Search

A tax on sugary drinks can make us healthier. It’s time for Australia to introduce one

<div class="theconversation-article-body"><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/peter-breadon-1348098">Peter Breadon</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/grattan-institute-1168">Grattan Institute</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/jessica-geraghty-1530733">Jessica Geraghty</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/grattan-institute-1168">Grattan Institute</a> Sugary drinks cause weight gain and <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41574-021-00627-6">increase the risk</a> of a range of diseases, including diabetes. The <a href="https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2792842">evidence shows</a> that well-designed taxes can reduce sugary drink sales, cause people to choose healthier options and get manufacturers to reduce the sugar in their drinks. And although these taxes haven’t been around long, there are already signs that they are making people healthier. It’s time for Australia to catch up to the rest of the world and introduce a tax on sugary drinks. As our new Grattan Institute <a href="https://grattan.edu.au/report/sickly-sweet/">report</a> shows, doing so could mean the average Australian drinks almost 700 grams less sugar each year. <h2>Sugary drinks are making us sick</h2> The share of adults in Australia who are obese has tripled since 1980, from <a href="https://theconversation.com/mapping-australias-collective-weight-gain-7816">10%</a> to more than <a href="https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/health/health-conditions-and-risks/waist-circumference-and-bmi/latest-release">30%</a>, and diabetes is our <a href="https://www.diabetesaustralia.com.au/about-diabetes/diabetes-in-australia/">fastest-growing</a> chronic condition. The costs for the health system and economy are measured in the billions of dollars each year. But the biggest costs are borne by individuals and their families in the form of illness, suffering and early death. Sugary drinks are a big part of the problem. The more of them we drink, the greater our risk of <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41574-021-00627-6">gaining weight</a>, <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2963518/">developing type 2 diabetes</a>, and suffering <a href="https://academic.oup.com/eurpub/article/31/1/122/5896049?login=false">poor oral health</a>. These drinks have no real nutrients, but they do have a lot of sugar. The average Australian consumes <a href="https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/health/health-conditions-and-risks/apparent-consumption-selected-foodstuffs-australia/latest-release">1.3</a> times the maximum recommended amount of sugar each day. Sugary drinks are responsible for more than one-quarter of our daily sugar intake, more than any other major type of food. You might be shocked by how much sugar you’re drinking. Many 375ml cans of soft drink contain eight to 12 teaspoons of sugar, nearly the entire daily recommended limit for an adult. Many 600ml bottles blow our entire daily sugar budget, and then some. The picture is even worse for disadvantaged Australians, who are more likely to have <a href="https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/health/health-conditions-and-risks/diabetes/latest-release">diabetes</a> and <a href="https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/health/health-conditions-and-risks/waist-circumference-and-bmi/latest-release">obesity</a>, and who also consume the most sugary drinks. <h2>Sugary drink taxes work</h2> Fortunately, there’s a proven way to reduce the damage sugary drinks cause. More than <a href="https://ssbtax.worldbank.org/">100 countries</a> have a sugary drinks tax, covering most of the world’s population. <a href="https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2792842">Research</a> shows these taxes lead to higher prices and fewer purchases. Some taxes are specifically designed to encourage manufacturers to change their recipes and cut the sugar in their drinks. Under these “tiered taxes”, there is no tax on drinks with a small amount of sugar, but the tax steps up two or three times as the amount of sugar rises. That gives manufacturers a strong incentive to add less sugar, so they reduce their exposure to the tax or avoid paying it altogether. This is the best result from a sugary drinks tax. It means drinks get healthier, while the tax is kept to a minimum. In countries with tiered taxes, manufacturers have slashed the sugar in their drinks. In the United Kingdom, the share of products above the tax threshold <a href="https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1003025">decreased dramatically</a>. In 2015, more than half (52%) of products in the UK were above the tax threshold of 5 grams of sugar per 100ml. Four years later, when the tax was in place, that share had plunged to 15%. The number of products with the most sugar – more than 8 grams per 100ml – declined the most, falling from 38% to just 7%. The Australian drinks market today looks similar to the UK’s before the tax was introduced. Health benefits take longer to appear, but there are already promising signs that the taxes are working. Obesity among primary school-age girls has fallen in <a href="https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1004160">the UK</a> and <a href="https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2786784">Mexico</a>. Oral health has also improved, with studies reporting fewer children going to hospital to get their teeth removed in <a href="https://nutrition.bmj.com/content/6/2/243">the UK</a>, and reduced dental decay <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33853058/">in Mexico</a> and <a href="https://www.ajpmonline.org/article/S0749-3797(23)00069-7/abstract">Philadelphia</a>. One <a href="https://www.ajpmonline.org/article/S0749-3797(23)00158-7/fulltext">study from the United States</a> found big reductions in gestational diabetes in cities with a sugary drinks tax. <h2>The tax Australia should introduce</h2> Like successful taxes overseas, Australia should introduce a sugary drink tax that targets drinks with the most sugar: <ul> <li>drinks with 8 grams or more of sugar per 100ml should face a $0.60 per litre tax</li> <li>drinks with 5–8 grams should be taxed at $0.40 per litre</li> <li>drinks with less than 5 grams of sugar should be tax-free.</li> </ul> This means a 250ml Coke, which has nearly 11 grams of sugar per 100ml, would cost $0.15 more. But of course consumers could avoid the tax by choosing a sugar-free soft drink, or a bottle of water. Grattan Institute <a href="https://grattan.edu.au/report/sickly-sweet/">modelling</a> shows that under this tiered tax, Australians would drink about 275 million litres fewer sugary drinks each year, or the volume of 110 Olympic swimming pools. The tax is about health, but government budgets also benefit. If it was introduced today, it would raise about half a billion dollars in the first year. Vested interests such as the beverages industry have fiercely resisted sugary drink taxes around the world, issuing disingenuous warnings about the risks to poor people, the sugar industry and drinks manufacturers. But our new report shows sugary drink taxes have been introduced smoothly overseas, and none of these concerns should hold Australia back. We certainly can’t rely on industry pledges to voluntarily reduce sugar. They have been <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/public-health-nutrition/article/trends-in-sugar-content-of-nonalcoholic-beverages-in-australia-between-2015-and-2019-during-the-operation-of-a-voluntary-industry-pledge-to-reduce-sugar-content/EE662DE7552670ED532F6650C9D56939">weak</a> and misleading, and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/apr/10/sugar-increase-in-fanta-and-sprite-prompts-calls-for-new-tax-on-australia-food-and-drinks-industry">failed to stick</a>. It will take many policies and interventions to turn back the tide of obesity and chronic disease in Australia, but a sugary drinks tax should be part of the solution. It’s a policy that works, it’s easy to implement, and most Australians <a href="https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/9/6/e027962">support it</a>. The federal government should show it’s serious about tackling Australia’s biggest health problems and take this small step towards a healthier future.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/228906/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/peter-breadon-1348098">Peter Breadon</a>, Program Director, Health and Aged Care, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/grattan-institute-1168">Grattan Institute</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/jessica-geraghty-1530733">Jessica Geraghty</a>, Senior Associate, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/grattan-institute-1168">Grattan Institute</a> Image credits: Getty Images This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/a-tax-on-sugary-drinks-can-make-us-healthier-its-time-for-australia-to-introduce-one-228906">original article</a>. </div>

Food & Wine

Australian churches collectively raise billions of dollars a year – why aren’t they taxed?

