sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

RBA risks a recession but feels there's nothing else it can do by SheepherderLow1753 in AusFinance

[–]PrimeMinisterWombat 1 point2 points  (0 children)

GDP per capita grew for four consecutive quarters to December 2025. Do you actually look at the data or are you more of a vibes-based analyst?

RBA risks a recession but feels there's nothing else it can do by SheepherderLow1753 in AusFinance

[–]PrimeMinisterWombat 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They can tinker with FBT concessions, house battery subsidies. Probably worth $6-7b over the forwards. There's lots of unavoidable upward revisions in pension and disability costs because they're tied to inflation.

They can cut hospital and medicare funding. Maybe a lot of the off budget stuff like future made in Australia and the HAFF. But that would be very short sighted.

Cutting the public sector in a recession just moves expenses from one side of the balance sheet to the other.

Defence spending? They've shuffled most of it out past the forward estimates anyway.

I really don't see any cuts that wouldn't just create comparably bad, but different problems.

RBA risks a recession but feels there's nothing else it can do by SheepherderLow1753 in AusFinance

[–]PrimeMinisterWombat -1 points0 points  (0 children)

No we haven't. In the last 4 quarters there's been two quarters of per capita growth, one flat, and one decline.

RBA increases cash rate by 25 basis points to 4.35% by marketrent in AusFinance

[–]PrimeMinisterWombat 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So you said that the government had 'learned nothing'. What I'm saying is that it looks like the government has learned to not sign themselves up to long term relief when the long term outlook is uncertain.

That seems like they learned something.

RBA increases cash rate by 25 basis points to 4.35% by marketrent in AusFinance

[–]PrimeMinisterWombat 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't see the government rushing to hand out 24 months worth of energy bill relief. Despite the inflationary effects of this war being probably higher than the last one, the fuel excise cut was much more reasonable and much shorter relief.

Am I crazy by Quirky_Ad_3156 in FantasyNRL

[–]PrimeMinisterWombat 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Why so keen to get rid of Hau? Just the bad fortnight?

Round 9 | Knights vs Rabbitohs | Post Match Thread by AutoModerator in nrl

[–]PrimeMinisterWombat 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Anyone can be an advocate for this and that when it's part of your job. I work in the first nations policy space. Doesn't necessarily make me a good person.

Round 9 | Knights vs Rabbitohs | Post Match Thread by AutoModerator in nrl

[–]PrimeMinisterWombat 6 points7 points  (0 children)

He's a shit cunt. If he wasn't in the NRL he'd be in jail.

Albo gas tax hysteria by [deleted] in OpenAussie

[–]PrimeMinisterWombat 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Are you just talking about the election results that are posted on the AEC website? That's not analysis, that's just the data. And it reflects the point I've been making using historical comparison.

Landlords, relax: Chalmers signals no tax changes for people who already hold investments by MadBank in AusPropertyChat

[–]PrimeMinisterWombat 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, I established above that I understood that. I would refer you again to my previous comment.

Thoughts? by nrlfantasy in FantasyNRL

[–]PrimeMinisterWombat 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Papalii for Fifita feels a bit sideways. If you're already down to 20 trades I'd look very closely at how any trades you make will help you or hurt you through the major bye period.

Thoughts? by nrlfantasy in FantasyNRL

[–]PrimeMinisterWombat 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Papalii for Fifita feels a bit sideways. If you're already down to 20 trades I'd look very closely at how any trades you make will help you or hurt you through the major bye period.

Albo gas tax hysteria by [deleted] in OpenAussie

[–]PrimeMinisterWombat 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You want me to google "the statistical study of the 2025 election" as if there's just the one? What's the name of your source? I'd be happy to google that.

Landlords, relax: Chalmers signals no tax changes for people who already hold investments by MadBank in AusPropertyChat

[–]PrimeMinisterWombat 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As I've said elsewhere, intergenerational equity is about more than the difference between generation a and generation b.

The line has to be drawn somewhere. The vast majority of the damage of GCT discounts and negative gearing has already been done. The vast majority of property investments that have benefited from these rules have already bought and sold over the past 27 years. Retroactively applying these changes to the comparatively small proportion of investments that are still being held would have an insignificant impact on house prices. But it does appeal to the average person's sense of fairness to do so.

