SA Footy

Booney wrote:

am Bays wrote:They'll go up but not as much as everyone thinks.

If the squeeze is applied too quickly and excessively the impact will be significant.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-05-02/rba-will-raise-rates-but-not-to-levels-experts-are-predicting/101029534

My bet is another 25 basis points in June and then they'll sit for a while to see the impact. Will go again later in the year but dont think it will be 1.5% by Christmas.

When interest rates hit 0.1 % four years ago (I think it was) we kept paying $200 a month over on our mortgage in Sheidow Park, knowing that the next move was going to be up. I don't think we will be alone in having that buffer. (I know I sound like Psyber )

Official cash rate and bank rates are two different things though.

I am aware of that.

Will not be surprised if the bank rates increases accelerate faster than the official rate. The RB will have a goal of mind on what it will want "retail" or "market" interests rates to be and if he gets there more efficiently than what it needs to do it wont be upset.

“It’s not unreasonable to expect the normalisation of interest rates over the period ahead could see interest rates rise to 2.5%” - Governor Lowe

Surely a lot of people have fixed most of their mortgage in the past 6 - 12 months

Fixed was sub 2% last year

am Bays wrote:They'll go up but not as much as everyone thinks.

If the squeeze is applied too quickly and excessively the impact will be significant.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-05-02/rba-will-raise-rates-but-not-to-levels-experts-are-predicting/101029534

My bet is another 25 basis points in June and then they'll sit for a while to see the impact. Will go again later in the year but dont think it will be 1.5% by Christmas.

When interest rates hit 0.1 % four years ago (I think it was) we kept paying $200 a month over on our mortgage in Sheidow Park, knowing that the next move was going to be up. I don't think we will be alone in having that buffer. (I know I sound like Psyber )

Remains to be seen. Definitely they'll go in June. But I cant see inflation easing at the moment. They'll want to go a bit harder and soon.

Reading the interest rate information makes me I'll.
It was 18% when I bought my first home in 1990.
Fuggin hurt!!!

tigerpie wrote:Reading the interest rate information makes me I'll.
It was 18% when I bought my first home in 1990.
Fuggin hurt!!!

What was a loaf of bread? What was a litre of petrol? What were school fees? What was your weekly shopping bill?

Looking at one aspect is foolhardy.

Booney wrote:

tigerpie wrote:Reading the interest rate information makes me I'll.
It was 18% when I bought my first home in 1990.
Fuggin hurt!!!

What was a loaf of bread? What was a litre of petrol? What were school fees? What was your weekly shopping bill?

Looking at one aspect is foolhardy.

What was his average salary, 28K

am Bays wrote:

Booney wrote:

tigerpie wrote:Reading the interest rate information makes me I'll.
It was 18% when I bought my first home in 1990.
Fuggin hurt!!!

What was a loaf of bread? What was a litre of petrol? What were school fees? What was your weekly shopping bill?

Looking at one aspect is foolhardy.

What was his average salary, 28K

Fore sure, but as noted in the "Shits" thread the cost of living means interest rates and wage comparisons from both eras are almost irrelevant.

Booney wrote:

tigerpie wrote:Reading the interest rate information makes me I'll.
It was 18% when I bought my first home in 1990.
Fuggin hurt!!!

What was a loaf of bread? What was a litre of petrol? What were school fees? What was your weekly shopping bill?

Looking at one aspect is foolhardy.

How much was a long neck of southwark bitter ?

Does anyone else think there are a lot more "vote such n such" in the Senate posters around than ever before

Jimmy_041 wrote:

RB wrote:I'd be interested to see the report you are referring to.

Removing deductions would not raise taxable incomes in Australia (i.e. and offset the lower tax rates) by as much as you think.

I appreciate that you had to pick numbers essentially at random for the purpose of your example, but on the figures above you came up with this would vastly reduce the tax base in Australia.

I'm not saying don't explore options to improve the tax system - I'm saying that most Australians desire fiscal conservatism (i.e. not significantly reducing the tax take when we're well in debt) just as much as they desire fairness (or as you call it, 'envy').

You are equating envy with "fairness" not me
Envy is resentment that someone else has something they dont. Nothing, at all, to do with fairness
Envy is someone getting a $30,000 tax reduction under my system but is outraged that Andrew Forrest is getting a $1m tax reduction because he's rich. The fact he still pays $10m in tax means nothing to them (the numbers are rubbery)

Let me put it this way. Why did you select a 30% rate for the top tier income-earners, and then progressively lesser rates for lower income-earners, in your example?

Was it due to envy?

Obviously not. It was because it is common sense for one to be taxed according to one's ability to pay.

Most Australians desire a progressive tax system because this is fair. No resentment involved,

I don't think many would have a big problem with your system, except for the fact that it would vastly reduce the tax take.

RB wrote:

Jimmy_041 wrote:

RB wrote:I'd be interested to see the report you are referring to.

Removing deductions would not raise taxable incomes in Australia (i.e. and offset the lower tax rates) by as much as you think.

I appreciate that you had to pick numbers essentially at random for the purpose of your example, but on the figures above you came up with this would vastly reduce the tax base in Australia.

I'm not saying don't explore options to improve the tax system - I'm saying that most Australians desire fiscal conservatism (i.e. not significantly reducing the tax take when we're well in debt) just as much as they desire fairness (or as you call it, 'envy').

You are equating envy with "fairness" not me
Envy is resentment that someone else has something they dont. Nothing, at all, to do with fairness
Envy is someone getting a $30,000 tax reduction under my system but is outraged that Andrew Forrest is getting a $1m tax reduction because he's rich. The fact he still pays $10m in tax means nothing to them (the numbers are rubbery)

Let me put it this way. Why did you select a 30% rate for the top tier income-earners, and then progressively lesser rates for lower income-earners, in your example?

Was it due to envy?

Obviously not. It was because it is common sense for one to be taxed according to one's ability to pay.

Most Australians desire a progressive tax system because this is fair. No resentment involved,

I don't think many would have a big problem with your system, except for the fact that it would vastly reduce the tax take.

I would prefer a flat rate but the politics of envy would never allow it.
I'm still good for zero up to an amount but Medicare remains at a flat rate for everyone

Remember the old saying before they fixed it: No use working overtime because most of it goes in tax?
My system is the opposite: you wont be penalised for working harder and earning more

Again: the rate is set to ensure that the total tax take (allowing for the loss of deductions) is either the same or more
You could also increase the GST to make up any shortfall (and not give it to the states)

I found some Papers on the subject - I haven't read them yet so i dont know what they are saying
https://www.cis.org.au/wp-content/uploa ... 7/pm66.pdf
https://melbourneinstitute.unimelb.edu. ... 004n05.pdf
https://theconversation.com/progressive ... ngs-142823

This is the one I read before as you will see from my previous comments

https://www.cis.org.au/wp-content/uploa ... 7/pm66.pdf

Clive gets my vote, he's gonna save my house

mighty_tiger_79 wrote:Clive gets my vote, he's gonna save my house

Eat you out of house LOL!!

mighty_tiger_79 wrote:Clive gets my vote, he's gonna save my house

How?

Morrisons Super access for First Home Buyers and Pension access for empty nesters. What a f*cken joke this clown is.

Booney wrote:

mighty_tiger_79 wrote:Clive gets my vote, he's gonna save my house

How?

He said so

Sent from my SM-G781B using Tapatalk

Plibersek had an Albo moment this morning

Sent from my SM-G781B using Tapatalk

mighty_tiger_79 wrote:

Booney wrote:

mighty_tiger_79 wrote:Clive gets my vote, he's gonna save my house

How?

He said so

The 3% thing?