<div class="theconversation-article-body"> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/dale-boccabella-15706">Dale Boccabella</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/unsw-sydney-1414">UNSW Sydney</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/ranjana-gupta-1207482">Ranjana Gupta</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/auckland-university-of-technology-1137">Auckland University of Technology</a> There’s a good reason your local volunteer-run netball club doesn’t pay tax. In Australia, various nonprofit organisations are exempt from paying income tax, including those that do charitable work, such as churches. These exemptions or concessions can also extend to other taxes, including fringe benefits tax, state and local government property taxes and payroll taxes. The traditional justification for granting these concessions is that charitable activities benefit society. They contribute to the wellbeing of the community in a variety of non-religious ways. For example, charities offer welfare, health care and education services that the government would generally otherwise provide due to their obvious public benefits. The tax exemption, which allows a charity to retain all the funds it raises, provides the financial support required to relieve the government of this burden. The nonprofit sector is often called the third sector of society, the other two being government and for-profit businesses. But in Australia, this third sector is quite large. Some grassroots organisations have only a tiny footprint, but other nonprofits are very large. And many of these bigger entities – including some “megachurches” – run huge commercial enterprises. These are often indistinguishable from comparable business activities in the for-profit sector. So why doesn’t this revenue get taxed? And should we really give all nonprofits the same tax exemptions? <h2>Why don’t churches pay tax?</h2> The primary aim of a church is to advance or promote its religion. This itself counts as a charitable purpose under the <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2013A00100/asmade/text">2013 Charities Act</a>. However, section five of that act requires a church to have only charitable purposes – any other purposes must be incidental to or in aid of these. Viewed alone, the conduct of a church with an extensive commercial enterprise – which could include selling merchandise, or holding concerts and conferences – is not a charitable purpose. But Australian case law and <a href="https://www.acnc.gov.au/for-charities/start-charity/role-acnc-deciding-charity-status/legal-meaning-charity#:%7E:text=Taxation%20Ruling%20(TR)%202011%2F,set%20out%20in%20taxation%20rulings.">an ATO ruling</a> both support the idea that carrying on business-like activities can be incidental to or in aid of a charitable purpose. This could be the case, for example, if a large church’s commercial activities were to help give effect to its charitable purposes. Because of this, under Australia’s current income tax law, a church that is running a large commercial enterprise is able to retain its exemption from income tax on the profits from these activities. There are various public policy concerns with this. First, the lost tax revenue is likely to be significant, although the government’s annual tax expenditure statement does not currently provide an estimate of the amount of tax revenue lost. And second, the tax exemption may give rise to unfairness. A for-profit business competing with a church in a relevant industry may be at a competitive disadvantage – despite similar business activities, the for-profit entity pays income tax but the church does not. This competitive disadvantage may be reflected in lower prices for customers of the church business. <h2>What about taxing their employees?</h2> Churches that run extensive enterprises are likely to have many employees. Generally, all the normal Australian tax rules apply to the way these employees are paid – for example, employees pay income tax on these wages. Distributing profits to members would go against the usual rules of the church, and this prohibition is <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2013A00100/asmade/text">required</a> anyway for an organisation to qualify as a charity. Some churches may be criticised for paying their founders or leaders “excessive” wages, but these are still taxed in the same way as normal salaries. It’s important to consider fringe benefit tax – which employers have to pay on certain benefits they provide to employees. Aside from some qualifications, all the usual <a href="https://www.ato.gov.au/businesses-and-organisations/hiring-and-paying-your-workers/fringe-benefits-tax/how-fringe-benefits-tax-works">fringe benefit tax rules</a> apply to non-wage benefits provided to employees of a church. Just like their commercial (and taxable) counterparts, the payment for “luxury” travel and accommodation for church leaders and employees when on church business will not generate a fringe benefits taxable amount for the church. One qualification, though, is that a church is likely to be a <a href="https://www.ato.gov.au/businesses-and-organisations/hiring-and-paying-your-workers/fringe-benefits-tax/fbt-concessions-for-not-for-profit-organisations/fbt-rebatable-employers">rebatable employer</a> under the fringe benefit tax regime. This means it can obtain some tax relief on benefits provided to each employee, up to a cap. <h2>We may need to rethink blanket tax exemptions for charities</h2> Back in an age where nonprofits were mainly small and focused on addressing the needs of people failed by the market, the income tax exemption for such charities appeared appropriate. But in the modern era, some charities – including some churches – operate huge business enterprises and collect rent on extensive property holdings. Many are now questioning whether we should continue offering them an uncapped exemption from income tax, especially where there are questions surrounding how appropriately these profits are used. Debates about solutions to the problem have focused on various arguments. However, more data may be needed on the way charities apply their profits to a charitable purpose, particularly those involved in substantial commercial activities. An all-or-nothing rule exempting the whole charitable sector may no longer be fit for purpose if it fails to take into account the very different circumstances of different nonprofits.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/228901/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/dale-boccabella-15706">Dale Boccabella</a>, Associate Professor of Taxation Law, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/unsw-sydney-1414">UNSW Sydney</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/ranjana-gupta-1207482">Ranjana Gupta</a>, Senior Lecturer Taxation, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/auckland-university-of-technology-1137">Auckland University of Technology</a> Image credits: Getty Images This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/australian-churches-collectively-raise-billions-of-dollars-a-year-why-arent-they-taxed-228901">original article</a>. </div>

Money & Banking

What are heart rate zones, and how can you incorporate them into your exercise routine?

<div class="theconversation-article-body"><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/hunter-bennett-1053061">Hunter Bennett</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-south-australia-1180">University of South Australia</a> If you spend a lot of time exploring fitness content online, you might have come across the concept of heart rate zones. Heart rate zone training has become more popular in recent years partly because of the boom in wearable technology which, among other functions, allows people to easily track their heart rates. <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6537749/">Heart rate zones</a> reflect different levels of intensity during aerobic exercise. They’re most often based on a percentage of your maximum heart rate, which is the highest number of beats your heart can achieve per minute. But what are the different heart rate zones, and how can you use these zones to optimise your workout? <h2>The three-zone model</h2> While there are several models used to describe heart rate zones, the most common model in the scientific literature is the <a href="https://journals.humankinetics.com/view/journals/ijspp/9/1/article-p100.xml">three-zone model</a>, where the zones may be categorised as follows: <ul> <li> zone 1: 55%–82% of maximum heart rate </li> <li> zone 2: 82%–87% of maximum heart rate </li> <li> zone 3: 87%–97% of maximum heart rate. </li> </ul> If you’re not sure what your maximum heart rate is, it can be calculated using <a href="https://www.jacc.org/doi/full/10.1016/S0735-1097%2800%2901054-8">this equation</a>: 208 – (0.7 × age in years). For example, I’m 32 years old. 208 – (0.7 x 32) = 185.6, so my predicted maximum heart rate is around 186 beats per minute. There are also other models used to describe heart rate zones, such as the <a href="https://journals.humankinetics.com/view/journals/ijspp/14/8/article-p1151.xml">five-zone model</a> (as its name implies, this one has five distinct zones). These <a href="https://journals.humankinetics.com/view/journals/ijspp/9/1/article-p100.xml">models</a> largely describe the same thing and can mostly be used interchangeably. <h2>What do the different zones involve?</h2> The three zones are based around a person’s <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.2165/00007256-200939060-00003">lactate threshold</a>, which describes the point at which exercise intensity moves from being predominantly aerobic, to predominantly anaerobic. Aerobic exercise <a href="https://www.healthline.com/health/fitness-exercise/difference-between-aerobic-and-anaerobic">uses oxygen</a> to help our muscles keep going, ensuring we can continue for a long time without fatiguing. Anaerobic exercise, however, uses stored energy to fuel exercise. Anaerobic exercise also accrues metabolic byproducts (such as lactate) that increase fatigue, meaning we can only produce energy anaerobically for a short time. On average your lactate threshold tends to sit around <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.2147/OAJSM.S141657">85% of your maximum heart rate</a>, although this varies from person to person, and can be <a href="https://journals.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/japplphysiol.00043.2013">higher in athletes</a>. In the three-zone model, each zone loosely describes <a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/physiology/articles/10.3389/fphys.2015.00295/full">one of three types of training</a>. Zone 1 represents high-volume, low-intensity exercise, usually performed for long periods and at an easy pace, well below lactate threshold. Examples include jogging or cycling at a gentle pace. Zone 2 is threshold training, also known as tempo training, a moderate intensity training method performed for moderate durations, at (or around) lactate threshold. This could be running, rowing or cycling at a speed where it’s difficult to speak full sentences. Zone 3 mostly describes methods of high-intensity interval training, which are performed for shorter durations and at intensities above lactate threshold. For example, any circuit style workout that has you exercising hard for 30 seconds then resting for 30 seconds would be zone 3. <h2>Striking a balance</h2> To maximise endurance performance, you need to strike a balance between doing enough training to elicit positive changes, while avoiding over-training, injury and burnout. While zone 3 is thought to produce the largest improvements in <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1440244018309198">maximal oxygen uptake</a> – one of the best predictors of endurance performance and overall health – it’s also the most tiring. This means you can only perform so much of it before it becomes too much. Training in different heart rate zones improves <a href="https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=38c07018c0636422d9d5a77316216efb3c10164f">slightly different physiological qualities</a>, and so by spending time in each zone, you ensure a <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/bf00426304">variety of benefits</a> for performance and health. <h2>So how much time should you spend in each zone?</h2> Most <a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fspor.2023.1258585/full">elite endurance athletes</a>, including runners, rowers, and even cross-country skiers, tend to spend most of their training (around 80%) in zone 1, with the rest split between zones 2 and 3. Because elite endurance athletes train a lot, most of it needs to be in zone 1, otherwise they risk injury and burnout. For example, some runners accumulate <a href="https://journals.humankinetics.com/view/journals/ijsnem/22/5/article-p392.xml?content=pdf">more than 250 kilometres per week</a>, which would be impossible to recover from if it was all performed in zone 2 or 3. Of course, most people are not professional athletes. The <a href="https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/physical-activity">World Health Organization</a> recommends adults aim for 150–300 minutes of moderate intensity exercise per week, or 75–150 minutes of vigorous exercise per week. If you look at this in the context of heart rate zones, you could consider zone 1 training as moderate intensity, and zones 2 and 3 as vigorous. Then, you can use heart rate zones to make sure you’re exercising to meet these guidelines. <h2>What if I don’t have a heart rate monitor?</h2> If you don’t have access to a heart rate tracker, that doesn’t mean you can’t use heart rate zones to guide your training. The three heart rate zones discussed in this article can also be prescribed based on feel using a simple <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1600-0838.2004.00418.x">10-point scale</a>, where 0 indicates no effort, and 10 indicates the maximum amount of effort you can produce. With this system, zone 1 aligns with a 4 or less out of 10, zone 2 with 4.5 to 6.5 out of 10, and zone 3 as a 7 or higher out of 10. Heart rate zones are not a perfect measure of exercise intensity, but can be a useful tool. And if you don’t want to worry about heart rate zones at all, that’s also fine. The most important thing is to simply get moving.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/228520/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/hunter-bennett-1053061">Hunter Bennett</a>, Lecturer in Exercise Science, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-south-australia-1180">University of South Australia</a> Image credits: Getty Images This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-are-heart-rate-zones-and-how-can-you-incorporate-them-into-your-exercise-routine-228520">original article</a>. </div>

