety net, however, when government uses SLT to subvert freehold land use as private rental housing, suggests a strong influence of ideology to socialise rental housing and maybe a reason why social housing groups and are silent about SLT impact on private rental housing.

The Greiner government legislated Company title be treated as strata, allowing each apartment eligible for SLT threshold exemption, acknowledging, SLT impact on freehold company title apartment blocks, NOT exclusively rental apartment blocks.

 

Please, when time permits go to our web www.landtaxforum.com.au . There, SLT “Rates” and Local Council’s land tax “Rates” are compared. Woollahra comparative is posted. From 6284 liable rental properties SLT was $56.2 million. Compared with Woollahra Residential land tax “Rate” from 24128 properties, revenue was $23.03million. Your comment appreciated.

 

Yours Faithfully.


Mike Danzey.


Reg. Real Estate Valuer.

Convener of the Land tax Forum

————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

Reminder Notes

*Regarding the above letter of 26th July 2011 , Premier Barry O’Farrell has been  sent two follow-up reminder letters ,the Premier has not   responded or even acknowledged.


*On 27th January 2012   A reply letter arrived completely evading a  response to questions and information

requested of Premier O’Farrell so obviously constructed by State Treasury filled with typical Treasury obfuscation the previous Labor governments specialised in.It is disappointing

the O’Farrell Government is adopting same misleading tactics .

State Treasury involvement in Land Tax agenda ,has plenty to conceal about State land tax policy and agenda a prime cause  factor in the rental crises .

We will persist  seekingPremier  Barry O’Farrell to respond to explain Liberal policy by responding to information requested.

.

*On 11th April 12   At North Sydney Rotary meeting Barry O’Farrell was given a copy of 26th July 11 asking

when it was sent . When told July 2011 “This is the bane of my life”

I believe he has never seen letter sent off to a Treasury bureaucrats to deal with , specialising in spin and obfuscation.

Now!, the Premier has  personelly accepted

the letter we can expect a full response,also ,what Liberal policy is on SLT,

*15th May 2012 No reply as yet.

*1st July 2012 No reply as yet.

*20th January 2013  Premier O’Farrell has not responded to the letter of july 2011

* 17th April 2013     Premier O’Farrell has not responded despite copy of letter personelly handed to Barry O;Farrell

 

Land Tax Data

The Comparative Graphs

The poll graphs provide a comparison between State Land Tax (SLT) and local council land tax—which most people call “council Rates”.

[we will be posting more comparative graphs soon]

All land values for land taxing in NSW, are set by the Valuer General, (the VG engages private contractors) using a valuation process known as the “statutory mass valuations methodology” that deems all land as vacant land ready to build, for land taxing and set on a common date within each council area.

This valuation process is the instrument the VG must apply when setting each council’s “Valuation Rolls”, which, councils must use to impose council land tax “Rates”.

The council rolls are re-set every three years. State Government also imposes SLT on land value set by the VG, applying the same valuation methodology. For SLT, land values are adjusted annually.

Transparency removed

The intergrity of the mass valuation process was/is seriously damaged when the Carr Government removed public/residents access to council valuation rolls. Removing “transparency” defiled the process, taking away an integral element of the mass valuation methodology intent, to be “transparently open, fair, seeking to equitably distribute the funding of council’s among Rate-payers”.

Removing transparency abolished a long-established element to safe-guard the veracity of the process, by giving resident the right to scrutinise and inspect council valuation rolls, a right that was sacrosanct, until the Carr Government came along.

Only recently The Sydney Morning Herald reported – May 2012 – 9th April /12 by Sean Nicholls, and headed BLOWTORCH APPLIED TO LAND TAX VALUATION raised serious concerns about valuation inconsistencies for land taxing. exposing why the valuation process was/should be transparent.

Taxing Land as vacant, taxes redevelopment value of Land.

By deeming of all land as vacant to set land values for land taxing, effectively, is taxes all private land on re-development value, or future use within each council area. This methodology is called. “Highest and best use valuation”, an economic term, NOT, intended to be a planning term. However, state Treasury has designed SLT agenda to exploit the this valuation methodology,aware it impacts freehold land existing use,accordingly, SLT is used as a ruthless stealth planning weapon,without mandate. In established council areas vacant land is a rare sale, still, “all land is land taxed as vacant ready to build” a planning situation that may not eventuate in 50 years, yet, is taxed today at a rapacious SLT tax rate.

State Treasury aware it exploits the mass Valuation methodology

The NSW Treasury is aware the mass valuation methodology was intended to set Local Government valuation rolls, applying a methodology to impose its land tax “Rates” and seeking the equitable spread of councils’ funding among ratepayers.

Done, basically by councils

  • Council are bound to apply the same land tax “Rate” to all land in same class,
  • Tax land values set from a common base vacant, on the “same date” (Mass Valuation)
  • Council land tax “Rates” are set by locale councillors answerable to their electorates.
  • etc

By contrast, SLT agenda is designed to exploit the mass valuation methodology to selectively disadvantage and undermine freehold land existing use to

  • impact existing use of freehold land
  • promote Freehold land conversion into numerous strata lots
  • generate and compound additional State Property taxes

This is achieved by SLT stealth planning agenda that is not generally appreciated, despite the overwhelming evidence.

It is done by

  • imposing un-pegged SLT selectively on rental housing.
  • applying a rapacious tax rate to impact freehold existing use
  • adjusting taxable land values annually for un-pegged SLT
  • allowing a tax-free threshold before SLT is imposed that advantages and promotes strata lots
  • escalating the SLT tax rate when land value exceeds $2.22 million, increasing the impact on freehold land use for exclusively rental apartment blocks and small business that requires a freehold site.

NSW State Treasury SLT agenda has

  • exacerbated the rental housing crises
  • exacerbated demand for government subsidised rental housing and continues to do so.

Examples expose how a determined SLT agenda is applied to impact Freehold land existing use, showing the extent un-pegged SLT exceeds pegged council residential land tax “Rates”

In 2009, expressed as a percentage:

  • Woollahra 2931%
  • Waverley 1150%.
  • Randwick 912%
  • Parramatta 771%
  • Manly 913%
  • Ku-ring-gai 892%
  • Hornsby 1223%

etc. etc

It is a major concern for this beautiful City of Sydney, that our State Governments has developed a craving to generate and compound additional State property taxes, using SLT to undermine freehold land existing use and promote its conversion into stacked strata housing. That has reached such a degree that the development business that builds strata stack housing, can be described as “the State Treasury construction arm”, generating and compounding additional state property taxes.

For an example, just look at what is occurring to freehold industrial land in the Redfern to Mascot potential ‘Horridor’.

Comparative Graphs

We will be posting up-dated comparative data graphs soon.

PS: Read the our 26th July 2011 letter to NSW Premier Barry O’Farrell.
(No reply from the Premier at 18th May 2012.)

This letter raises the question of SLT revenues connection with State Superannuation.

Mike Danzey
Certified Valuer.