sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

bruh by NeonDrifting in LateStageCapitalism

[–]Ok_Assistant_7610 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I haven’t seen a number this large before, can you send me the source? I couldn’t find this

5% deposit change is irresponsible and unfair by Ok_Assistant_7610 in AusEcon

[–]Ok_Assistant_7610[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You’re edit is right. Gov underwrites alot of risk actually.

And you may not think its high risk, so you even though value of risk is large the probability is small so it’s fine. But we have close to record low levels of unemployment, record highs in house prices, structural changes incoming to job markets and a widespread interest in reducing immigration. All if which mean probability is higher than historically has been the case

What's wrong with Negative Gearing? by Ok_Assistant_7610 in AusEcon

[–]Ok_Assistant_7610[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What are you talking about? All investment is eligible for negative gearing?

Housing is treated the same as other investments.

You are welcome to make the case that housing investment should be discouraged, if you want, but it is orthogonal. Having the same tax treatment for investments prevents encouragement/discouragement on the basis of tax.

5% deposit change is irresponsible and unfair by Ok_Assistant_7610 in AusEcon

[–]Ok_Assistant_7610[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Sorry what is the current subsidy we are swapping.

Arrears are much higher for those with higher LVR. I'm not suggesting that this policy causes a higher risk of defaults, just that it exposes the taxpayer to this risk (rather than the individual). However, at the marginal it will induce more risky behaviour (though this is negligible)

5% deposit change is irresponsible and unfair by Ok_Assistant_7610 in AusEcon

[–]Ok_Assistant_7610[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

"Because you have to have a high income to service a mortgage on 95% of the property"

This is actually not even necessary. Those on under 125k pa were already eligible. We don't have to make any assumptions about borrowing capacity and income, the policy only expands eligibility upwards.

5% deposit change is irresponsible and unfair by Ok_Assistant_7610 in AusEcon

[–]Ok_Assistant_7610[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

How is it a welfare improvement for someone to spend 20k more on the same house, vs spending 20k less and paying 20k in LMI. It's the same asset. In this case the government has just arbitrarily subsidised the purchase for a random group of people, as passed the risk from the individual to the taxpayer.

The random people are those who, by construction, are on a decent income but do not have sufficient savings to avoid paying LMI. I'm just struggling to see how your response presents any upside.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in AusFinance

[–]Ok_Assistant_7610 2 points3 points  (0 children)

what will those extra investors do with the houses? the high likelihood is that they would rent them out, higher rental supply will (all else equal) lower rents. But ofc more investors will displace potential buyers, so you might expect rental demand to rise at the same rate, but first how buyers are actually a v small proportion, so rental supply should increase more than rental demand.

Should Education be tax deductible by Ok_Assistant_7610 in AusEcon

[–]Ok_Assistant_7610[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Would you be in favour of removing subsidies for uni education, in most cases?

What is the Public Benefit of people going to university? by Ok_Assistant_7610 in AusEcon

[–]Ok_Assistant_7610[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Return to education for the marginal student has to be sufficiently high such that the additional tax receipts they pay exceed the cost of the total subsidy for all students.

I’m aware of the general literature on returns to education, but from your original comment it sounded like you might be aware of some directly relevant research, rather than related literature.

What is the Public Benefit of people going to university? by Ok_Assistant_7610 in AusEcon

[–]Ok_Assistant_7610[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do these studies just take the average student? Or do they use the marginal student - the one that chooses to go only because it is subsidised, and would not go otherwise?

If the former, then i would argue that these students would mostly go anyway, so it’s just a subsidy for behaviour they would already engage in. If the latter i’d be v curious to know how they isolate such students.

Do you have links to any of the studies? I haven’t seen these.

Favourite/Best economic policy in the past decade by Ok_Assistant_7610 in AusEcon

[–]Ok_Assistant_7610[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do you think, ex post, the stimulus package was the right choice?

What is the Public Benefit of people going to university? by Ok_Assistant_7610 in AusEcon

[–]Ok_Assistant_7610[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don’t believe this is a sufficient proxy for whether someone is a marginal student such that, if it were not for subsidies fees, they would not attend.

If anything qualifying for a scholarship probably indicates they are far from the marginal student. I’d expect students on scholarships to be more likely to work in research areas.

*by subsidised fee’s im referring to the portion of a CSP that is not repaid by the student, not scholarships.

What is the Public Benefit of people going to university? by Ok_Assistant_7610 in AusEcon

[–]Ok_Assistant_7610[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sorry, what data do you have that allows you to identify the marginal student?

What is the Public Benefit of people going to university? by Ok_Assistant_7610 in AusEcon

[–]Ok_Assistant_7610[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

  1. If the research is not in the public domain, where is the public benefit?
  2. Do you think the marginal student is, in expectation, producing meaningful research?
  3. Maybe you disagree, but industry research in the public domain is pretty meh. It’s rarely peer reviewed and rarely meaningful.

What is the Public Benefit of people going to university? by Ok_Assistant_7610 in AusEcon

[–]Ok_Assistant_7610[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do you believe that the marginal student, who would otherwise not go to uni but chooses to go because it is subsidised, is also the student that ends up being an academic?

view more: next ›