Body

Stamp duty is holding us back from moving homes – we’ve worked out how much

<div class="theconversation-article-body"><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/nick-garvin-1453835">Nick Garvin</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/macquarie-university-1174">Macquarie University</a> If just one state of Australia, New South Wales, scrapped its stamp duty on real-estate transactions, about 100,000 more Australians would move homes each year, according to our <a href="https://e61.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Stamp-duty-effects-on-purchases-and-moves.pdf">best estimates</a>. Stamp duty is an unquestioned part of buying a home in Australia – you put your details in an online mortgage calculator, and stamp duty is automatically deducted from the amount you have to contribute. It’s easy to overlook how much more affordable a home would be without it. That means it’s also easy to overlook how much more Australians would buy and move if stamp duty wasn’t there. The 2010 Henry Tax Review found stamp duty was <a href="https://treasury.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-10/afts_final_report_part_2_vol_1_consolidated.pdf">inequitable</a>. It taxes most the people who most need to or want to move. The review reported: "Ideally, there would be no role for any stamp duties, including conveyancing stamp duties, in a modern Australian tax system. Recognising the revenue needs of the States, the removal of stamp duty should be achieved through a switch to more efficient taxes, such as those levied on broad consumption or land bases." But does stamp duty actually stop anyone moving? It’s a claim more often made than assessed, which is what our team at the <a href="https://e61.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Stamp-duty-effects-on-purchases-and-moves.pdf">e61 Institute</a> set out to do. We used real-estate transaction data and a natural experiment. <h2>What happened when Queensland hiked stamp duty</h2> In 2011, Queensland hiked stamp duty for most buyers by removing some concessions for owner-occupiers at short notice. For owner-occupiers it increased stamp duty by about one percentage point, lifting the average rate from 1.26% of the purchase price to 2.27%. What we found gives us the best estimate to date of what stamp duty does to home purchases. A one percentage point increase in stamp duty causes the number of home purchases to decline by 7.2%. The number of moves (changes of address) falls by about as much. The effect appears to be indiscriminate. Purchases of houses fell about as much as purchases of apartments, and purchases in cities fell about as much as purchases in regions. Moves between suburbs and moves interstate dropped by similar rates. With NSW stamp duty currently averaging about <a href="https://conveyancing.com.au/need-to-know/stamp-duty-nsw">3.5%</a> of the purchase price, our estimates suggest there would be about 25% more purchases and moves by home owners if it were scrapped completely. That’s 100,000 moves. Victoria’s higher rate of stamp duty, about <a href="https://www.sro.vic.gov.au/rates-taxes-duties-and-levies/general-land-transfer-duty-property-current-rates">4.2%</a>, means if it was scrapped there would be about 30% more purchases. That’s another 90,000 moves. <h2>Even low headline rates have big effects</h2> The big effect from small-looking headline rates ought not to be surprising. When someone buys a home, they typically front up much less cash than the purchase price. While stamp duty seems low as a percentage of the purchase price, it is high as a percentage of the cash the buyer needs to find. Here’s an example. If stamp duty is 4% of the purchase price, and a purchaser pays $800,000 for a property with a mortgage deposit of $160,000, the $32,000 stamp duty adds 20%, not 4%, to what’s needed. If the deposit takes five years to save, stamp duty makes it six. A similar thing happens when an owner-occupier changes address. If the buyer sells a fully owned home for $700,000 and buys a new home for $800,000, the upgrade ought to cost them $100,000. A 4% stamp duty lifts that to $132,000. Averaged across all Australian cities, stamp duty costs about <a href="https://e61.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Stepped-on-by-Stamp-Duty.pdf">five months</a> of after-tax earnings. In Sydney and Melbourne, it’s six. <h2>Stamp duty has bracket creep</h2> This cost has steadily climbed from around <a href="https://e61.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Stepped-on-by-Stamp-Duty.pdf">six weeks</a> of total earnings in the 1990s. It has happened because home prices have climbed faster than incomes and because stamp duty has brackets, meaning more buyers have been pushed into higher ones. Replacing the stamp duty revenue that states have come to rely on would not be easy, but a switch would almost certainly help the economy function better. The more that people are able to move, the more they will move to jobs to which they are better suited, boosting productivity. The more that people downsize when they want to, the more housing will be made available for others. Our findings suggest the costs are far from trivial, making a switch away from stamp duty worthwhile, even if it is disruptive and takes time.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/225773/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/nick-garvin-1453835">Nick Garvin</a>, Adjunct Fellow, Department of Economics, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/macquarie-university-1174">Macquarie University</a> Image credits: Getty Images This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/stamp-duty-is-holding-us-back-from-moving-homes-weve-worked-out-how-much-225773">original article</a>. </div>

Money & Banking

"There's no way": Man receives $52 billion tax bill

An American man has been left confused after receiving a letter from the government claiming he owed $52 billion in unpaid taxes. Barry Tangert got two letters in the mail from the state of Pennsylvania, opening the first to find a refund check from the federal government for over $900. His joy was short-lived though as he opened the second letter to find the income billing notice from the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue claiming that he owed a jaw-dropping $52,950,744,735.28 ($34,576,826,561.47 AUD). “I knew it was an obvious blunder. I don’t even make over $100,000 a year, so there’s no way I could owe anywhere near that,” Barry Tangert told local outlet News 8. The total sum was so large it didn’t even fit on a single line on the document. Tangert immediately knew it was a mistake, with the astonishing number being more than triple the $11 billion America’s richest man Elon Musk says he owed the government in 2022. How the error made it all the way to his doorstep is still a mystery to Tangert. “I don’t know if it was a computer glitch in the transmission or if it was an input error from my tax preparer,” Tangert said, noting that his tax preparer filed an amendment after noticing an error on his 2022 return. He reached out to the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue’s customer service line, which also provided little help to the baffled man. “The first thing he said was, ‘You had a good year.’ And I said, ‘I wish,’” Tangert said. Fortunately, the state department has since resolved the issue, which it chalked up to wrong numbers simply being put into the system. Image credits: WGAL News 8

Money & Banking

Australians are having fewer babies and our local-born population is about to shrink: here’s why it’s not that scary

<div class="theconversation-article-body"><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/amanda-davies-201009">Amanda Davies</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/the-university-of-western-australia-1067">The University of Western Australia</a> Australians are having fewer babies, so many fewer that without international migration our population would be on track to decline in just over a decade. In most circumstances, the number of babies per woman that a population needs to sustain itself – the so-called <a href="https://www.who.int/data/gho/indicator-metadata-registry/imr-details/123">total fertility rate</a> – is 2.1. Australia’s total fertility rate dipped below 2.1 in the late 1970s, moved back up towards it in the late 2000s (assisted in part by an improving economy, better access to childcare and the introduction of the <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-the-baby-bonus-boost-looks-like-across-ten-years-81563">Commonwealth Baby Bonus</a>), and then plunged again, hitting a low of <a href="https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/population/population-projections-australia/2022-base-2071#assumptions">1.59</a> during the first year of COVID. <hr /> <iframe id="CHdqj" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" style="border: none;" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/CHdqj/3/" width="100%" height="400px" frameborder="0"></iframe> <hr /> The latest population projections from the Australian Bureau of Statistics assume the rate remains near its present 1.6% for <a href="https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/population/population-projections-australia/2022-base-2071#assumptions">the next 50 years</a>. An alternative, lower, set of assumptions has the rate falling to 1.45 over the next five years and staying there. A higher set of assumptions has it rebounding to 1.75 and staying there. A comprehensive study of global fertility trends published in March in the medical journal <a href="https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(24)00550-6/fulltext#%20">The Lancet</a> has Australia’s central case at 1.45, followed by a fall to 1.33 by the end of the century. Significantly, none of these assumptions envisages a return to replacement rate. The bureau’s central projection has Australia’s population turning down from 2037 in the absence of a boost from migration. <hr /> <iframe id="oi55c" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" style="border: none;" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/oi55c/3/" width="100%" height="400px" frameborder="0"></iframe> <hr /> It’s easy to make guesses about reasons. Reliable contraception has been widely available for 50 years. Rents, mortgages and the other costs facing Australians of child-bearing age appear to be climbing. It’s still <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-12-17/career-or-baby-michelle-battersby-pregnancy-gender-/103186296">difficult to have a career</a> if you have a child, and data show women still carry the substantive burden of <a href="https://theconversation.com/mind-the-gap-gender-differences-in-time-use-narrowing-but-slowly-191678">unpaid work around the home</a>. The US fertility rate has fallen <a href="https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/children-per-woman-un?tab=chart&time=1950..latest&country=OWID_WRL%7EUSA%7EAUS">much in line with Australia’s</a>. Reporting on <a href="https://theconversation.com/us-birth-rates-are-at-record-lows-even-though-the-number-of-kids-most-americans-say-they-want-has-held-steady-197270">research</a> into the reasons, Forbes Magazine succinctly said a broken economy had “<a href="https://fortune.com/2023/01/12/millennials-broken-economy-delay-children-birthrate/">screwed over</a>” Americans considering having children. More diplomatically, it said Americans saw parenthood as “<a href="https://fortune.com/2023/01/12/millennials-broken-economy-delay-children-birthrate/">harder to manage</a>” than they might have in the past. <h2>Half the world is unable to replace itself</h2> But this trend is widespread. The <a href="https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(24)00550-6/fulltext#%20">Lancet study</a> finds more than half of the world’s countries have a fertility rate below replacement level. <a href="https://theconversation.com/chinas-population-shrinks-again-and-could-more-than-halve-heres-what-that-means-220667">China</a>, which is important for the global fertility rate because it makes up such a large share of the world’s population, had a fertility rate as high as 7.5 in the early 1960s. It fell to 2.5 before the start of China’s <a href="https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-economy/article/3135510/chinas-one-child-policy-what-was-it-and-what-impact-did-it">one-child</a> policy in the early 1990s, and then slid further from 1.8 to 1 after the policy was abandoned in 2016. <hr /> <iframe id="idC4X" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" style="border: none;" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/idC4X/3/" width="100%" height="400px" frameborder="0"></iframe> <hr /> South Korea’s fertility rate has dived further, to the world’s lowest: <a href="https://time.com/6488894/south-korea-low-fertility-rate-trend-decline/">0.72</a>. The fertility rate in India, which is now <a href="https://www.un.org/development/desa/dpad/publication/un-desa-policy-brief-no-153-india-overtakes-china-as-the-worlds-most-populous-country/">more populous than China</a>, has also fallen <a href="https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN?page=&locations=IN">below replacement level</a>. Most of the 94 nations that continue to have above-replacement fertility rates are in North Africa, the Middle East and Sub-Saharan Africa. Some, including Samoa and Papua New Guinea, are in the Pacific. Most of Asia, Europe and Oceania is already below replacement rate. <h2>A changing world order</h2> The largest high-fertility African nation, <a href="https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/09/the-world-population-in-2100-by-country/">Nigeria</a>, is expected to overtake China to become the world’s second-most-populous nation by the end of the century. But even Nigeria’s fertility rate will sink. The Lancet projections have it sliding from 4.7 to <a href="https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(24)00550-6/fulltext#%20">1.87</a> by the end of the century. The differences mean the world’s population growth will increasingly take place in countries that are among the most vulnerable to environmental and economic hardship. Already economically disadvantaged, these nations will need to provide jobs, housing, healthcare and services for rapidly growing populations at a time when the rest of the world does not. On the other hand, those nations will be blessed with young people. They will be an increasingly valuable resource as other nations face the challenges of an ageing population and declining workforce. <h2>An older world, then a smaller world</h2> Global fertility <a href="https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(24)00550-6/fulltext">halved</a> between 1950 and 2021, shrinking from 4.84 to 2.23. The latest projections have it sinking below the replacement rate to somewhere between 1.59 and 2.08 by 2050, and then to between <a href="https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(24)00550-6/fulltext">1.25 and 1.96</a> by 2100. The world has already seen peak births and peak primary-school-aged children. In <a href="https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(24)00550-6/fulltext">2016</a>, the world welcomed about 142 million live babies, and since then the number born each year has fallen. By 2021, it was about 129 million. The global school-age population aged 6 to 11 years peaked at around 820 million in <a href="https://www.un.org/development/desa/dpad/publication/un-desa-policy-brief-no-152-population-education-and-sustainable-development-interlinkages-and-select-policy-implications/">2023</a>. The United Nations expects the world’s population to peak at 10.6 billion in <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/national/the-planet-s-population-will-get-to-10-4-billion-then-drop-here-s-when-we-reach-peak-human-20231213-p5er8g.html">2086</a>, after which it will begin to fall. Another forecast, produced as part of the impressive <a href="https://www.healthdata.org/research-analysis/gbd">Global Burden of Disease</a> study, has the peak occurring two decades earlier in <a href="https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30677-2/fulltext">2064</a>, with the world’s population peaking at 9.73 billion. <h2>Fewer babies are a sign of success</h2> In many ways, a smaller world is to be welcomed. The concern common <a href="https://theconversation.com/a-long-fuse-the-population-bomb-is-still-ticking-50-years-after-its-publication-96090">in the 1960s and 1970s</a> that the world’s population was growing faster and faster and the world would soon be unable to feed itself has turned out to be misplaced. Aside from occasional blips (China’s birth rate in the <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/1973601">Year of the Dragon</a>) the fertility trend in just about every nation on Earth is downwards. The world’s population hasn’t been growing rapidly for long. Before 1700 it grew by only about <a href="https://ourworldindata.org/population-growth-over-time">0.4% per year</a>. By 2100 it will have stabilised and started to fall, limiting the period of unusually rapid growth to four centuries. In an important way, lower birth rates can be seen as a sign of success. The richer a society becomes and the more it is able to look after its seniors, the less important it becomes for each couple to have children to care for them in old age. This is a long-established theory with a name: the <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4116081/">demographic transition</a>. For Australia, even with forecast immigration, lower fertility will mean changes. The government’s 2023 <a href="https://treasury.gov.au/publication/2023-intergenerational-report">Intergenerational Report</a> says that whereas there are now 3.7 Australians of traditional working age for each Australian aged 65 and over, by 2063 there will only be 2.6. It will mean those 2.6 people will have to work smarter, perhaps with greater assistance from artificial intelligence. Unless they decide to have more babies, which history suggests they won’t.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/228273/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/amanda-davies-201009">Amanda Davies</a>, Professor and Head of School of Social Sciences, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/the-university-of-western-australia-1067">The University of Western Australia</a> Image credits: Getty Images This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/australians-are-having-fewer-babies-and-our-local-born-population-is-about-to-shrink-heres-why-its-not-that-scary-228273">original article</a>. </div>

