Anthony Albanese - How long? -2-

[Carn The Berries]

Jim Chalmers has questions to answer in his role as Treasurer. But all Sarah Ferguson did was grandstand the other night.

It was embarrassing.

Her interviewing technique was horrendous (as it was last year) but the essence of what she was asking was legitimate. She asked Chalmers how putting more money in people's pockets would lower demand (and hence inflation) and all he did was defer to Treasury without actually giving an answer to the question.

 

[nut]

Since when?

Debt = money

Increase debt you increased money supply and increase the economy.
Tax cuts help fuel the Ponzi scheme.

 

[nut]

That may all be true, but Chalmers stood up on Budget night and said that the measure would be COUNTER inflationary. I cannot fathom how they have come to this conclusion. That is the rod that he has made for his own back.

Because power costs are one of the items in the inflation basket…
If you superficially reduce the cost of power for everyone then you put downward pressure on inflation.

 

[Ohitsthatguy]

That may all be true, but Chalmers stood up on Budget night and said that the measure would be COUNTER inflationary. I cannot fathom how they have come to this conclusion. That is the rod that he has made for his own back.

If inflation continues to fall as is predicted he can claim it all he likes, he won't be wrong

 

[peetoo]

Because power costs are one of the items in the inflation basket…
If you superficially reduce the cost of power for everyone then you put downward pressure on inflation.

Ah the inflation basket. I wonder what portion of household expenditure was housing costs when it was conceived?

If the full portion was in the basket, then increasing interest rates thereforehousing costs most certainly would not bring the number ‘inflation’ down, probably the opposite?

Does increasing interest rates increase inflation? Actual inflation not the spot price of bananas

Folk can opt to not buy bananas when they are overpriced, housing cannot be avoided

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

Ah the inflation basket. I wonder what portion of household expenditure was housing costs when it was conceived?

If the full portion was in the basket, then increasing interest rates thereforehousing costs most certainly would not bring the number ‘inflation’ down, probably the opposite?

Does increasing interest rates increase inflation? Actual inflation not the spot price of bananas

Folk can not buy bananas when they are overpriced, housing cannot be avoided

All true mate but these are the measures that are used, rightly or wrongly.

The RBA has missed a number of tricks in it's "war" on inflation.

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

That may all be true, but Chalmers stood up on Budget night and said that the measure would be COUNTER inflationary. I cannot fathom how they have come to this conclusion. That is the rod that he has made for his own back.

I guess my overarching point is this fight over what the impact of $300 per household will be is a red herring.

I think it would be disingenuous for Chalmers to claim a win on this one if inflation continues to fall in the same way as it would be disingenuous for the coalition to claim a victory should the opposite happen.

We are talking about $2.40 per person per week. It will have zero impact on inflation.

 

[Carn The Berries]

Because power costs are one of the items in the inflation basket…
If you superficially reduce the cost of power for everyone then you put downward pressure on inflation.

That's absolute f***ng BS... Artificially reducing the cost of one item in the basket does absolutely nothing to reduce overall inflation if that money still goes back into the economy, it just appears somewhere else.

I suspect Jimmy boy well knows this, and is peddling this line on semantics (that the contribution of power costs to inflation will go down).

 

[Carn The Berries]

If inflation continues to fall as is predicted he can claim it all he likes, he won't be wrong

He's hung his hat on it being at or below 3% by the end of the year. I suspect he will be watching the numbers very closely come early Feb, when they're likely to be released.

If it's not there, he will have put an unnecessary target on his back.

 

[Carn The Berries]

I guess my overarching point is this fight over what the impact of $300 per household will be is a red herring.

I think it would be disingenuous for Chalmers to claim a win on this one if inflation continues to fall in the same way as it would be disingenuous for the coalition to claim a victory should the opposite happen.

We are talking about $2.40 per person per week. It will have zero impact on inflation.

I don't think you can look at the 2 the same. Chalmers stood there and said this was a measure to help reduce inflation and that the expectation was that it will fall to at or below 3% by the end of the year. If it doesn't, I think the LNP are well within their rights to say "but you introduced this payment and said it would help fix inflation, but it didn't".