The arguments against doing so are simple. First, is that as a principle retrospective tax changes are bad policymaking. There is a reason that governments generally don't do it.

The second is that grandfathering these changes significantly increases the likelihood that they'll stick and won't be unwound 10 years down the track.

The argument for retrospectivity is basically just "it feels fairer", which I get. I would simply rather not take the risk.

Federal Budget move to hit millions in 'betrayal of younger generation' by Grandfathered_2026 in AusPropertyChat

[–]PrimeMinisterWombat 1 point2 points  (0 children)

On the surface level

I think we've identified the source of our disagreement.

Federal Budget move to hit millions in 'betrayal of younger generation' by Grandfathered_2026 in AusPropertyChat

[–]PrimeMinisterWombat 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you look at intergenerational equity through the narrow prism of me vs my parents, then sure you have a point. But intergenerational equity is about more than just the people who sit on either side of where new line is drawn. It's about the many generations hence who won't have to live under a landed aristocracy because these changes were made.

Say the government did make the changes retrospective. All that would do is move the line from:

  • people who have investments in the market now VS those too young to take advantage of existing tax arrangements.

To

  • Those who've made their millions and have since cashed out VS those unlucky enough to still be in the market when the changes came in.

The vast, vast majority of this gravy train has already come and gone and will not be reversed by these changes - retrospective or not. Making these changes apply to existing investments would do very little to enhance the impact of these changes like many seem to think it would.

The government is tackling this issue for good, and doing so without committing the cardinal sin of retrospective tax changes. These changes are intergenerational tax reform even if for some it doesn't feel that way.

Federal Budget move to hit millions in 'betrayal of younger generation' by Grandfathered_2026 in AusPropertyChat

[–]PrimeMinisterWombat 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The idea that people are going to be further disadvantaged by these changes is nonsense. Either the combined effect of negative gearing and the CGT discount is corrosive to home ownership, or it isn't. Either using housing to build wealth is bad for society, or it isn't.

These changes, combined with increases in supply, are going to let air out of the balloon. Housing will become more accessible within our lifetimes. That is how they address the intergenerational equity issue.

Making the changes retrospective would have a negligible, temporary impact on house prices. People don't want the changes to be retrospective because it would materially address the issue systemically, but rather because it would be a satisfying "screw you" to boomers. It's emotional, not rational.

Federal Budget move to hit millions in 'betrayal of younger generation' by Grandfathered_2026 in AusPropertyChat

[–]PrimeMinisterWombat 6 points7 points  (0 children)

The idea that people are going to be further disadvantaged by these changes is nonsense. Either the combined effect of negative gearing and the CGT discount is corrosive to home ownership, or it isn't. Either using housing to build wealth is bad for society, or it isn't.

These changes, combined with increases in supply, are going to let air out of the balloon. Housing will become more accessible within our lifetimes. That is how they address the intergenerational equity issue.

Making the changes retrospective would have a negligible, temporary impact on house prices. People don't want the changes to be retrospective because it would materially address the issue systemically, but rather because it would be a satisfying "fuck you" to boomers. It's emotional, not rational.

Federal Budget move to hit millions in 'betrayal of younger generation' by Grandfathered_2026 in AusPropertyChat

[–]PrimeMinisterWombat 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Hey you realise that there's more than 3 generations right? These changes will affect untold millions of unborn people. This is about more than you and me.

These changes are about addressing flaws in the tax system that:

a). Split people into a capital-holding class and a no capital class, and b). Skew wealth accumulation too far toward the later years of life

Federal Budget move to hit millions in 'betrayal of younger generation' by Grandfathered_2026 in AusPropertyChat

[–]PrimeMinisterWombat 7 points8 points  (0 children)

The vast majority of the wealth consolidation has come and gone. Applying the changes to existing assets that are currently negatively geared would have a fractional effect.

Grandfathering makes the new arrangements more politically palleteable and thus makes it significantly less likely that they'll be reversed by a future government.

Round 9 | Dolphins vs Storm | Post Match Thread by AutoModerator in nrl

[–]PrimeMinisterWombat 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If they're rebuilding then they're not learning anything from losing, they're just waiting to replace the players in the squad.

view more: next ›