Family & Pets

What to expect from the federal budget

There's just three weeks left until Treasurer Jim Chalmers unveils the federal budget. With the cost of living crisis still a major issue across the country, we can expect to see some policies aimed at alleviating the pressure. Some policies, have already been announced and here are a few others that we can expect to hear from Chalmers on May 14. Stage 3 cuts announced in January, will form a key part of this year's budget, which will direct more benefit towards low- and middle-income earners – although Australians on high salaries will still receive a tax cut. The decision was made to alleviate the cost-of-living pressures and partly address the bracket creep. The cuts lower the threshold for the lowest two brackets (so they pay less tax on that income), and raise the threshold for the highest two brackets (so they need to earn more to be taxed at a higher rate). This means that someone with average income of around $73,000 will get $1504, but how much you actually receive will depend on your income. The new version of the stage 3 cuts will come into effect on July 1. Superannuation will be paid on government-funded parental leave, with the change due to kick in for parents with babies born after July 1, 2025. They will receive a 12 per cent superannuation on top of their government-funded parental leave, with around 180,000 families expected to benefit from it. The figures will be included in the May 14 budget. Although nothing has been officially announced, there will likely be HECS-HELP debt relief for current and former students. "I think there's a range of areas where we need to do much better with the younger generation, and HECS is one of them," Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said on radio on April 18. "We've received a review of that... and what that has said is that the system can be made simpler and be made fairer. "We're examining the recommendations and we'll be making announcements pretty soon on that. We, of course, have a budget coming up." There have also been some hints from the government that energy bill relief will continue in this year's budget. "Our government understands that for small business – as for Australian families – energy bills remain a source of financial pressure," Albanese said, citing the existing policy that gives eligible families up to $500 off their power bills and eligible small businesses up to $650. "Our government understands that for small business – as for Australian families – energy bills remain a source of financial pressure," he said. "That's why the energy bill relief package I negotiated with the states and territories delivered up to $650 in savings for around 1 million small businesses, along with 5 million families. "And as we put together next month's budget, small businesses and families will again be front and centre in our thinking." Energy bills are also set to go down, or remain stable for the most part from July 1. Image: Getty

Money & Banking

Survey unveils Aussies thoughts on tourism tax

Earlier this year, Bali launched a controversial tourism tax, which meant that every traveller entering the island would have to pay a $15 fee, which the Indonesian province have said will be used for environmental and cultural projects. Now, Aussies have shared their thoughts on introducing a similar system here, and survey results have revealed that many are keen for the tourism tax to be introduced here. Travel provider InsureandGo conducted the survey and found that 60 per cent of Australians would support the government introducing a tax to combat the rising environmental toll of tourism. "Tourist taxes are a relatively new concept, but as travel demand swells, we are seeing more countries adopt the levy," InsureandGo Chief Commercial Officer Jonathan Etkind said. "What's heartening is that only a minority of 37 per cent of respondents don't support tourism taxes, demonstrating just how many Australians support the concept of sustainable travel." The response comes amid increased sustainability concerns on our flora and fauna, which are being threatened by over-tourism. The tax is particularly supported by younger Aussies aged between 18 to 30, with 73 per cent of them saying yes to tourism taxes. Etkind said that this may be because younger Aussies are typically more aware of the environmental impacts of travel compared to the older generation, who may be less accustomed to the tax. Along with Bali, other cities and countries have started introducing similar fees to combat overtourism, with Venice set to charge day-trippers a fee of 5 Euros ($8.20) per visit. Amsterdam, Netherlands has the highest tourism tax in Europe, with the former 7 per cent hotel tourist levy rising to 12.5 per cent this year. New Zealand also charges international visitors excluding Aussie citizens and permanent residents $25 levy ($32.64 AUD) to address the challenges created by tourism in its conservation areas. Image: Getty

International Travel

Why Mary Poppins has received a new rating 60 years on

Almost 60 years after Mary Poppins was first released, the classic film has been given a new rating by the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC). The BBFC, which regulates films and video content in the country, changed the rating of the 1964 Disney musical last week from U (Universal) to PG (Parental Guidance) because it features a racial slur once used by white Europeans to refer to the native peoples of southern Africa. "Mary Poppins (1964) includes two uses of the discriminatory term 'hottentots'," a BBFC spokesperson said in a statement to CNN. "While Mary Poppins has a historical context, the use of discriminatory language is not condemned, and ultimately exceeds our guidelines for acceptable language at U." The approaching 60th anniversary of the film is what prompted the BBFC to reexamine the film, as it is set to return to UK cinemas in celebration of the milestone. Even as Mary Poppins remains a treasured part of UK culture, the film has long been criticised for the use of blackface. It's partly in this context that the discriminatory language referenced by BBFC appears in the film. In one scene, the eccentric Admiral Boom asks one of the Banks children if he is going on an adventure to "defeat hottentots." Later in the film, as Admiral Boom sees chimney sweeps with soot-blackened faces dancing in the distance, he shouts, "We're being attacked by hottentots!" and orders a cannon to be fired in their direction. "Hottentot" is a derogatory term used by European settlers to refer to Khoikhoi peoples of South Africa and Namibia, according to the Oxford Dictionary reference. Per the new film rating, children of any age can still watch without an adult present, but parents should consider whether the content might upset younger or more sensitive children, a BBFC spokesperson said. Image credits: Disney

Movies

Tax boost announced for 1.2 million people

Low-income earners will receive a tax boost with the Medicare levy threshold set to rise. The income threshold at which taxpayers will have to pay a two per cent Medicare levy will increase by 7.1 per cent, in line with inflation. Currently single people who earn below $24,276 do not have to pay the levy. Under the changes, the two per cent levy only has to be paid by anyone earning over $26,000 The Medicare levy threshold for seniors and pensioners will increase to $41,089, up from the initial benchmark of $38,365. For families, this threshold has increased to $43,486 up from the previous $40,939. Treasurer Jim Chalmers said that the increase was part of the broader measures taken to relieve the increase in cost-of-living. “This will ensure people on lower incomes continue to pay less or are exempt from the Medicare levy,” he said on Tuesday. “It means 1.2 million Australians get to keep a bit more of what they earn.” The boost in the Medicare levy threshold was announced alongside changes to income tax cuts, with those earning under $150,000 set to receive greater benefits. “This is about doing what we responsibly can to ease some of the pressure being felt by Australians right around the country, but especially for people on lower incomes, young people, seniors and women,” Chalmers said. This comes just days after Medicare celebrated it's 40th anniversary, with an exhibition launched at Parliament House. Image: Getty