There was no need for him to make such a claim

 

[nut]

Ah the inflation basket. I wonder what portion of household expenditure was housing costs when it was conceived?

If the full portion was in the basket, then increasing interest rates thereforehousing costs most certainly would not bring the number ‘inflation’ down, probably the opposite?

Does increasing interest rates increase inflation? Actual inflation not the spot price of bananas

Folk can not buy bananas when they are overpriced, housing cannot be avoided

We are playing in the game controlled by the Banks.

 

[Gralin]

Spend a bit more into education, health and general public services and you probably don't need to spend as much on social security and welfare

But that'd take time

Something like half of that going on aged care, associated services and welfare supplements for healthcare.

16% of it is the NDIS


Leaving maybe 30% for pension, jobseeker, youth allowance etc

Raising welfare payments would improve health outcomes and downstream impact on health services

As would adding dental and mental health care

More should be spent on education and health for sure though

 

[Millky95]

Something like half of the $36b is going on aged care, associated services and welfare supplements for healthcare.

Another $6b on NDIS


Leaving maybe $10b for pension, jobseeker, youth allowance etc

Raising welfare payments would improve health outcomes and downstream impact on health services

As would adding dental and mental health care

More should be spent on education and health for sure though

Tbf, I thought a bunch of that was under health already

 

[Gralin]

Tbf, I thought a bunch of that was under health already

They lump it all in together so people think it's welfare payments but aged care is the biggest social security cost

And a lot of that ends up as profits for private homes that treat staff and patients badly

 

[Gralin]

Albo evicting a tenant at budget time in a housing crisis when they did **** all about it in the budget sure is a choice

At least he's on the record officially as not giving a shit with his responses to questions

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

I don't think you can look at the 2 the same. Chalmers stood there and said this was a measure to help reduce inflation and that the expectation was that it will fall to at or below 3% by the end of the year. If it doesn't, I think the LNP are well within their rights to say "but you introduced this payment and said it would help fix inflation, but it didn't".

There was no need for him to make such a claim

No, I don't see it in that way at all. Chalmers did not stipulate that this and this alone would mean inflation would fall to below 3% by the end of the year. It's a small lever amongst a number of other things.

Only an idiot would make such a claim and only a moron would use it against him. And again, it's a red herring. If inflation goes up (or indeed doesn't drop as quickly as expected) it will have 3/5th of stuff all to do with this measure in isolation. Most of the working population is about to receive thousands of dollars in tax cuts and we are focusing on $300?

It would be mathematically impossible for such a miserly amount to have very much impact on inflation either way.

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

Albo evicting a tenant at budget time in a housing crisis when they did heck all about it in the budget sure is a choice

At least he's on the record officially as not giving a s**t with his responses to questions

Come on mate, he's been a good landlord according to his tenants. If his arrangements change and he wants to sell his investment property then why shouldn't he be able to? Are you really expecting him to hold on to the property just to appease the tenants he has thus far been very accommodating of?

It's an outrageous thing to hang the PM on when you have so much more credible material.

 

[peetoo]

Come on mate, he's been a good landlord according to his tenants. If his arrangements change and he wants to sell his investment property then why shouldn't he be able to? Are you really expecting him to hold on to the property just to appease the tenants he has thus far been very accommodating of?

It's an outrageous thing to hang the PM on when you have so much more credible material.

It’s one more first home owner?

 

[Carn The Berries]

No, I don't see it in that way at all. Chalmers did not stipulate that this and this alone would mean inflation would fall to below 3% by the end of the year. It's a small lever amongst a number of other things.

Only an idiot would make such a claim and only a moron would use it against him. And again, it's a red herring. If inflation goes up (or indeed doesn't drop as quickly as expected) it will have 3/5th of stuff all to do with this measure in isolation. Most of the working population is about to receive thousands of dollars in tax cuts and we are focusing on $300?

It would be mathematically impossible for such a miserly amount to have very much impact on inflation either way.

