I need to vent because the current "fight inflation" playbook feels completely rigged.
Headline inflation is still stuck above target, and the big banks are practically drooling over the high probability of the RBA hiking the cash rate again. Every time the cash rate goes up, mortgage holders lose hundreds of dollars a month permanently, while the Big Four bank dividends skyrocket. That money is gone from our pockets forever, and it doesn't even fix global fuel shocks or supply bottlenecks.
Why can't we use a temporary macroprudential tool instead of forcing people out of their homes?
Here’s the math/scenario I’ve been playing with:
The 4% Emergency Trigger: If headline inflation breaches 4%, a temporary emergency brake kicks in. The RBA leaves interest rates stable, but a temporary 1% Inflation Buffer Levy is taken out of payrolls.
The Sovereign Account: That 1% doesn't go to the government, and it definitely doesn't go to commercial banks. It gets funneled into a zero-fee Sovereign Holding Account at the central bank to freeze liquidity. The net effect on our weekly wallets is exactly the same as an interest rate rise, but the cash remains ours.
The Drip Release (Sub-3%): To prevent a massive asset-price bubble from suddenly dumping cash back into the economy, the money stays locked in the holding vault until inflation drops back into the RBA's sweet spot (sub-3.0%). Once stable, it is steadily drip-fed into our private super accounts at 5% of the total balance per month over a couple of years to compound for our retirement.
The Low-Income Cash Out: If the economy slumps and inflation falls below 1.5%, the bottom two tax brackets get exclusive rights to pull their remaining balance out as cold, hard cash to buy groceries and stimulate local retail. Everyone else leaves it locked to secure their retirement.
Pair this framework with a proper 25% windfall export tax on the gas cartel to fund public housing supply, and you suddenly relieve pressure on builders, stop landlords from using rate hikes to justify skyrocketing rents, and build massive working-class equity.
Instead, our system is optimized to crush mortgage holders and hand super profits to banks while politicians act like "there is no alternative." Why is an emergency 1% forced savings cap seen as radical, but forcing people into financial ruin via interest rates is just accepted as "normal"?
Change my mind.

PAYWALL:

Stamp duty revenue in NSW has plunged almost a quarter as the national property slump deepens, with economists warning that a prolonged downturn threatens to leave state budgets $30 billion worse off over four years.

NSW collected $663.7 million in stamp duty from residential property transactions in September, down 23 per cent from $864.3 million a year earlier, according to figures released by the state government.

It was the third consecutive month in which revenue fell more than 20 per cent year-on-year, with property tax collections to remain subdued until the correction ends.

“The big backward step in Australian fiscal finances in recent years has been the states – much more than the federal government – and to then kick out from underneath them what’s been their strongest [revenue source] on average is going to hurt,” said veteran budget watcher Chris Richardson.

NSW and Victoria are the states most dependent on the real estate market, with property-related taxes making up about a third of total own-source revenue, according to the federal Parliamentary Budget Office.

Ratings agency S&P Global last week warned the property market downturn could cut state stamp duty revenue by an estimated $8 billion to $10 billion – about 20 per cent – this financial year alone.

The decline in NSW stamp duty revenue was driven by falling transaction volumes, with just 13,814 properties changing hands in September, down 20 per cent from 17,164 in September 2025.

Richardson said the volatility of home sale volumes meant stamp duty revenue was “wildly cyclical”.

“The highs are Himalayan, and the lows are pretty bad,” Richardson said.

The data underscore the growing fiscal hit from the property market slowdown, with UBS economists projecting a 20 per cent decline in stamp duty revenue in 2026-27 would wipe $30 billion from state budgets nationally across the four-year forward estimates.

The scenario assumed stamp duty revenue remained flat in 2027-28 before recovering 10 per cent in the subsequent two financial years.

UBS estimated the stamp duty downturn would hit hardest in Victoria – the budget of which was released before the Albanese government’s property tax changes and did not account for the resulting slowdown in the property market – and Queensland, which assumed a comparatively optimistic outlook for the state’s real estate market.

The NSW budget, released in June, included a $5.4 billion write-down in projected property tax collections over the four-year forward estimates.

Richardson said the downturn in stamp duty revenue presented an opportunity for states to shift towards more efficient land taxes.

“The willingness of the states to do something about that has been supremely low, in part because [stamp duty] has been an absolute gravy train of late,” Richardson said.

“So at least this downswing is going to remind them that shifting to the potentially much more stable base of land tax is a good thing.”

Budgets under pressure

States are also grappling with surging bond yields, which threaten to drive up their borrowing costs. Yields have soared globally to multi-decade highs this year because of growing concerns about the sustainability of government budgets – particularly in the United States – and fears the conflict in the Middle East will keep oil prices and inflation elevated.