Money & Banking

Stage 3 stacks up: the rejigged tax cuts help fight bracket creep and boost middle and upper-middle households

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/ben-phillips-98866">Ben Phillips</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/australian-national-university-877">Australian National University</a> The winners and losers from the Albanese government’s <a href="https://treasury.gov.au/sites/default/files/2024-01/tax-cuts-government-fact-sheet.pdf">rejig</a> of this year’s Stage 3 tax cuts have already been well documented. From July 1 every taxpayer will get a tax cut. Most, the 11 million taxpayers earning up to A$146,486, will also pay less tax than they would have under the earlier version of Stage 3, some getting a tax cut <a href="https://theconversation.com/albanese-tax-plan-will-give-average-earner-1500-tax-cut-more-than-double-morrisons-stage-3-221875">twice as big</a>. A much smaller number, 1.8 million, will get a smaller tax cut than they would have under the original scheme, although their cuts will still be big. The highest earners will get cuts of $4,529 instead of $9,075. But many of us live in households where income is shared and many households don’t pay tax because the people in them don’t earn enough or are on benefits. The Australian National University’s <a href="https://csrm.cass.anu.edu.au/research/policymod">PolicyMod</a> model is able to work out the impacts at the household level, including the impact on households in which members are on benefits or don’t earn enough to pay tax. <h2>More winners than losers in every broad income group</h2> We’ve divided Australian households into five equal-size groups ranked by income, from lowest to lower-middle to middle to upper-middle to high. Our modelling finds that, just as is the case for individuals, many more households will be better off with the changes to Stage 3 than would have been better off with Stage 3 as it was, although the difference isn’t as extreme. Overall, 58% of households will be better off with the reworked Stage 3 than they would have under the original and 11% will be worse off. Importantly, there remain 31% who will be neither better off nor worse off, because they don’t pay personal income tax. <hr /> <iframe id="0CWXE" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" style="border: none;" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/0CWXE/4/" width="100%" height="400px" frameborder="0"></iframe> <hr /> But it is different for different types of households. In the lowest-earning fifth of households, far more are better off (13.5%) than worse off (0.2%) with the overwhelming bulk neither better nor worse off (86.3%). <hr /> <iframe id="KC5zy" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" style="border: none;" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/KC5zy/3/" width="100%" height="400px" frameborder="0"></iframe> <hr /> In the highest-earning fifth of households, while more than half are better off (54.4%), a very substantial proportion are worse off (42.3%). Very few (only 3.1%) are neither better nor worse off. <hr /> <iframe id="WSkSL" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" style="border: none;" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/WSkSL/3/" width="100%" height="400px" frameborder="0"></iframe> <hr /> <h2>But high-earning households go backwards on average</h2> In dollar terms, the top-earning fifth of households loses money while every group gains. That’s because although there are more winners than losers among the highest-earning fifth of households, the losers lose more money. The biggest dollar gains go to middle and upper-middle income households with middle-income households ahead, on average, by $988 per year and upper-middle income households by $1,102. The highest-income households are worse off by an average of $837 per year. As a percentage of income, middle-income households gain the most with a 1% increase in disposable income. Lowest income households gain very little, while the highest-income households go backwards by 0.3%. <hr /> <iframe id="kAPmC" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" style="border: none;" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/kAPmC/3/" width="100%" height="400px" frameborder="0"></iframe> <hr /> <h2>The rejig does a better job of fighting bracket creep</h2> And we’ve found something else. The original version of the Stage 3 tax cuts was advertised as a measure to overcome <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-2-main-arguments-against-redesigning-the-stage-3-tax-cuts-are-wrong-heres-why-221975">bracket creep</a>, which is what happens when a greater proportion of taxpayers’ income gets pushed into higher tax brackets as incomes climb. We have found it wouldn’t have done it for most of the income groups, leaving all but the highest-earning group paying more tax after the change in mid-2024 than it used to in 2018. The rejigged version of Stage 3 should compensate for bracket creep better, leaving the top two groups paying less than they did in 2018 and compensating the bottom three better than the original Stage 3. <hr /> <iframe id="YG0cT" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" style="border: none;" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/YG0cT/1/" width="100%" height="400px" frameborder="0"></iframe> <hr /> Not too much should be made of the increase in tax rates in the lowest income group between 2018 ad 2024 because some of it reflects stronger income growth. We find that overall, the redesigned Stage 3 does a better job of offsetting bracket creep than the original. It is also better targeted to middle and upper-middle income households. Having said that, the average benefit in dollar terms isn’t big. At about $1,000 per year for middle and upper-middle income households and costing the budget about what the original Stage 3 tax cuts would have cost, its inflationary impact compared to the original looks modest.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/221851/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/ben-phillips-98866">Ben Phillips</a>, Associate Professor, Centre for Social Research and Methods, Director, Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR), <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/australian-national-university-877">Australian National University</a> Image credits: Shutterstock This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/stage-3-stacks-up-the-rejigged-tax-cuts-help-fight-bracket-creep-and-boost-middle-and-upper-middle-households-221851">original article</a>.

Money & Banking

"Proud to pay more": The billionaires who want to pay more tax

Over 250 millionaires and billionaires have issued an <a href="https://proudtopaymore.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">open letter</a> to global leaders encouraging them to implement wealth taxes to combat the cost-of-living crisis. This comes just as a report by the <a href="https://www.oversixty.com.au/finance/money-banking/shocking-amount-australia-s-richest-people-earn-per-hour" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Oxfam Charity</a> revealed that the global wealth of billionaires have only grown in the last three years despite inflation. The open letter, signed by super-rich individuals from 17 countries, includes signatories like Abigail Disney, the grand-niece of Walt Disney, Succession actor Brian Cox, and American philanthropist and Rockefeller family heir Valerie Rockefeller. They said that they would be "proud to pay more taxes" in order to address the inequality. "Elected leaders must tax us, the super rich," the letter read. "This will not fundamentally alter our standard of living, nor deprive our children, nor harm our nations' economic growth. "But it will turn extreme and unproductive private wealth into an investment for our common democratic future." Austrian heir Marlene Engelhorn is also among the voices demanding that they pay more in taxes. "I've inherited a fortune and therefore power, without having done anything for it. And the state doesn't even want taxes on it," Engelhorn, who inherited millions from her family who founded chemical giant BASF, said. The letter was released just as global leaders gather in Davos, Switzerland for the World Economic Forum. Abigail Disney, whose net-worth is measured at more than $100 million, said that lawmakers need to come together to make a meaningful economic and social change. "There's too much at stake for us all to wait for the ultra rich to grow a conscience and voluntarily change their ways," she said. "For that reason, lawmakers must step in and tax extreme wealth, along with the variety of environmentally destructive habits of the world's richest." A recent <a href="https://static1.squarespace.com/static/63fe48c7e864f3729e4f9287/t/6596bfb943707b56d11f1296/1704378297933/G20+Survey+of+those+with+More+than+%241+million+on+Attitudes+to+Extreme+Wealth+and+Taxing+the+Super+Rich.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">survey</a> of almost 2400 millionaires found that 74 per cent of them supported the introduction of a wealth tax to fund improved public services and deal with the cost-of-living crisis. The open letter also said that one-off donations and philanthropy "cannot redress the current colossal imbalance" of societal wealth. "We need our governments and our leaders to lead," the letter said. "The true measure of a society can be found, not just in how it treats its most vulnerable, but in what it asks of its wealthiest members." Images: Getty

