If we can find ways to put extra dollars in people’s pockets, particularly those low and middle-income earners who are doing it tough, then we’re prepared to do so.
God I hope its in the from of cash transfer. Just give people money, it’s fuckinf easy ans economically sound. In fact more evidence is coming forward that’s the best thing to do.
The hosuing is a problem not because of lack of money but because of artificially depressed supply. Buy land and reduction it. LVT. Stop the limit on floor level. So many things can be done, just increase supply. The only thing that happens in Australia is supply is kept low and demand is kept high with immigration, just means the land owners make more money.
Big sums of one-off money are a great spectacle, but they have negative short-term impacts (likely to cause another spike to inflation) and negligible long-term benefits as once the funds are spent it’s just a return to the status-quo.
A more aggressive tax-cut for the lowest band, as well as a boost to services offered to those same people (rent assistance, dietary stipends to promote healthier foods etc.) funded by the top-end of town are the best long-term solution- but they don’t cause anywhere near the same level of media ‘splash’ as a “free” $1K would.
Tax cuts I can get behind. The other things I do not agree with. Like I said economists are pushing more and more for cash transfers not for payments on behalf of others. That’s just saying some economist miles away knows how a person needs to spend their money better than them. If you give them cash individuals can spent it on what they need to spend it on, not what you think they need to spend it on.
A lot of things your propose are just market distortion which isn’t good.
What you call ‘market distortions’ are at times the only other means of getting additional money into the hands of low income earners.
If someone’s already paying $0 in income tax, either because they are on disability payments, a student, or caring after a loved one - then providing them with supplemental rental and nutritional payments are sometimes the only thing standing between them becoming unhoused and going hungry.
Let’s say they live with a family member for free or they have a small allotment. Maybe they don’t need rental help or food help. By giving them that they might not get what they really need. They might need gas money, or small starter money for a business or an eduction certificate.
Money still allows them to do what they want but also more. That’s why cash is becoming more popular. It has more value for the same cost to government
God I hope its in the from of cash transfer. Just give people money, it’s fuckinf easy ans economically sound. In fact more evidence is coming forward that’s the best thing to do.
The hosuing is a problem not because of lack of money but because of artificially depressed supply. Buy land and reduction it. LVT. Stop the limit on floor level. So many things can be done, just increase supply. The only thing that happens in Australia is supply is kept low and demand is kept high with immigration, just means the land owners make more money.
Not having Australia Day is just stupid. Come on.
Big sums of one-off money are a great spectacle, but they have negative short-term impacts (likely to cause another spike to inflation) and negligible long-term benefits as once the funds are spent it’s just a return to the status-quo.
A more aggressive tax-cut for the lowest band, as well as a boost to services offered to those same people (rent assistance, dietary stipends to promote healthier foods etc.) funded by the top-end of town are the best long-term solution- but they don’t cause anywhere near the same level of media ‘splash’ as a “free” $1K would.
I don’t mean one off payments.
Tax cuts I can get behind. The other things I do not agree with. Like I said economists are pushing more and more for cash transfers not for payments on behalf of others. That’s just saying some economist miles away knows how a person needs to spend their money better than them. If you give them cash individuals can spent it on what they need to spend it on, not what you think they need to spend it on.
A lot of things your propose are just market distortion which isn’t good.
What you call ‘market distortions’ are at times the only other means of getting additional money into the hands of low income earners.
If someone’s already paying $0 in income tax, either because they are on disability payments, a student, or caring after a loved one - then providing them with supplemental rental and nutritional payments are sometimes the only thing standing between them becoming unhoused and going hungry.
Not if you just give them money.
They can still buy food or rent with that money.
Let’s say they live with a family member for free or they have a small allotment. Maybe they don’t need rental help or food help. By giving them that they might not get what they really need. They might need gas money, or small starter money for a business or an eduction certificate.
Money still allows them to do what they want but also more. That’s why cash is becoming more popular. It has more value for the same cost to government