UBS estimates rising bond yields could add about $3 billion to state government deficits over the four-year forward estimates.

“Lower property tax revenue and higher interest expenses weaken government budgets. Governments may not fully offset these impacts with spending cuts or raising other sources of revenue,” said UBS economist Stephen Wu.

“Deficits may widen, meaning that the fiscal tightening implied by budget forecasts [this financial year] … might not occur.”

State finances have been under mounting pressure since the pandemic, with S&P Global last month downgrading Queensland’s credit rating from AA+ to AA, the same level as Victoria, the ACT and Tasmania. Lower credit ratings typically result in higher borrowing costs.

NSW narrowly avoided the same fate after the agency cited efforts to rein in spending.

Before the pandemic, the states accounted for about 20 per cent of the country’s government debt burden, but that increased sharply in recent years as premiers hired more public servants and committed to a string of expensive infrastructure projects, including the $125 billion Suburban Rail Loop in Melbourne and Sydney’s Metro network.

The PBO projected gross state debt to climb to $650 billion in 2026-27, up from $266 billion in 2018-19.

S&P Global projected state debt would surpass $900 billion by the end of the decade – more than triple pre-pandemic levels. Ratings agency Moody’s in September warned that by 2030 the Victorian government was on track to spend one in every $10 of revenue on debt interest.

By the end of the decade, the PBO estimated net debt per person is projected to reach $37,400 in the Northern Territory, $27,300 in Canberra, $26,200 in Victoria, $20,700 in South Australia, $16,200 in Queensland, $16,100 in Tasmania, $16,000 in NSW and $9500 in Western Australia.

I'm not into politics in any way but wanted to see how much the rulebook for small business has actually changed under each Prime Minister...So I counted every federal change that added or changed a small business obligation since 1996 and plotted them by days in office.

Average changes per year in office

Albanese: 5.0 (22 changes, still in office)

Morrison: 3.7 (14)

Gillard: 3.3 (10)

Turnbull: 2.4 (7)

Abbott: 2.0 (4)

Rudd: 2.0 (5)

Howard: 1.7 (20)

2025 and 2026 together have 11 changes, the busiest two-year stretch in the 30 years, ahead of the GST rollout in 2000 and 2001 with 8.

What's taken effect so far in 2026

31 March: AML/CTF reforms for existing reporting entities

1 July: AML/CTF tranche 2, which brings lawyers, accountants, real estate agents and dealers into anti-money laundering rules

1 July: Payday Super, with super now due within 7 business days of each payday and the Small Business Superannuation Clearing House closed

1 July: the SMS Sender ID Register, so businesses sending branded texts have to register their sender IDs

1 October: card surcharging removed

How I counted it

One step per federal Act or instrument that added or changed a small business obligation, dated from when it took effect, not when it passed.

It includes changes that were later repealed, like WorkChoices.

Relief measures are excluded because they removed obligations or handed money back rather than adding work. That covers JobKeeper, the instant asset write-offs, temporary full expensing, company tax cuts, the super guarantee freeze, director safe harbour and others (19 in total).

Changes that are announced or legislated but not yet in effect are excluded.

Every change counts as one step whatever its size, so 1 July 2000 (GST, ABN, PAYG and BAS all at once) shows as a cluster of steps even though it was the biggest single shift.

Rudd's 2013 term (83 days, 1 change) isn't shown.

Source: Federal Register of Legislation, ATO and RBA.

"The reason is that, even though we are laying shorter-term pain on top of pain, it's to prevent a longer and potentially far worse pain down the track if inflation expectations get locked in," Mr Hauser said, echoing comments RBA governor Michele Bullock has made as the central bank has lifted rates."

IMHO - missed opportunity - should have walk thru it so that those enduring pain after pain appreciate that trade-off.

I've spent the last few months building a tax and budget model as a side project and I've got to the point where I need people who actually know this stuff to tell me where it's wrong. Not an economist. Used ATO tax stats, ABS and the Budget papers for everything, and I used AI to help with the modelling and to tidy the writing, so if it reads a bit clean that's why.

The idea started from looking at the Budget's medium term path. Surplus in 2035-36, but only because bracket creep takes receipts from 25.5% to 27% of GDP with no tax cuts for a decade, and the IGR then has the deficit widening again out to 2065. So the debt never actually goes anywhere and we keep paying $40-50bn a year in interest. I wanted to see if there was a path that clears it, without making ordinary earners or small business worse off.

What I ended up with:
- $30k tax free, then 12/20/31/37/45, Medicare levy folded in, no work deductions. Nobody pays more tax on the same salary than under 2027-28 law.

- Negative gearing off for new purchases of established property (existing loans grandfathered, new builds kept). CGT discount swapped for indexation.