Money & Banking

Five ways to take advantage of rising interest rates to boost your savings

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/fredrick-kibon-changwony-234363">Fredrick Kibon Changwony</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-stirling-1697">University of Stirling</a> With the Bank of England base rate <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-the-bank-of-englands-interest-rate-hikes-are-filtering-through-to-your-finances-210344">currently the highest</a> it has been since early 2008, you may have a valuable opportunity to increase your earnings on pensions, investments and savings accounts. After all, when the central bank raises its main rate – the base rate, which is typically used as a benchmark for loans as well as savings accounts – it is trying to encourage people to spend less and save more. But UK banks and building societies have <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/money/martin-lewis-savings-rates-mortgage-crisis-b2362955.html">recently been accused</a> of letting their savings rates lag the recent rapid rise in the base rate. UK regulator the Financial Conduct Authority has urged these financial firms to offer “<a href="https://www.fca.org.uk/news/press-releases/action-plan-cash-savings">fair and competitive</a>” savings rates in response to the increasing interest rates. Many financial institutions do offer accounts with <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/money/2023/jul/15/uk-savings-accounts-interest-nsi-building-societies-banks-deals">rates of 6% or more</a>. This is good news for avid savers – but only if you keep an eye on the market so you can switch from less competitive products. This is why it’s important to establish a regular savings habit, but many people are unsure about what that should involve. My colleagues and I have studied the <a href="https://dspace.stir.ac.uk/handle/1893/32240">correlation between people’s savings goals</a> (if they have any) and how they invest their money. We also looked at how seeking financial information advice, and being “good with numbers”, both influence this correlation. We analysed data from more than 40,000 individuals in 21,000 UK households from five waves of the Office for National Statistics Wealth and Assets Survey (WAS), conducted between 2006 and 2016. This data captures comprehensive economic wellbeing information and attitudes to financial planning. Our research shows the importance to your finances of setting multiple savings goals, keeping up with financial news, and seeking professional advice. Based on this, here are five research-based ways to make the most of your money. <h2>1. Set specific savings goals</h2> Establishing personal savings goals is one of the first steps most financial institutions and advisers will recommend to their customers, because it’s a good idea to <a href="https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/compoundinterest.asp">save regularly</a>. Plus, our study shows that total financial assets increase in line with the number of savings goals you have, and that setting specific, rather than vague, goals leads to higher performance. Specific savings goals should have an end date, target figure, and even a meaningful name – for example, “£1,000 for 2024 trip to Asia” or “£250 for 2023 Christmas present fund”. This will create tangible reference points that encourage self-control and increase the pain you feel if you fail to meet your goal. <h2>2. Seek professional financial advice</h2> Rather than relying on friends, family and social media for financial advice, speak to an expert. Our research shows households that access professional financial advice were more likely to allocate a higher share of their wealth to stock portfolios than those that rely on friends, family and social media for financial advice. This result was consistent even across different wealth and income levels, with lower earners possibly using products like ISAs to make investments in stocks and shares. Other <a href="https://academic.oup.com/qje/article/134/3/1225/5435538">research shows</a> stock portfolios outperform most other types of investment in the long term. We also found that access to professional financial advice can substitute for setting goals, because your adviser should help you to determine the kinds of products to invest in (which is called asset allocation) for specific timelines and aims. <h2>3. Brush up on your maths</h2> <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-5890.2007.00052.x">Several studies</a> show numerical skills affect how households gather and process information, <a href="https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/a0013114">set goals</a>, perceive risks, and <a href="https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/fedred89&i=791">decide to invest</a> in various financial assets. So, by brushing up on your basic numeracy and financial literacy skills – even with free online videos – you could boost your savings for the long term. Our study shows that individuals with high confidence in their numerical skills tend to have better financial planning habits – such as investing more in stocks and bonds than cash, which carries more risk but also the potential for greater returns. This trend is particularly evident among households with no savings goals, suggesting that numerical ability could compensate for failing to set such goals. <h2>4. Adopt appropriate savings strategies</h2> Diversified stock market portfolios generally outperform bonds and cash savings <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjz012">over longer periods</a>. However, stock markets can be volatile, so putting savings into less risky assets like bonds and cash is wise for savings goals of less than five years. In the longer term, investing across different global stock markets for more than five years can help counteract inflation. And you can access low-cost, diversified investment portfolios via financial products based on indices of stocks or other assets, such as exchange traded funds. <h2>5. Set, monitor and adjust your plan</h2> Free financial planning and budgeting apps can help you save money by tracking your spending and savings goals, and encouraging you to adhere to a budget. Most importantly, once you set savings goals and create a budget, don’t forget about them. Check regularly to see how your savings are building up and to monitor for any spending changes. A growing array of fintech tools can prompt and encourage this kind of long-term planning. Keeping an eye on savings rates is also important. As banks change rates or create new accounts, consider switching to get a better deal if you can do so without falling foul of account closure fees. It’s important to make sure your savings are working for you at any time, but its crucial in the current economy, when finances are tight but interest rates are rising.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/208853/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/fredrick-kibon-changwony-234363">Fredrick Kibon Changwony</a>, Lecturer in Accounting & Finance, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-stirling-1697">University of Stirling</a> Image credits: Shutterstock This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/five-ways-to-take-advantage-of-rising-interest-rates-to-boost-your-savings-208853">original article</a>.

Money & Banking

Why you’re probably paying more interest on your mortgage than you think

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/sander-de-groote-1472267">Sander De Groote</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/unsw-sydney-1414">UNSW Sydney</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/kevin-li-892606">Kevin Li</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/unsw-sydney-1414">UNSW Sydney</a> For most things we buy, the price we are quoted is the price we pay. That’s supposed to be the case even where taxes and fees are involved. Australian law requires anyone selling anything to display a <a href="https://www.accc.gov.au/business/pricing/price-displays">total price</a> that includes all “taxes, duties and all unavoidable or pre-selected extra fees”. But our investigations, which compare the interest rate quoted on our mortgages with the fine print in our own mortgage documents, shows this is hardly ever the case for home loans. Even though we are both trained as accountants, until recently we hadn’t bothered to check – even as interest rates climbed. We assumed the rates we were being told we were being charged (say 5% per year) were the rates we were actually paying. This would be easy enough, and in our view the right thing, for banks to do. <h2>The price quoted usually isn’t the price paid</h2> Mortgage interest is usually charged monthly, but the rates are yearly. This means that each time interest is charged, the outstanding amount <a href="https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/compoundinterest.asp">compounds</a> as interest is applied to interest. That sounds bad enough. But this isn’t our main complaint. It’s that there are two possible ways to calculate the amount of interest. Banks calcualte interest on a daily basis. The most reasonable would be to calculate the daily amount in a way that adds up to an annual amount that matches what was quoted. That way, a 5% rate would really be 5%. Although there’s a bit of <a href="https://cdn.theconversation.com/static_files/files/2814/compound_example.pdf">calculation</a> involved, it’s easy enough for banks to do. <h2>How banks calculate mortgage interest</h2> The other, arguably less reasonable, way is what’s called the “<a href="https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/020614/learn-simple-and-compound-interest.asp">simple</a>” method. Our investigations show that this technique is used by all the big four banks, and probably many others too. It’s called the simple method because it involves simply dividing the annual rate (say 5%) by 365 to determine the daily rate. This seems to not be important, but because of compounding it means the amount charged over a year is more than the rate quoted. Say you borrow $100,000 for one year at an annual rate of 5%, repaying the whole amount at the end of the year. You might expect to pay back $105,000. Instead, the banks’ method of calculating interest results in a total repayment of $105,116. This is because the daily interest rate (5% divided by 365) is applied to the outstanding balance each day and added to your balance once a month. These regular increases mean your interest compounds costing you more. <h2>Over decades, the difference matters</h2> In July 2023, the average size of a new mortgage in New South Wales was about A$750,000, with an average interest rate of about 5.95%. The method of calculation used by the banks and in the fine print of their mortgage contracts requires a monthly payment of $4,473 including the repayment of the amount originally borrowed over the life of a 30-year loan. But if 5.95% were actually charged each year, the monthly payment would be $4,398 – a difference of $900 per year. In this typical example, the difference over the life of the loan amounts to about $27,000. It means these borrowers will end up paying an effective interest rate of 6.11%. <h2>We had to read the fine print</h2> We checked the terms and conditions of each of the big four banks – Westpac, the Commonwealth, the National Australia Bank and the ANZ – as well as their biggest subsidiaries which include St George, The Bank of Melbourne, Bank SA and Bankwest. They all charge interest using the “simple” method. Mutual banks – the old credit unions and building societies owned by their members – have different reporting requirements, and we were unable to check the terms and conditions used by each one. But where we could, we found they used the same method as the big four. You can find this small print yourself, usually in the middle of your mortgage document. It’s a formula, accompanied by a paragraph of explanation. But you have to look carefully. Or you could call customer service, as we did, and ask the bank to explain the calculation. You shouldn’t have to. <h2>The price quoted ought to be the price paid</h2> We think the price quoted for a product should be the price that’s actually charged, as the law <a href="https://www.accc.gov.au/business/pricing/price-displays">generally requires</a> for products other than mortgages. This means if you are told you’ll be charged 5.95% interest per year, you should pay 5.95% per year – not 6.11% because of a quirk in the formula. Mortgages are a larger financial commitment than most purchases. This means that honesty and clear communication are even more important. It’s worth knowing what you are letting yourself in for when signing up for a mortgage. That way, when the bank or broker explains it to you and it’s not what was advertised, you can ask for a discount.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/213862/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/sander-de-groote-1472267">Sander De Groote</a>, Lecturer, School of Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/unsw-sydney-1414">UNSW Sydney</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/kevin-li-892606">Kevin Li</a>, Senior Lecturer, School of Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/unsw-sydney-1414">UNSW Sydney</a> Image credits: Getty Images This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-youre-probably-paying-more-interest-on-your-mortgage-than-you-think-213862">original article</a>.

Money & Banking

myTax is fast and free – so why do 2 in 3 Australians still pay to lodge a tax return?

