by morell » Fri Apr 13, 2018 10:33 am
by morell » Fri Apr 13, 2018 7:15 pm
by mighty_tiger_79 » Fri Apr 13, 2018 10:40 pm
by morell » Sat Apr 14, 2018 4:06 pm
mighty_tiger_79 wrote:Clearly dont work or live in Onka Council....
by mighty_tiger_79 » Sat Apr 14, 2018 4:11 pm
Really?? There are other issues which havent hit the media. Or if they have certainly didnt receive the time they deserved.morell wrote:mighty_tiger_79 wrote:Clearly dont work or live in Onka Council....
One of the biggest media spin beat ups I've ever seen.
by morell » Sat Apr 14, 2018 4:19 pm
by bennymacca » Sat Apr 14, 2018 9:35 pm
by mighty_tiger_79 » Sun Apr 15, 2018 9:27 am
by tryharder » Sun Apr 15, 2018 3:56 pm
morell wrote:Urgh. Liberals and their naff ideas. Their latest one is rate capping. Yes! Rate capping! That’s a grand idea!
No. It’s naff. And a waste of time.
I wish they would call it what it actually is. Rate *increase* Capping. Your rates are not going to go down, nor are they going to even plateau. They’re just going to increase ever so slightly less. Maybe. Unless the council can prove it needs more, which of course the majority of the time it will be able to. The Council I work for is putting up a 3.6% rate increase, that equates to $64 bucks a year more for the average household in our district. Should rate capping come in, that would be at CPI (~2%) I believe, which would mean the increase would be more like $35.
So all this hubbub, all this popularity dog whistling “were easing the cost of living!” is all to potentially save about $35 a year. And I repeat, if we use the NSW model this cap only applies if the Council can’t prove it needs more money. Trust me, that’s a pretty straight forward exercise.
Just as absurd as the minimal impact this policy will have on the lives of home owners, is the complete lack of understanding about how rates are calculated. I swear, the LGA should run ads explaining this.
Rates are called “rates” rather than a tax because they are calculated using a “rate in the dollar”, that rate in the dollar is calculated by adding up all of the years expenses, operational and capital, and then dividing it by the total value of the housing stock in the area (based on the state govs valuations). That figure is then used to multiply against the individual house value, to determine that years rates for that household.
RID = tHV / tB
iR = RID * iHV
RID = Rate in Dollar
tHV = Total House Value
tB = Total Budget
iR = Individual Rates
iHV – Individual House Value
So. If we want to reduce individual rates, how would we do it?
Reduce the rate in the dollar. How do we reduce the rate in the dollar?
Reduce the divisor. What’s the divisor? The total budget.
How do we reduce the total budget? Cut services.
But of course, that wouldn’t be politically kosher.
If we really want to reduce rates, and believe me I do, we have to look at the services Local Government are delivering, and:
1. Shift some of those services to a more efficient sphere of government (often back to where they should belong – such as environmental health and social programs)
2. Change the funding model to a user pays system – want to use the library? Chip in. Want a Youth program? Chip in.
3. Reduce the amount of large regional asset construction.
4. All of the above.
Specifically on #3. There is no way on gods green earth Local Government should be constructing, implementing and managing multimillion dollar regional infrastructure projects. That is where the true cost savings are.
If we did all of those things, the rates bill, based on some rudimentary calcs I did, would drop by 30%. Hundreds of dollars a year for your average household. We could then look at operating cost reduction (wages) through natural attrition and voluntary redundancies and the savings would be astronomical.
So, don’t buy the bullshit Liberal spin, they’re pissing down your neck and telling you it’s raining.
by Dogwatcher » Mon Apr 16, 2018 10:43 am
by morell » Mon Apr 16, 2018 9:18 pm
bennymacca wrote:You think it’s ok for ratepayers to pay for a golf membership?!?!?
by morell » Mon Apr 16, 2018 9:22 pm
Because that would foster a more supportive workplace that appreciates it's employees and ensure high morale. Which in turn would provide a higher functioning worker, which would in turn improve service levels.mighty_tiger_79 wrote:I not talking about much loved staff member...but in any case I dont see why i should be paying for that.