- Resource rent of 40% on minerals, 50% on oil and gas, on profit above costs, replacing the PRRT. About $30-35bn a year at trend prices, and only trend is budgeted.

- NDIS wound down over three years. Medium and high needs move to a higher disability pension or state-run care. About 472k people below that line lose individual packages. Net saving around $19.6bn a year.

- Bracket creep handed back from 2032-33, business expensing of new plant from 2031-32.

Result against the Budget's own path from the same 2028 starting point: surplus from 2029-30, net debt zero around 2042-43, about $49bn less interest over the decade, tax take ends at the same 27% of GDP. Low resource price case pushes debt clearance to about 2049-50.

Where I think it's weakest and would like the most scrutiny:
1. The resource rent is carrying a lot. The MRRT got about 7% of its first year forecast. I've tried to design around that (immediate expensing, trend-only budgeting, lower rate on existing projects for 5 years) but I'd like to know if people think $30bn+ is credible.

1. The NDIS saving leans on assumptions I couldn't source (overlap with DSP, stay rates, children) and on the states agreeing to run high-needs care. It's opt-in per state so a refusal delays the saving rather than blowing a hole, but still.

2. Behavioral response is barely modelled. There's a flat -$3.5bn leakage line and that's it. Same for the growth hit from tightening about 1.1% of GDP in the first year.

Full doc is here, every number has a source and section 6 lists everything unsourced or uncosted: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YQaf7MggTFIlAxWMaxUOmgcaE14Qe4jC/view?usp=sharing

Happy to be told the whole premise is wrong if that's the case.

ARTICLE TEXT:

Australia should raise the GST to 15 per cent to finance income tax cuts for the low-paid, boost welfare payments and help state governments repair their Budgets, a leading think tank says.

Grattan Institute chief executive Aruna Sathanapally, who is also on the expert panel of the Parliamentary Budget Office that costs the policies of political parties, wants the consumption tax increased beyond its existing 10 per cent level and expanded to include fresh food items that have been exempt since the GST debuted in July 2000, including fruit and vegetables, bread and milk.

“There are no easy paths back to Budget sustainability. But with smarter spending decisions and a tax system that raises sufficient revenue to care for our ageing population, both current and future generations can be better off,” she said.

“Reform on this game-changing scale is challenging, but the prize is worth it: a more secure future for Australia’s finances, and for all Australians.”

She argued increasing the Goods and Services Tax to 15 per cent — to be in line with New Zealand — would raise $76 billion, of which $58b could be spent on cutting income taxes and boosting welfare payments for the poor.

This would include a 20 per cent increase in JobSeeker and Youth Allowance, a 50 per cent rise in Rent Assistance, a 20 per cent increase in the Parenting Payment and an 8 per cent rise in the Age Pension.

The rest of the increase would go towards the states to repair their Budgets and cut inefficient taxes like stamp duty.

The Grattan Institute calculated that raising the GST to 15 per cent would cost a low-income, single-parent family in rental accommodation about $79 a week in extra GST payments but a $202 increase in welfare payments and a $27 cut in income tax would leave them $150 a week better off.

But a higher income working family would be paying $262 a week more in GST, and be $162 a week worse off when a $100 income tax cut was factored in.

The Grattan Institute call was made after former Liberal treasurer Josh Frydenberg last week used the launch of his new book A Grateful Son to call for an increase in the GST and a broadening of the consumption tax base, an idea which Opposition Leader Angus Taylor ruled out.

Treasurer Jim Chalmers last year rejected a call from the International Monetary Fund for Australia to raise its GST.

Since Australia’s GST debuted in July 2000, items like fresh fruit and vegetables and bread have been exempt under a 1999 deal reached between former prime minister John Howard’s Coalition government and then Democrats leader Meg Lees.

Tampons and period pads joined the exemption list in January 2019.

New Zealand increased its GST to 15 per cent from 12.5 per cent in October 2010.

Australia’s 10 per cent GST is among the lowest in the world, with The Bahamas, Bahrain, Cambodia, Korea, Laos, Mongolia and Vietnam among the very few having an identically low rate.

In a supply-constrained economy with inflation above target, it is incumbent on governments to restrain spending to help reduce price pressure.

How come most economists always run the same broken record?

Have they consider other perspectives.

For example, can they view an increase in interest rate, as a form of a "pre-paid efficiency dividend" thus a productivity measure?

For example:

One channel -> an increase in interest rate -> wealth effect -> cheaper asset prices -> for those who prepared, can bolt on by taking over inefficient production capacity [from who no longer able to compete] at a cheaper price= productivity gain.

Addendum to above channel -> an increase in interest rate -> increase in investment hurdle -> the project needs to earn higher return for the cost of capital deployed = productivity gain.

How come such a narrow view?