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/jawad-harb-1441668">Jawad Harb</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/rmit-university-1063">RMIT University</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/elizabeth-morton-1218408">Elizabeth Morton</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/rmit-university-1063">RMIT University</a> Ten years ago, the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) created the “myTax” portal, an easy way to lodge your tax return online. There was an “e-Tax” filing option before the 2015-16 tax year, but this was quite complicated and barely better than filling out a form online. In comparison, myTax <a href="https://resources.taxinstitute.com.au/tiausttaxforum/acceptance-of-mytax-in-australia">is simpler</a> and more automated. It’s available 24 hours a day, is free to use, and you will typically get your refund within <a href="https://www.ato.gov.au/Individuals/Your-tax-return/How-to-lodge-your-tax-return/Lodge-your-tax-return-online-with-myTax/">two weeks</a>. But the chances are you won’t be using it. In fact, slightly less than <a href="https://www.ato.gov.au/About-ATO/Research-and-statistics/In-detail/Taxation-statistics/Taxation-statistics-2020-21/?anchor=IndividualsStatistics#IndividualsStatistics">36%</a> of Australia’s 15 million taxpayers used the myTax portal in 2020-21 – the most recent tax year for which the tax office has published data. About <a href="https://www.ato.gov.au/About-ATO/Research-and-statistics/In-detail/Taxation-statistics/Taxation-statistics-2020-21/?anchor=IndividualsStatistics#IndividualsStatistics">64% of tax returns</a> were lodged through tax agents. This is one of the highest rates among 38 <a href="https://www.oecd.org/about/">Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development</a> nations. Meanwhile, just 0.6% of Australians still used the paper-based form. <hr /> <iframe id="5Kdz0" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" style="border: none;" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/5Kdz0/3/" width="100%" height="400px" frameborder="0"></iframe> <hr /> So why have Australians – who have quickly embraced the internet for everything from shopping to dating – been so slow to embrace myTax? For some, particularly older people, it’s about being intimidated by the technology. Others may be concerned with cybersecurity risk. But for most it’s about the perceived complexity of the tax system and the process, regardless of the technology. They see using a tax agent as easier and the way to maximise their tax refund. While in some cases this may be true, in many instances it’s simply a perception – but one the tax office will need to address if it wants to promote use of myTax. <h2>Reasons for the low uptake of myTax</h2> <a href="https://resources.taxinstitute.com.au/tiausttaxforum/acceptance-of-mytax-in-australia">Our research</a> suggests most people who have used the myTax portal think it is easy to use. We surveyed 193 taxpayers who have used the system. About three-quarters agreed the system was clear and understandable, and said they would keep using it. But of course these are people who have chosen to use the system, so their responses don’t shed much light on the reasons people don’t use myTax. Answers to that come from other published research, in particular from the <a href="https://www.igt.gov.au/">Inspector-General of Taxation</a> (the independent office investigating complaints about the tax system) as well as the House of Representatives’ Standing Committee on Tax and Revenue. Evidence submitted to these bodies indicate that Australians prefer tax agents to avoid errors in claiming deductions. The parliamentary committee’s <a href="https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/committees/reportrep/024169/toc_pdf/TaxpayerEngagementwiththeTaxSystem.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf">2018 inquiry</a> into the tax system was told the use of tax agents ballooned from about 20% in the 1980s, peaking at about 74% of all taxpayers: "The Tax Commissioner considered that the size of the TaxPack had probably contributed to that rise, driving many people with simple tax affairs to a tax agent because it looked daunting." In short, habits are hard to break. Having come to rely on tax agents, most Australians keep using them, despite the system being vastly improved. For example, the myTax system now simplifies the process by <a href="https://www.ato.gov.au/Individuals/Your-tax-return/How-to-lodge-your-tax-return/Lodge-your-tax-return-online-with-myTax/Pre-fill-availability/?=redirected_myGov_prefill">pre-filling</a> data from government agencies, health funds, financial institutions and your own employer. About 80% of our survey respondents said this was helpful. <h2>Taking care of the digital divide</h2> This suggests the main barrier to increasing use of the myTax system is mostly habit and the perception the tax system is too complicated to navigate without an expert. There is also a small percentage of people who feel uncomfortable with computers. This is reflected in the minority of respondents in our study who said they were unlikely to use myTax again, as well as the tax office’s data showing some people continue to stick with paper lodgement. Those more likely to find the system daunting are the elderly, those with low English skills, people with disabilities and those with low educational attainment. These people’s needs should not be forgotten as the Australian <a href="https://www.dta.gov.au/digital-government-strategy">Digital Government Strategy</a> aims to making Australia a “world-leading” digital government by 2025, delivering “simple, secure and connected public services”. Even with the greatest online system in the world, it’s unlikely there will ever be a complete transition.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/207305/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/jawad-harb-1441668">Jawad Harb</a>, PhD Candidate, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/rmit-university-1063">RMIT University</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/elizabeth-morton-1218408">Elizabeth Morton</a>, Research Fellow of the RMIT Blockchain Innovation Hub, Lecturer Taxation, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/rmit-university-1063">RMIT University</a> Image credits: Shutterstock This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/mytax-is-fast-and-free-so-why-do-2-in-3-australians-still-pay-to-lodge-a-tax-return-207305">original article</a>.

Money & Banking

“Breaking Aussies’ spirits”: Karl rips into Reserve Bank

Karl Stefanovic has ripped into the Reserve Bank for their decision to pause interest rates at an all time high. The Today host blasted their decision to freeze the cash rate at an 11-year high of 4.1 percent, as Aussies continue to struggle through the cost of living crisis. Karl Stefanovic has accused the Reserve Bank of “not giving a toss” about the millions of Australians struggling to keep their homes amid seemingly endless interest rate rises. On Thursday, Karl let loose on the RBA, slamming their decision to put Aussies under further financial strain. <blockquote class="instagram-media" style="background: #FFF; border: 0; border-radius: 3px; box-shadow: 0 0 1px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.5),0 1px 10px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.15); margin: 1px; max-width: 540px; min-width: 326px; padding: 0; width: calc(100% - 2px);" data-instgrm-permalink="https://www.instagram.com/reel/CuQTWInBqdU/?utm_source=ig_embed&utm_campaign=loading" data-instgrm-version="14"> <div style="padding: 16px;"> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: row; align-items: center;"> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; flex-grow: 0; height: 40px; margin-right: 14px; width: 40px;"> </div> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: column; flex-grow: 1; justify-content: center;"> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; width: 100px;"> </div> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; width: 60px;"> </div> </div> </div> <div style="padding: 19% 0;"> </div> <div style="display: block; height: 50px; margin: 0 auto 12px; width: 50px;"> </div> <div style="padding-top: 8px;"> <div style="color: #3897f0; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-weight: 550; line-height: 18px;">View this post on Instagram</div> </div> <div style="padding: 12.5% 0;"> </div> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: row; margin-bottom: 14px; align-items: center;"> <div> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; height: 12.5px; width: 12.5px; transform: translateX(0px) translateY(7px);"> </div> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; height: 12.5px; transform: rotate(-45deg) translateX(3px) translateY(1px); width: 12.5px; flex-grow: 0; margin-right: 14px; margin-left: 2px;"> </div> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; height: 12.5px; width: 12.5px; transform: translateX(9px) translateY(-18px);"> </div> </div> <div style="margin-left: 8px;"> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; flex-grow: 0; height: 20px; width: 20px;"> </div> <div style="width: 0; height: 0; border-top: 2px solid transparent; border-left: 6px solid #f4f4f4; border-bottom: 2px solid transparent; transform: translateX(16px) translateY(-4px) rotate(30deg);"> </div> </div> <div style="margin-left: auto;"> <div style="width: 0px; border-top: 8px solid #F4F4F4; border-right: 8px solid transparent; transform: translateY(16px);"> </div> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; flex-grow: 0; height: 12px; width: 16px; transform: translateY(-4px);"> </div> <div style="width: 0; height: 0; border-top: 8px solid #F4F4F4; border-left: 8px solid transparent; transform: translateY(-4px) translateX(8px);"> </div> </div> </div> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: column; flex-grow: 1; justify-content: center; margin-bottom: 24px;"> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; width: 224px;"> </div> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; width: 144px;"> </div> </div> <p style="color: #c9c8cd; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 17px; margin-bottom: 0; margin-top: 8px; overflow: hidden; padding: 8px 0 7px; text-align: center; text-overflow: ellipsis; white-space: nowrap;"><a style="color: #c9c8cd; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 17px; text-decoration: none;" href="https://www.instagram.com/reel/CuQTWInBqdU/?utm_source=ig_embed&utm_campaign=loading" target="_blank" rel="noopener">A post shared by thetodayshow (@thetodayshow)</a> </div> </blockquote> “They have single-handedly crushed, strangled Australian households,” he said. “Aussies who go to work, pay their bills, and just made the mistake of wanting to own their own home. Now you are being held to ransom.” “Everything you have built is now on the line because our central bank missed the inflation tidal wave. This is what's worse though.” “It's not over-spending respective governments carrying the can. It's you at home.” “It's you trying to put food on the table, pay your power bills and keep a roof over your family's head. It's no wonder it's breaking Aussies' spirits right now.” On Tuesday, the RBA moved to pause interest rates at an 11-year high of 4.1 per cent for the next month. Governor Philip Lowe hinted at more monetary policy tightening because inflation is still too high, even after the most aggressive rate rises since 1989. Even if interest rates don't rise again, mortgage repayments could still be hiked. Image credits: Today

“My sex statue is famous”: Larry Emdur reacts to X-rated home reveal

The Morning Show host Larry Emdur has been making a name for himself in the world of game show TV for a few years hosting The Chase Australia, but despite his success, he’s still had his sights set on one more goal: making an appearance on the Have You Been Paying Attention? series. And now, it seems like Larry’s dream has come true, though not exactly in the way he might have expected. The popular host and his wife, Sylvie, have had their hands full recently trying to sell their Kangaroo Valley retreat, better known as Sky Ridge. And while pictures of the property and its picturesque surrounds are available thanks to Belle Property, it wasn’t the property’s luxury four bedrooms or sweeping views that saw it get a mention on the Channel 10 game show. Instead, it was a statue situated in the home’s main living space that caught their attention, with Have You Been Paying Attention? host Tom Gleisner asking his panel if they knew why Larry’s holiday home had gone viral throughout the week. Ed Kavalee was quick to suggest that it was because “the price was right”, while Sam Pang asked if it was because “it has to do with the backyard, they found a shallow grave?” Kavalee eventually got to the right answer, revealing that “there was, like, a pornographic statue in there.” The statue in question could be found perched on top of Larry’s dining room table, and appeared to catch two people caught up in the moment having “X-rated raunchy sex”, as Larry himself put it. The HYBPA? audience found it hilarious, and thankfully, Larry was more than happy to see the funny side of it all, too. Taking to social media after learning about his unexpected cameo, Larry shared that he’d “always wanted to be on Have You Been Paying Attention? but not for a disgraceful reason like this.” “My sex statue is famous,” he added, before sharing details of the property and that “YES !!!! The Price is Right”. <blockquote class="instagram-media" style="background: #FFF; border: 0; border-radius: 3px; box-shadow: 0 0 1px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.5),0 1px 10px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.15); margin: 1px; max-width: 540px; min-width: 326px; padding: 0; width: calc(100% - 2px);" data-instgrm-captioned="" data-instgrm-permalink="https://www.instagram.com/reel/CttOo9pByBy/?utm_source=ig_embed&utm_campaign=loading" data-instgrm-version="14"> <div style="padding: 16px;"> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: row; align-items: center;"> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; flex-grow: 0; height: 40px; margin-right: 14px; width: 40px;"> </div> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: column; flex-grow: 1; justify-content: center;"> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; width: 100px;"> </div> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; width: 60px;"> </div> </div> </div> <div style="padding: 19% 0;"> </div> <div style="display: block; height: 50px; margin: 0 auto 12px; width: 50px;"> </div> <div style="padding-top: 8px;"> <div style="color: #3897f0; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-weight: 550; line-height: 18px;">View this post on Instagram</div> </div> <div style="padding: 12.5% 0;"> </div> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: row; margin-bottom: 14px; align-items: center;"> <div> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; height: 12.5px; width: 12.5px; transform: translateX(0px) translateY(7px);"> </div> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; height: 12.5px; transform: rotate(-45deg) translateX(3px) translateY(1px); width: 12.5px; flex-grow: 0; margin-right: 14px; margin-left: 2px;"> </div> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; height: 12.5px; width: 12.5px; transform: translateX(9px) translateY(-18px);"> </div> </div> <div style="margin-left: 8px;"> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; flex-grow: 0; height: 20px; width: 20px;"> </div> <div style="width: 0; height: 0; border-top: 2px solid transparent; border-left: 6px solid #f4f4f4; border-bottom: 2px solid transparent; transform: translateX(16px) translateY(-4px) rotate(30deg);"> </div> </div> <div style="margin-left: auto;"> <div style="width: 0px; border-top: 8px solid #F4F4F4; border-right: 8px solid transparent; transform: translateY(16px);"> </div> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; flex-grow: 0; height: 12px; width: 16px; transform: translateY(-4px);"> </div> <div style="width: 0; height: 0; border-top: 8px solid #F4F4F4; border-left: 8px solid transparent; transform: translateY(-4px) translateX(8px);"> </div> </div> </div> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: column; flex-grow: 1; justify-content: center; margin-bottom: 24px;"> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; width: 224px;"> </div> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; width: 144px;"> </div> </div> <p style="color: #c9c8cd; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 17px; margin-bottom: 0; margin-top: 8px; overflow: hidden; padding: 8px 0 7px; text-align: center; text-overflow: ellipsis; white-space: nowrap;"><a style="color: #c9c8cd; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 17px; text-decoration: none;" href="https://www.instagram.com/reel/CttOo9pByBy/?utm_source=ig_embed&utm_campaign=loading" target="_blank" rel="noopener">A post shared by @larryemdur</a> </div> </blockquote> Larry’s fans raced to express their amusement, with dozens sharing laughing emojis, while others assured him that the feature piece was certainly “a work of art”. “Love a good conversation piece,” one user said. “It’s…… unique,” another added. “Can’t stand that show,” one confessed. “But at least this time they are talking about something interesting”. And one other agreed that it had been “so funny”, noting that it was also a “nice house”, but that most importantly, they were sorry you weren't nominated for a gold logie, you sure deserved it”. Images: realestate.com.au, Getty

Real Estate

Can you lend a paw this tax time to help cats in need?

With a proud reputation of caring for cats for more than 60 years, the Cat Protection Society of NSW runs Sydney’s only no-kill shelter just for cats, as well as providing feline welfare programs to help cats and the people who love them. Cat Protection began in 1958 as a small group of people dedicated to reducing the number of street cats and while our organisation has grown over the years, our vision remains the same; that every cat deserves a loving and responsible home. Over the years, Cat Protection has helped literally hundreds of thousands of cats, kittens, and people. We’ve led the way in setting the standards for best-practice feline sheltering, and our health and welfare services extend far beyond our adoption centre. And while technology means we can offer a great range of free cat care resources online, we’ve never lost our human touch and we still help thousands of people every year with advice and tips on cat care by phone or in-person, at no cost. Our subsidised desexing, vaccination and microchipping programs promote cat health and welfare in the community and our newest program, Adopt-a-Stray, offers a complete and affordable package for those who wish to fully welcome a street cat into their heart and home. What sets us apart from many other animal shelters is our holistic approach to each individual cat or human client. Cats are not given a time limit, although most are adopted within days or weeks. Every cat is individually assessed and provided with a care plan to meet their unique needs. If they need complex surgery, allergy trials or behavioural interventions our highly qualified team will work with veterinarians and specialists to ensure the cat gets everything they need to set them on the path to living their best life. A kind person found Snake, a four-week-old sickly orphaned kitten. In addition to cat flu, our vets identified corneal scarring in his right eye, a blocked tear duct, and an adhesion on his eyelid restricting the normal movement of his third eyelid. Treatment resolved the flu and improved his eye, but Snake will live with limited vision in that eye. This has not dampened his playfulness or zest for life. As well as poor physical health, orphaned kittens miss out on the important lessons of being a cat from their mum and siblings, and this can lead to behavioural issues. Where we can, we will make sure such kittens get to join a stepfamily, but in cases such as Snake’s, illness means that isn’t always possible. It is then up to our human team to work with these little ones to help them learn to navigate the world with good manners! In contrast, Banjo had all the behavioural benefits of his brother but alas at seven weeks of age Banjo weighed only 560 grams while his brother Clancy weighed 900 grams! Banjo was diagnosed with a rare form of congenital hypothyroidism. Because his condition was diagnosed early, his prognosis is very good. He was started on a medication called Thyroxine and went back into foster care so that we could monitor his progress and adjust the dose of his medication as necessary with follow-up blood tests. After six weeks in foster care, Banjo graduated to the adoption centre. He will need to be on Thyroxine for the rest of his life, but that didn’t daunt his new family who’ve told us Banjo is now thriving in his loving forever home. From individualised TLC and veterinary care for every cat and kitten, to helping human clients resolve cat challenges (from furniture scratching to strata bans) and strategic research and advocacy on behalf of people and cats, Cat Protection’s impact is so much greater than our budget. As an independent registered charity for cats, we’re dependent on donations and bequests to do our work. We are compliant, open and transparent; on our website you can see our audited annual reports for details of what we do and what it costs. We have a strict “no harassment” fundraising policy which means under no circumstances will your information be sold on, and we do not employ pressure-tactics or door-to-door solicitations. We don’t spend money paying fundraising companies to ring you at dinner time asking for money or send you five-page long letters insisting you give more. And we never will. Donations are invested in helping our feline friends and nurturing the unique bond between cats and people. Your generosity will mean that we can continue to help thousands of cats and people each year. If you can lend a paw, please <a href="https://www.givenow.com.au/catprotectionsocietynsw" target="_blank" rel="noopener">make your tax-deductible donation here</a>! For general advice on cat care and everything feline, call the Cat Protection Society of NSW on 02 9557 4818 or visit <a href="https://catprotection.org.au/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">catprotection.org.au</a> Images: Supplied. This is a sponsored article produced in partnership with the Cat Protection Society of NSW.

Family & Pets

Ratings results after Shirvo’s first day in Kochie’s chair

The results are in and Seven has maintained its position on top, with thousands of viewers tuning in to watch newly appointed Sunrise co-host Matt Shirvington <a href="https://www.oversixty.com.au/news/news/kochie-s-sunrise-replacement-revealed" target="_blank" rel="noopener">replace Kochie</a> on the breakfast TV show. Over 235,000 metro viewers tuned in to Seven on Monday, while Nine’s Today drew around 188,000 viewers, and 104,000 watched ABC’s News Breakfast. The reactions were positive and many took to social media to share their well-wishes for the former sprinter after his first day on the show. “Your first morning Shirvo, great, So natural,” one viewer posted on Instagram. “The best person to replace Kochie,” wrote another. “Matt Shirvo is exactly what Sunrise needed,” another viewer added. “I am so glad they went with Shirvo. A fresh start for Sunrise,” commented another. The 44-year-old was<a href="https://www.oversixty.com.au/news/news/kochie-s-sunrise-replacement-revealed" target="_blank" rel="noopener"> announced as the new host</a> alongside Nat Barr on June 5, and officially replaced Kochie a week later. He has shared his delight and excitement over joining the show, and even posted an <a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/CtWFmBhPAT4/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==" target="_blank" rel="noopener">image </a>of all the alarms he set in preparation for his new job. “I’m so excited but also humbled by the opportunity to co-host such an important show to so many Australians,” he said last week. Image: Sunriseon7 Instagram

RBA announces major interest rate rise

The Reserve Bank of Australia has lifted its official interest rate to 4.1 per cent, an increase not seen since early 2012. The bank’s board chose to lift the cash rate target by 0.25 of a percentage point for the second month in a row amid concerns that inflation is taking too long to decrease. The latest monthly consumer price index from the Australian Bureau of Statistics saw prices rise 6.8 per cent from 2022 to April 2023, up from the March reading due to statistical uncertainties caused by last year’s temporary fuel excise cut. Reserve Bank governor Phillip Lowe warned the public about rising costs of services including hospitality which are labour intensive and vulnerable to increased wages. "Recent data indicate that the upside risks to the inflation outlook have increased and the board has responded to this," he highlighted in his post-meeting statement. "While goods price inflation is slowing, services price inflation is still very high and is proving to be very persistent overseas. Unit labour costs are also rising briskly, with productivity growth remaining subdued.” Lowe noted the most recent and bigger than expected rise in minimum and award wages, which was the highest increase in decades. "Wages growth has picked up in response to the tight labour market and high inflation," he explained. "At the aggregate level, wages growth is still consistent with the inflation target, provided that productivity growth picks up.” The interest rate spike will add around $76 a month to the repayments on a $500,000 loan, and double that on a million-dollar 25-year mortgage. Someone with $500,000 owing on their home loan will see their monthly repayment increase by around $1,134 a month since the RBA started lifting rates from a record low of 0.1 per cent in May 2022. However, there is still the risk of another rate rise. "Some further tightening of monetary policy may be required to ensure that inflation returns to target in a reasonable time frame, but that will depend upon how the economy and inflation evolve," Lowe warned. Image credit: Twitter

Money & Banking

Our Partners

Over 60

News

Shop

Catalogues

Newspaper

Contests

Entertainment

Travel

Health

Lifestyle

Finance

Property

Compare

Games

Information

Keep up to date

Search

A tax on sugary drinks can make us healthier. It’s time for Australia to introduce one

Australian churches collectively raise billions of dollars a year – why aren’t they taxed?

What are heart rate zones, and how can you incorporate them into your exercise routine?

Stamp duty is holding us back from moving homes – we’ve worked out how much

"There's no way": Man receives $52 billion tax bill