Very much reeks of vote buying. “Hey Australia, look at all this free money we are passing on to you.”
I mean, thanks I guess, but I am already getting a massive benefit from the stage 3 tax cuts. Why not take that $3.5 BILLION and invest it in something that will keep energy prices down for ever, rather than band-aid over it for 12 months. By all means, give the rebate to low income earners and those in real need of it, but people who are not struggling in the slightest should not be getting the rebate.
I guess the government have to play to the lowest common denominator in the voting base. Not all Australians understand that this money isn’t actually free and it will cost us in the long run (every subsequent budget for the next decade is predicted to be in deficit rather than surplus).
Also corporate welfare.
All rent assistance and energy rebates are going to do is drive up the prices.
Exactly the same thing happened with Home Owners Grants; we went from being able to purchase an entry-level house and land for 2 years worth of wages to having to save for 5 years just to have a deposit.
I don’t think enough people are on rent assistance to meaningfully impact inflation (and the maximum amount is quite low even with the increase). I see it more as a politically expedient way to give a small increase to the welfare payments, since it’s an easier sell to people who hate “dole bludgers” (even if the effect is mostly the same) and most people on the payments are renters.
There are enough people who own rentals who will be running their hands together and grinning maniacally.
They have been cranking up their tenants rent to cover their interest rates increases, and now that their tenants are government funded, they can increase rents even more!
Rent assistance claims to be welfare for people who can’t afford to buy their own home, it is actually just welfare for landlords.
I think for the short to medium term energy prices will continue to increase so this is where the rebates will help. The investments to renewable energy are happening but without a war time level effort it’s going to take some time for that to translate to lower prices. And you could argue that people that don’t qualify for welfare but are on low incomes should receive it too, and that it’s simpler and perhaps even less costly to just give it to everyone (due to administration costs from targeting).
On the other hand, I could see all of this bill support disencouraging people from getting rooftop solar and home batteries, and it might have a small effect on inflation (particularly from the wealthy who are already feeling pretty willing to spend). Although it might push some people to electrify more of their home if prices are low, so that could counter that somewhat.
It is almost as if the economists who advise the government don’t understand economics.
If you pay more for a thing, it makes it more expensive, it is Economics 101.
And don’t get me started on the Reserve Bank and interest rates.
“People have too much debt; let’s make their current manageable debt into crippling debt so they can’t survive at all! That will stop them from borrowing more money.”
What’s the point of a rebate? It’s just going to double the impact of price rises next year.
I guess it might give a break (and swing enough votes) long enough to push through more serious long term change.
If it’s not being followed up with anything long term it’s a complete waste.
Very much reeks of vote buying. “Hey Australia, look at all this free money we are passing on to you.”
I mean, thanks I guess, but I am already getting a massive benefit from the stage 3 tax cuts. Why not take that $3.5 BILLION and invest it in something that will keep energy prices down for ever, rather than band-aid over it for 12 months. By all means, give the rebate to low income earners and those in real need of it, but people who are not struggling in the slightest should not be getting the rebate.
I guess the government have to play to the lowest common denominator in the voting base. Not all Australians understand that this money isn’t actually free and it will cost us in the long run (every subsequent budget for the next decade is predicted to be in deficit rather than surplus).
Also corporate welfare. All rent assistance and energy rebates are going to do is drive up the prices.
Exactly the same thing happened with Home Owners Grants; we went from being able to purchase an entry-level house and land for 2 years worth of wages to having to save for 5 years just to have a deposit.
I don’t think enough people are on rent assistance to meaningfully impact inflation (and the maximum amount is quite low even with the increase). I see it more as a politically expedient way to give a small increase to the welfare payments, since it’s an easier sell to people who hate “dole bludgers” (even if the effect is mostly the same) and most people on the payments are renters.
There are enough people who own rentals who will be running their hands together and grinning maniacally. They have been cranking up their tenants rent to cover their interest rates increases, and now that their tenants are government funded, they can increase rents even more!
Rent assistance claims to be welfare for people who can’t afford to buy their own home, it is actually just welfare for landlords.
I think for the short to medium term energy prices will continue to increase so this is where the rebates will help. The investments to renewable energy are happening but without a war time level effort it’s going to take some time for that to translate to lower prices. And you could argue that people that don’t qualify for welfare but are on low incomes should receive it too, and that it’s simpler and perhaps even less costly to just give it to everyone (due to administration costs from targeting).
On the other hand, I could see all of this bill support disencouraging people from getting rooftop solar and home batteries, and it might have a small effect on inflation (particularly from the wealthy who are already feeling pretty willing to spend). Although it might push some people to electrify more of their home if prices are low, so that could counter that somewhat.
It is almost as if the economists who advise the government don’t understand economics.
If you pay more for a thing, it makes it more expensive, it is Economics 101.
And don’t get me started on the Reserve Bank and interest rates. “People have too much debt; let’s make their current manageable debt into crippling debt so they can’t survive at all! That will stop them from borrowing more money.”
I highly doubt the economists in Treasury were advocating for this. It’s 100% a political decision.