Of course he didn't, but why would you give your opponents political ammunition though by claiming that people having more money to spend is counter inflationary? It won't be the sole reason for inflation not getting to 3% (should it not) but it would be part of the cause.

Don't forget, the government also claimed that their changes to Stage 3 tax cuts would have no impact on inflation. There's no way known they can stand up and say that the extra money being pumped into the economy hasn't had something to do with the inflation result.

 

[The Punter]

Come on mate, he's been a good landlord according to his tenants. If his arrangements change and he wants to sell his investment property then why shouldn't he be able to? Are you really expecting him to hold on to the property just to appease the tenants he has thus far been very accommodating of?

It's an outrageous thing to hang the PM on when you have so much more credible material.

I'm going to hazard a guess that Gralin thinks there should be no such thing as an investment property. Maybe even property ownership of any nature.

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

Of course he didn't, but why would you give your opponents political ammunition though by claiming that people having more money to spend is counter inflationary? It won't be the sole reason for inflation not getting to 3% (should it not) but it would be part of the cause.

Don't forget, the government also claimed that their changes to Stage 3 tax cuts would have no impact on inflation. There's no way known they can stand up and say that the extra money being pumped into the economy hasn't had something to do with the inflation result.

The bolded is true but is also something that puts Dutton and his mates in a very sticky position if it does impact inflation. They can't very well do much to hurt Labor there regardless of the outcome. They stuck the Stage 3 tax cuts in there and would be on very shaky (and immoral) ground if they decide to shoot the ALP for allocating more to those who need it.

I agree that they can play the energy rebate card but they'd only be playing to the idiots who both vote for them anyway and look for any reason to bash the other mob. But it's hardly likely to get much traction outside of that.

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

I'm going to hazard a guess that Gralin thinks there should be no such thing as an investment property. Maybe even property ownership of any nature.

 

[Gralin]

I'm going to hazard a guess that Gralin thinks there should be no such thing as an investment property.

correct

Maybe even property ownership of any nature.

incorrect

I also find that the people being in charge of legislation around home ownership and investments also being a group with one of the highest representation of property investors to be a bad thing

to fix the problem they have to legislate against their own self interests

 

[The Punter]

I also find that the people being in charge of legislation around home ownership and investments also being a group with one of the highest representation of property investors to be a bad thing

to fix the problem they have to legislate against their own self interests

TBH, I tend to agree, but its hard for elected officials to legislate in all sort of areas without effectively removing themselves from many aspects of the real world. If they are in any way interested in improving their wealth situation, it's hard to do without owning shares in companies or property. And their salaries incentivises trying to improve their wealth situation.

 

[Gralin]

Come on mate, he's been a good landlord according to his tenants. If his arrangements change and he wants to sell his investment property then why shouldn't he be able to? Are you really expecting him to hold on to the property just to appease the tenants he has thus far been very accommodating of?

It's an outrageous thing to hang the PM on when you have so much more credible material.

he was a "good landlord" and "accomodating" until it wasn't what he wanted to be

90 days to find a new rental isn't as much as it sounds like and losing the place you live because the owner wants to sell is pretty shit though of course very common

but my point was that

a) its an example of how insecure housing is in this country that you can be living somewhere for 4 years, paying what $30-35k a year for the privilege and get told to you gotta be out in 90 days because the owner decides they want to do something else

b) His responses to questions showed a complete lack of empathy for anyone struggling with housing security and acted like he wasn't personally responsible in any way shape or form for the current situation


and no, I'm not suggesting its all his fault, there have been decades of action from politicians from both major parties that have got us here, but Albo has been in one of those parties for decades so he is part of the system that has created this situation, and as someone with 3 or 4 investment properties he's certainly not your "mum and dad investor" they love to bang on about


Don't worry though I gave Mehreen Faruqi plenty of shit for being a property developer as well when she was clearing land to put up multiple investment properties a year or two ago

So this isn't an attack on Labor specifically, **** all landlord politicans

they act like they aren't directly part of the problem