Yeah look I really don't care. If there was anything of notoriety in the investigation, ICAC would be over it. If there is an issue that wasn't part of the investigation, report it to ICAC. It's a massive organisation, there would bound to be something untoward going on, as there would be in every organisation that size.mighty_tiger_79 wrote:I you can keep guessing at what the issues are that havent hit the media.....or if they have its been minimal...
by mighty_tiger_79 » Mon Apr 16, 2018 9:23 pm
But....why am I paying for that?morell wrote:Because that would foster a more supportive workplace that appreciates it's employees and ensure high morale. Which in turn would provide a higher functioning worker, which would in turn improve service levels.mighty_tiger_79 wrote:I not talking about much loved staff member...but in any case I dont see why i should be paying for that.Yeah look I really don't care. If there was anything of notoriety in the investigation, ICAC would be over it. If there is an issue that wasn't part of the investigation, report it to ICAC. It's a massive organisation, there would bound to be something untoward going on, as there would be in every organisation that size.mighty_tiger_79 wrote:I you can keep guessing at what the issues are that havent hit the media.....or if they have its been minimal...
by morell » Mon Apr 16, 2018 9:29 pm
Because that would foster a more supportive workplace that appreciates it's employees and ensure high morale. Which in turn would provide a higher functioning worker, which would in turn improve service levels.mighty_tiger_79 wrote:But....why am I paying for that?morell wrote:Because that would foster a more supportive workplace that appreciates it's employees and ensure high morale. Which in turn would provide a higher functioning worker, which would in turn improve service levels.mighty_tiger_79 wrote:I not talking about much loved staff member...but in any case I dont see why i should be paying for that.Yeah look I really don't care. If there was anything of notoriety in the investigation, ICAC would be over it. If there is an issue that wasn't part of the investigation, report it to ICAC. It's a massive organisation, there would bound to be something untoward going on, as there would be in every organisation that size.mighty_tiger_79 wrote:I you can keep guessing at what the issues are that havent hit the media.....or if they have its been minimal...
Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
by Ronnie » Tue Apr 17, 2018 10:52 am
by am Bays » Tue Apr 17, 2018 11:11 am
morell wrote:Because that would foster a more supportive workplace that appreciates it's employees and ensure high morale. Which in turn would provide a higher functioning worker, which would in turn improve service levels.
Guess what? You pay for the workers *wages* too.
Gasp! Shock! Horror!
by morell » Tue Apr 17, 2018 11:25 am
lol calm down Maude Flanders.Ronnie wrote:Hopefully the Apple watch the ratepayers paid for is helping the CEO keep time. Who could seriously say that particular Council hasn't been taking the ratepayers for a ride, a Council area that includes some suburbs where putting a meal on the table is problematic. It's disgusting.
by morell » Tue Apr 17, 2018 11:31 am
See this is the actual problem. A lack of understanding what his role is.am Bays wrote:morell wrote:Because that would foster a more supportive workplace that appreciates it's employees and ensure high morale. Which in turn would provide a higher functioning worker, which would in turn improve service levels.
Guess what? You pay for the workers *wages* too.
Gasp! Shock! Horror!
In making that statement Morell, I'm sure you've got a statistical listing of the number of Onkaparinga employees the CEO took for a round at Kooyonga, with a filter applied for designation, whilst it was council paid membership (I understand it has since been paid for by the CEO privately).
I wonder if the junior in accounts or parking services got an opportunity, for a bit of informal PRD and team building....
by Booney » Tue Apr 17, 2018 11:37 am
by Booney » Tue Apr 17, 2018 11:41 am
morell wrote:bennymacca wrote:You think it’s ok for ratepayers to pay for a golf membership?!?!?
For the CEO?
Sure. Provided it's used appropriately and there is a defined outcome.
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |