Is It Time for a Widescale Review of Monetary and Fiscal Policy Levers?

Tommyaka on 30/04/2026 - 09:50

Younger people have mortgages, older people do not.

Older people have savings, younger people do not.

The RBA increases interest rates to try and reduce spending across the economy.

Younger people with mortgages can't spend as much.

Younger people without mortgages, not impacted. These days less younger people have mortgages than before, not good.

Older people without mortgages can spend even more thanks to an increase to savings interest.

More older people than younger people. Aging population, bad.

The RBA's one lever to reduce spending in the economy which has historically worked, may no longer be effective due to an aging population and reduced number of younger people with mortgages.

Financial

Comments

Best
Search through all the comments in this post.
  • Checkmate3023 on 30/04/2026 - 09:56
    +33

    No, young and old people need to stop voting for governments who cant manage money

    Governments should never be allowed to spend more money then they collect in tax - the laziness of debt and high migration is the problem not the central bank system

    Inflation which is cause by the government printing money and spending WAY more then they should to buy votes is the issue - Australia needs to learn the government has spent well beyond its means for too long governments in general are just shit at managing money it is rife with corruption, rips offs and mismanagement - just look at Victoria

    Governments need to be banned from saying 'free' and the language should be 'tax payer funded and inflationary' whenever they spend a single tax payer dollar because that is ultimately why we are having a rate rises - it isnt right wing extremist, it isnt fear mongering it is fact all this national and state based debt and spending coupled with high migration is KILLING our standard of living if you import the 3rd world you will become the 3rd world if you spend like a social country you will go the same way as socialist countries ie the USSR

    The RBA's one lever to reduce spending in the economy which has historically worked, may no longer be effective due to an aging population and reduced number of younger people with mortgages.

    it also 'stops' people from spending money higher bonds rates lock up money for years cooling inflation, it also makes it more expensive for businesses to borrowalso cooling inflation the media focuses on home loans because no one cares about businesses and wealthy people putting money into bonds but these also happen

    • Hol on 01/05/2026 - 07:56
      +10

      Hi checkmate3023, did you take out a loan to buy a house or car. Spending money you didn’t have.

    • AddNinja on 01/05/2026 - 08:49
      +2

      Hey Checkmate3023, I often enjoy your posts.

      If you have time, could you explain to someone with only a simple understanding of economics how government spending has to be inflationary? Like the government building a new railway line could lower prices by making efficiencies in the transport of goods couldn't they.

      • BuzzBuzzBuzz on 03/05/2026 - 16:08
        +1

        could you explain to someone with only a simple understanding of economics how government spending has to be inflationary

        I implore you to be cautious about who you listen to as you're learning about economics. It's a uniquely emotional field especially for people who have a poor understanding of the subject, and understandably so. I extend this to what I'm saying, don't take my word as gospel, just consider it in a broader context of what other people tell you.

        I would argue that the statement 'all government spending is inflationary' is misleading; it's true only insofar as 'all spending contributes to aggregate demand'. It's a pointless thing to say.

        Here's what you have to remember: governments that issue their own fiat currency (like Australia) use currency as a medium of exchange. When they collect revenue (i.e., taxation), what they're actually doing is reclaiming some % of an economy's productive output for their own purposes.

        Inflation, which is a general rise in the price level of goods and services in an economy occurs when the money moving through an economy grows faster than the aggregate value of all goods and services produced in said economy. If the government borrows $5bn to build a new freight rail line, and that delivers real GDP growth equivalent to $5bn, that was not an inflationary exercise. What the government has done is temporarily reallocate resources away from the private sector to grow productivity, and subsequently increase aggregate supply.

        However, that doesn't necessarily mean the economic sector where the government spent the money saw no inflation. If the government undertakes a massive infrastructure project, it will inherently bid against other private sector endeavors for a limited pool of real resources (think labour, cement, bricks etc).

        If that project then leads to heightened macro productivity that's large enough to offset that localized sectoral inflation, there will not be a raise in the inflation figure. Or, there might be a temporary period of inflation, before the later gains in productivity 'paid back' said inflation. Or the project will be an economic failure.

        There's also a narrative that floats around that 'government borrowing is money printing, and money printing is bad'. The obvious counter to this is simply to point out that traditional government borrowing does not grow the money supply*, and that banks are responsible for creating most of the money in our economy through lending (they create around $100bn a year, and yet no one seems to worry about their 'deficit' 🤔).

        * There are exceptions to this - see: quantitative easing.

        If we want to worry about inflation, we should stop obsessing over the government's balance sheet and start looking at whether we have enough workers and materials to actually build the future we're paying for.

      • Checkmate3023 on 01/05/2026 - 09:45

        If you have time, could you explain to someone with only a simple understanding of economics how government spending has to be inflationary? Like the government building a new railway line could lower prices by making efficiencies in the transport of goods couldn't they.

        Il answer your question as simple as i can - spending infrastructure is generally seen as a good thing but government only spend about 15% of the budget on infrastructure - all government spending is inflationary esp if the government is issuing bonds to take on 'more debt to pay for spending' - essentially the more money in circulation the more inflation you get - the government running a surplus means we are paying off debt which is 'good' and means the government isnt fueling inflation needlessly however since John Howard the vast majority of government budgets have run at a deficit the government taking on more and more debt to pay for services (ie NDIS), infrastructure etc

        we need infrastructure spending the issues around infrastructure is how most if not all projects generally go over budget and over time

        we need health care but the inefficiencies mean it costs more then we expct the NDIS was only meant to cost 20bn dollars by 2030 it is 2026 and it is costing OVER 50bn! this money isnt planned thus it is borrowed

        thus more money = more inflation = high prices

        and if wages dont keep up with inflation we all go backwards - wihch is essentially what is happening

        • Some Random Guy on 01/05/2026 - 12:57
          +3

          Common misconception; inflation is not due to governments taking on debt to pay for things/printing money/similar things. Inflation is the price increase. Increasing one's wage does not inherently lead to inflation.

          If everyone's wage increased by 5% tomorrow but the government controlled/regulated all prices such that everything had to stay the same price (and quality), everyone's purchasing power increases (domestically). Assuming those 2 things were true, the only negative effects would be the currency used to increase wages would weaken when compared to other currencies. How to offset the weaker currency? Weirdly enough, you export more, doing two things. One reduces the amount of physical cash leaving the country. Two strengthens the dollar on the global scale as you can say "we only take AUD payments for our product" and seeing as you export more than import (and assuming you only work with AUD) the low supply will increase demand, higher price for the dollar. The issue here is that by strengthening your dollar you weaken the case for exporting as it costs another country more for less.

          Inflation data is not recorded through recording wage increases or consumer spending (those are different metrics). Inflation is asking "how much was it x days ago" and "how much is it now". Inflation data assumes the market is being fair and from there you can predict/make informed decisions. Why does increasing wages/having more money lead to inflation? Because people are stupid (yes literally you) and the market is not fair. Companies know they can increase prices without consumers getting up in arms about it (for many reasons, but mainly that we are fair too rich for our own good, we hold convenience fair above value for money and being valued as a customer, our easy access to debt, and our big egos).

          An economist could patch some holes in my writing but overall I wanna let people know that inflation should not be confused with other metrics. Inflation doesn't lead to price increases. Inflation is the price increase.

          • Checkmate3023 on 01/05/2026 - 13:29
            +1

            @Some Random Guy:

            Common misconception; inflation is not due to governments taking on debt to pay for things/printing money/similar things. Inflation is the price increase. Increasing one's wage does not inherently lead to inflation.

            it isnt a misconception it is 'how the world works' - its like saying smoking doesnt kill you the lung cancer does - increased government spending causes inflation (it isnt the only factor but it is the main driver in Australia) but inflation itself is price rising due to the increase circulation of money - it is slightly more complex because factors like productivity and out put play a role but in Australia productivity has been flat for a while now so we essentially have seen the government pump money into the system without no change to output - this directly drives inflation (price increases)

            "When the money supply grows faster than the economy's output, more money chases the same amount of goods, causing prices to rise"

            https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/042015/how-does-mon…

            just generally speaking the government taking on debt because the economy is not growing in proportion to needs of its citizens- the governments to provide services can either take on debt raise taxes - the issue we have in Australia is there is way to much efficient government spending the last Liberal/National government during COVID and this government have been useless at managing inflation - dont let the idiots on the left fool you taxes in Australia are WAY too high and regulation/red tape/1st nation tape/Green tape is globally uncompetitive thus productivity cannot improve, businesses struggle to grow and even survive etc - the government is to scared of a recession and too gutless to cut services so they just borrow more money and bring in more migrants and living standards continue to decline

          • tenpercent on 02/05/2026 - 00:33

            @Some Random Guy:

            Inflation doesn't lead to price increases. Inflation is the price increase.

            It's actually both. I make widgets and use doodads to build them. The price of doodads increased recently. Now my cost of doing business has gone up. So to offset that I have to put up the price I sell my widgets for. So now the widgets have price inflated too.

        • Checkmate3023 on 01/05/2026 - 10:01
          +1

          the other thing to add is when the government takes on debt - they also have to spend in the future on the interest on the debt meaning they have 'less' money for services or need to borrow more money to continue to provide services thus making a terrible cycle

          this cycle was started by Kevin Rudd to avoid a recession and essentially has been spiraling out of control from Liberal to ALP governments ever since

          • dtc on 01/05/2026 - 12:08
            +7

            @Checkmate3023: government spending only increases inflation if it exceeds supply ie if government is soaking up unused supply, it doesnt increase inflation. It may prevent deflation by doing so, but that is a different issue.

            Merely increasing money supply, including through borrowing, does not cause inflation, it also depends on velocity and supply. MV = PY. its not M = P.

        • Blackadda on 03/05/2026 - 14:34
          +1

          The govt infrastructure spending over last 10 years has been extremely inflationary. Unions are jacking up cost on public infrastructure projects enormously and tradies are getting paid up to 200k p.a. to do the jobs and that sucks the trades out of domestic building and service roles and pushes the prices up there too.

          Budget blow out means more taxes on other things like property and infrastructure… do you realise if you buy a block of land for 400k now (which used to be 150k probably only 15 years ago) over 200k of that is tax .. maybe up to 250k including all the levies and charges by government (all levels) and government entities which are extremely efficient (ie the water authorities who will charge for 'drainage infrastructure' but most of the money taken is going into their overhead not actual physical things)

          now you need to also follow through the higher income the trades get and realise they can now pay more for things and push prices up on those things (like groceries etc) as they are not sensitive to price increases.

          • Checkmate3023 on 03/05/2026 - 15:52

            @Blackadda:

            Budget blow out means more taxes on other things like property and infrastructure

            If we are talking Victoria we got too many knuckleheads voting ALP because they are paid off via the unions or brainwashed by the Uni system so they can keep the student visa numbers at unsustainable levels

    • Benoffie on 30/04/2026 - 12:27
      +1

      You know, I love that you got downvoted. I want to know the rationale…

      I wonder if it's the same as those that I keep seeing in my reels where young people talk about 'free money' but dont seem to understand the fundamentals of borrowing/loans/contracts etc.

      Nothing in a vacuum

      • poachedegg on 01/05/2026 - 12:14
        +3

        Your sentence nothing in a vacuum got me. Household budgets and nation budgets are not the same, because something does happen in a vacuum. Govts can print money, households cannot, and this fundamental difference is why household budgeting ideas don't really apply to nations.

        I'm not going to be drawn into a debate on this, because it's ideological. Read David Greabers book on debt, or find something on mmt.

        • Benoffie on 01/05/2026 - 12:55
          +1

          What sane person would use MMT in a 5% sustained inflation period where drivers are not being restricted?

          • BigTriangle on 01/05/2026 - 16:19

            @Benoffie: You don't "use" mmt, it's a way to describe how the system works. Not policy or an ideology.

      • OBEY YOUR MASTERS on 01/05/2026 - 07:24
        +2

        Anyone who is dependent on govt for their income will hate hearing this stuff. Instant downvote.

        Thats about it really.

        • drprox on 01/05/2026 - 20:06

          Na our household is and I still agree. Too much corruption, too much spending. Everything is overtime and overnight and often underwhelming. Slow immigration to what we can manage - enough housing, infrastructure, schools, doctors etc.

    • BigTriangle on 01/05/2026 - 16:16

      "Governments should never be allowed to spend more money then they collect in tax -"

      Taxes don't pay for anything a currency issuing gov pays for.

      "national and state based debt" You're confused, those are totally differently funded.
      Are you sure you should be telling everyone what to do?
      Given you don't seem to know what fiat currency is, how the fed gov creates it and that currency using ie state spending is different to federal spending ie spending by a currency creating gov.

      • Checkmate3023 on 03/05/2026 - 15:56

        Given you don't seem to know what fiat currency is, how the fed gov creates it and that currency using ie state spending is different to federal spending ie spending by a currency creating gov.

        Federal government issues bonds to take on debt (Australian government securities)

        They dont just print money on whim…. someone needs to buy these bonds

        State government have to borrow the money usually from banks when they take on debt as they cant issue bonds which is worse and why credit ratings matter as that debt gets more expensive to repay with a lower rating.

        There is a difference but neither can just print money you do realise that right? You seem confused - however the fed can issue bonds which is has to garentee

        • BigTriangle on 04/05/2026 - 12:06

          " Federal government issues bonds to take on debt (Australian government securities) "

          So the Federal Government borrows the currency that the Federal Government issues and pays interest in the currency the the Federal Government issues. To use other people's money, but it's money the Federal Government issues.

          And you think I'm confused?

    • vid_ghost on 03/05/2026 - 11:47
      -1

      Only Labor tried to get a fair share of the mining wealth for the aussie people are the stupid billionaire adds on TV got Kevin rudd kicked out of his position and the mining taxes scrapped.. how sad Australia would of been so much better off today.

      • tenpercent on 03/05/2026 - 12:38
        -1

        No they didn't. It was a deliberate bungled farce to scare the public away from the idea for another couple of decades.

      • Checkmate3023 on 03/05/2026 - 12:59
        -1

        Only Labor tried to get a fair share of the mining wealth for the aussie people are the stupid billionaire adds on TV got Kevin rudd

        No The ALP tried to tax grab not pay a fair share - fair share doesnt just mean pump up taxes and certainly not nationalising someone else business i know most idiots think that but that is not the case and never should ot be

        They did the same thing in QLD with coal and it hurt mining in QLD - it is morons who think putting taxes on anyone 'making money' a good idea - no it kills industries and Investment

        Im all for mining paying their fair share of tax and their is an arguement to rework some of it but to be frank they 'actually do' for the most part pay a good amount of tax and royalties - im fairly sure the bulk of the highest tax paying companies in Australia are miniers!

        K Rudd was a bumbling idiot responsible for high migration, bankrupting this country and killing 1000s of people

        How The left wing Nazis pretend he wasnt an egotistical lunatic, who was more interested in going to the strippers and blowing his own horn is insane and something id expect from the 'people' posting on r/Australia

  • Benoffie on 30/04/2026 - 10:11
    +22

    You have to also understand that 5% interest rates are not high. They are quite low-moderate, regardless of any costs.

    The period of super low rates (1-2%) was unnatural and in no way could be sustained.

    The problem, as mentioned elsewhere and as the RBA mentioned themselves (and were then muzzled) is the immigration.

    Importation of economy to cover up for economic losses causes by government overspending will do nothing except trigger inflation.

    The RBA has one lever. It cannot make up for morons running budgets.

    • Jerruh on 01/05/2026 - 10:22

      I think terms like "unnatural" applied to interest rates is unhelpful.

      5% rates are historically not high in Australia. However in Japan the average interest rate from 1972 - 2026 is 2.21%. There are numerous factors, but you're right the RBA doesn't have numerous levers.

      Japan also demonstrates the difference between a low immigration policy and a high one, as rising immigration appears to be correlated with their need to increase rates as well.

  • djones145 on 30/04/2026 - 10:15
    +16

    RBA could pull other levers
    - wipe out aging population (hunger games style)
    - baby making spree ( need more kids)
    - close doen websites encouraging spending ( ozbargain)
    - wipe out those that ask too many questions and propose solutions (watch ur back)

    • trapper on 30/04/2026 - 10:40
      +11
      • Drastically reduce immigration. We should only be importing people who will contribute significantly more economically than they draw on public resources.

      The only exception would be for foreign spouses - can't stand in the way of love.

      • Stuj on 30/04/2026 - 19:26
        +1

        Real love…. Hahaha thats the funniest thing I’ve heard all day…. Sure they love you and not the opportunity to come here….

      • SuperLate on 03/05/2026 - 13:53
        -1

        What kind of love are we talking about QLD is full of imported wives from southeast asia. Most of these younger wives don't contribute much other than domestic helps for their aging spouses. Not sure if we import much husbands as well.

      • Checkmate3023 on 30/04/2026 - 10:51
        -5

        The only exception would be for foreign spouses - can't stand in the way of love.

        yes but we can set a 20 year limit on on these 'relationships' dont work out they have to go back to their home country - if it is real love thats fine but loads of people get married and bail soon as they get their citizenship

        • dtc on 01/05/2026 - 12:10
          +3

          yep, make sure we insist people stay in poor and potentially violent or coercive relationships for 20 years, or they get sent back to their home country.

          • slipstreamexpress on 02/05/2026 - 06:27

            @dtc: To be fair, if it's a marriage of convenience to get a citizenship and you bail on the person immediately then you don't really deserve the citizenship.

            If it's a marriage of love and it doesn't work out, then your driving goal wasn't to get the citizenship in the first place so having to go back home isn't really a punishment.

            20 years seems excessive in this regard, but at least 10 years does not.

            • dtc on 05/05/2026 - 18:27

              @slipstreamexpress: To be fair, even if its a marriage of convenience, what do you think will happen if there is violence and abuse

              1. stay in the marriage until you get citizenship, put up with the beatings and abuse so you get that goal and can help your family

              2. leave the marriage and be sent home

              do you think a policy should be forcing people to chose between those?

              • trapper on 06/05/2026 - 11:11

                @dtc: It's not a punishment to live in the country you were born in.

          • Checkmate3023 on 01/05/2026 - 12:12
            -2

            @dtc:

            yep, make sure we insist people stay in poor and potentially violent or coercive relationships for 20 years, or they get sent back to their home country.

            opposed to let them abuse/game the Australian system for benefits funded by tax payers - dont worry about our own homeless, sick people, infrastructure etc just continue to bring people who offer nothing to our country and take until we become a 3rd world country?

            great thinking you should work for the ABC

            • BigTriangle on 01/05/2026 - 16:36

              @Checkmate3023: Are you sure there's a lot of fake marriges in Australia? How many r's in strawberry?

              • Checkmate3023 on 01/05/2026 - 18:54
                -1

                @BigTriangle: Its legit the aim for loads of women in some parts 3rd world countries to get knocked up by a westerner and come to their home country

                You think those 20-30 y.o women marrying that 60-70 bloke is doing itnfor love?

                • tenpercent on 02/05/2026 - 00:27

                  @Checkmate3023: They love those blokes long time… 10 or 15 years until the kick the bucket. A small sacrifice to end up in a place that is heaven in comparison to their homeland.

                • BigTriangle on 02/05/2026 - 01:10

                  @Checkmate3023: Dude, you live a sheltered life. Those old white guys go wife shopping in the Philippines or wherever, looking for some one who can put up with their shit.

                  The older the guy and the younger the wife, the more wealthy the guy is. So no, they aren't love matches, in the main
                  It's more like a mutually beneficial business arrangement than anything.

                  PS the best of the arrangements I've seen or heard of is guys going on a Phillipino dating site and making multiple trips over to find a partner who's compatible. The worst is the guys who go over on f*** tours, just exploit the locals who think they might get a husband and a life

                  If any of that is news to you, you need to get out more.

            • BigTriangle on 02/05/2026 - 01:14

              @Checkmate3023: "opposed to let them abuse/game the Australian system for benefits funded by tax payers - dont worry about our own homeless, sick people, "

              How much have you done for our homeless or sick people?
              Or do you wheel out that tired trope when ever you need to generate some hate for an outsider, an immigrant?

              • Checkmate3023 on 02/05/2026 - 08:16
                -1

                @BigTriangle:

                How much have you done for our homeless or sick people?

                In regards to sick people a lot like and Ironically many are refugees or asylum seekers

                when ever you need to generate some hate for an outsider, an immigrant?

                I dont hate migrates im the we're all migrants in Australia bar the aboriginals and TSI who probably also were once migrants too

                Im against the volume of migrants coming to Australia due to the country having a declining standard of living standards

                • BigTriangle on 04/05/2026 - 12:14

                  @Checkmate3023: "In regards to sick people a lot like and Ironically many are refugees or asylum seekers"

                  Really? Like what?

                  How's the " women only marry Aussies to get citizenship then divorce them " going for you?

  • ihbh on 30/04/2026 - 10:07
    +15

    Younger people with mortgages can't spend as much. Younger people without mortgages, not impacted. These days less younger people have mortgages than before, not good.

    Simplistic thinking. Try to think two or more steps ahead.

    RBA increases interest rates. E.g. Business costs go up & demand (that is, their revenue) go down. They penny pinch or go bust and lay off younger workers. Younger people have less to spend. Objective achieved.

    Is it time for a widescale review of monetary and fiscal policy levers?

    By whom? People who don't understand economics?

    • Maxi Pad on 02/05/2026 - 16:37
      -2

      Their logic and understanding of economics is better than yours.

    • Checkmate3023 on 30/04/2026 - 10:49
      -7

      By whom? People who don't understand economics?

      essentially what people on the left and left wing governments want in fairness

      • Crow K on 30/04/2026 - 22:08
        +3

        Why would you assume they have the same grasp of the concepts as you?

  • JIMB0 on 30/04/2026 - 10:11
    +14

    Older people without mortgages can spend even more thanks to an increase to savings interest.

    The interest on money in the bank doesn't even cover the spending power lost to inflation. If anything interest rates should be much higher.

  • Simon Beech on 30/04/2026 - 10:14
    +10

    reddit bot

    • JIMB0 on 30/04/2026 - 10:26
      +2

      Just another gen Z doomer.

      • Tommyaka on 30/04/2026 - 13:26
        +6

        Shoot me for wanting to start a conversation and get the thoughts of others.

    • Tommyaka on 30/04/2026 - 13:24
      +2

      I'm really not but thanks mate.

  • tenpercent on 30/04/2026 - 13:29
    +10

    How about we pull the Stop Mass Migration In Excess Of Housing Capacity lever?

  • Iwantthebestprice on 30/04/2026 - 13:16
    +9

    Rates are well below average. For everyone who has no idea about economics buying a 1 mil+ property on the hope that rates would ever stay below 5% long term are crazy, and should buckle up for a decade of pain.

    A guy I use to work with bought a 1.1 mil house during COVID, was on a locked in low rate for 3 years, paid not a zero extra cent to the mortgage, spent like a drunken sailor because all this extra money he had, cheap mortgage, getting richer by the year (on paper), dropped $90K on a new Land Cruiser. Fixed rate ends, up to his neck in debt now sitting at +6% interest and cannot afford to keep going.

    It’s not a nice situation, but financial stupidity is real across the population and it’s not the RBAs fault.

    • Porker on 30/04/2026 - 13:28
      +5

      financial stupidity is real across the population and it’s not the RBAs fault.

      Very true.

      I could also have repeated the same story about a few that I know and going on spending sprees after buying a Covid-house.

    • ForkSnorter on 01/05/2026 - 09:01
      -1

      Not everyone is like your friend.

      RBA kept rates too low for too long during COVID, which caused prices to skyrocket. Of course, all the RBA monetary board members owned valuable property, so they enjoyed the massive capital gains as their property portfolios shot up in price!

      Then when they realize the s**t has hit the fan in terms of economy inflating out of control, they put the breaks on, but too late, property prices stall temporarily but then keep inflating while mortgage holders feel the pain.

      (RBA monetary board members are immune from that pain on their ridiculous salaries for making a single decision each month, plus an AI generated report based on ABI data = let's be honest, ChatGPT could write that report and probably make better decisions on rates).

      Then as soon as they can, they drop rates too low for too long again and look what happened last year. In SE QLD, prices when up 20-30% in 18 months in many areas. Some even more. Again, RBA monetary board members enjoy huge increase in their capital.

      Then anyone who bought during that period is going to feel the pain again as RBA makes the really complex decision of pushing rates up again.

      Such complexity in their decisions: "Duh… up… duh… down…..duh..where's my $800k?…Hey ChatGPT, summarise this report."

  • Porker on 30/04/2026 - 12:21
    +6

    One day we'll all be old.

    • tenpercent on 02/05/2026 - 00:26

      No babies in the world?

      • Porker on 02/05/2026 - 09:57

        They'll get old too!

  • welcomeUniverseWorld on 30/04/2026 - 12:09
    +3

    Don’t forget about those who are yet to purchase a property

  • haemolysis on 02/05/2026 - 18:15
    +3

    The problem has never been with the RBA’s levers and how and when they pull them. The problem has always been economic management by the government which forces them into using said levers.

    We need to fix the damn economy and not expect the RBA to keep picking up the slack with their blunt instruments of interest rates.

  • Checkmate3023 on 30/04/2026 - 11:38
    +2

    FYI - Every body wants housing prices to go down - no one wants to loose money on housing

  • photonbuddy on 01/05/2026 - 13:56
    +2

    Interest rate hikes are a blunt tool that moves slowly. The Government has another lever they could pull which would involve significantly more people tightening their belts, without affecting things like rent.

    I read this suggestion a long time ago.

    The Government should be changing the Superannuation rate.Put it up to remove money from peoples wages. Benefit of this is that - all things considered - the people end-up with that money back in their pockets when they retire, instead of it going to bank profits.

    Sadly, unless the Government can foist the decision off onto a third party (so it's not their fault when it goes up!) we are unlikely to see this.

  • Dollar General on 30/04/2026 - 10:52
    +1

    RBA should run a Squid Game competition

  • BuzzBuzzBuzz on 03/05/2026 - 14:46
    +1

    Economics should be mandatory in all schools.

    • Poor Ass on 03/05/2026 - 15:12
      +1

      And taxation

  • Checkmate3023 on 03/05/2026 - 16:02
    +1

    Not being harsh but reading the standard left wingers commenters you realise why Australia is so stuffed so many people lack basic understanding economic principles

    Its sad to see the r/Australia crowd are taking over Ozbargain

    • CoreArchitect on 04/05/2026 - 10:39
      +1

      You have to ask yourself why that is. Like why in the country where education was basically free, the population has remained so poorly educated that they mostly can't grasp the fundamentals?

      Hmmm, I wonder.

      • Checkmate3023 on 04/05/2026 - 11:05
        -1

        You have to ask yourself why that is. Like why in the country where education was basically free, the population has remained so poorly educated that they mostly can't grasp the fundamentals?

        they want 'you' and by you i mean all of us to be idiots

        Every Civilization needs slaves to do the work, capitalism for all its flaws (and there are many) allowed those 'smart' and hard working enough to buy their freedom and thus cant be controlled, this however is getting out of hand too many independent thinkers is not what the government or the ultra-elites want - so they keep people stupid, they tell you 'socialism' is good it will 'benefit you' when it is actually the only way left they can 'keep you down' by taking away you ability to build your own wealth instead the government and its hacks benefit whilst you continue to be a 'good slave'

        • CoreArchitect on 06/05/2026 - 08:43

          Experience tells me that Hanlon's Razor is most probable.

          I think we humans are always underestimating how much of a factor the environment is.

          I think we in Australia have become soft, not because of elites, but because of such a high-quality of life. We didn't have to do much, didn't have to sacrifice much to live like kings in comparison to the rest of the world.

          So now we are noncompetitive in most markets, especially manufacturing and technology. To the point where we don't have enough workers to fill the core roles in our society (teachers, nurses, etc.). Hence, we need workers to come in from other countries.

          So I highly doubt it's anything to do with elites controlling anything. You need to go outside, dude. The fact that you are swaying that way, indicates things about you. I mean, it's a complete logic failure to believe that the elites wanted to reduce our population's education levels, and the way they went about achieving this goal is by providing free university education to the said population…

          I've heard it all now.

          • Checkmate3023 on 06/05/2026 - 10:43

            @CoreArchitect:

            I think we in Australia have become soft, not because of elites, but because of such a high-quality of life. We didn't have to do much, didn't have to sacrifice much to live like kings in comparison to the rest of the world.
            So now we are noncompetitive in most markets, especially manufacturing and technology. To the point where we don't have enough workers to fill the core roles in our society (teachers, nurses, etc.). Hence, we need workers to come in from other countries.

            i actually agree with all this

            So I highly doubt it's anything to do with elites controlling anything. You need to go outside, dude. The fact that you are swaying that way, indicates things about you. I mean, it's a complete logic failure to believe that the elites wanted to reduce our population's education levels, and the way they went about achieving this goal is by providing free university education to the said population

            however you need to jump on google type in any 'major' company in the world Apple Microsoft, commonwealth bank etc

            and you will find Blackrock, Vanguard and a few other big funds essentially own a part of all of them and have large influence on everything they do

            these companies in turn lobby the government and in turn they rule our lives

            wake up my friend your choice is an illusion

            dont believe me legit 'major shareholders' of any large publicly listed company and you will see the same funds, same names owning 5-10% of them

            • CoreArchitect on 09/05/2026 - 00:24
              -1

              @Checkmate3023: erm… So you jumped to the next corollate to justify your Illuminati argument. However, let's just close the loop on education.

              Free University Education has resulted in a poorly educated population?
              Just demonstrating that it wasn't that or the elites. I think that a much stronger case is what the environment within which a large chunk of the population developed. Which was very prosperous in Australia for a long.

    • BigTriangle on 04/05/2026 - 12:28
      +1

      Dude, how are you an expert on anything?

      You think Australia is afflicted with a plauge on imported wives that bail on their husbands as soon as they get here.

      Your ideas on economics are like a Chicago School drop out's.

      Since Thatcher, Reagan and Hawke neo conservative trickle down economics have had their run. 40, 50 years of rw economic policy got us to here.

      • Checkmate3023 on 04/05/2026 - 12:53

        Thatcher, Reagan and Hawke

        all of these leaders oversaw the richest and most prosperous nations on the planet….

        sometimes the jokes write themselves

        • BigTriangle on 07/05/2026 - 13:56

          IFTFY all of these leaders helped destroy the richest and most prosperous nations on the planet….

          sometimes the jokes write themselves

          • Checkmate3023 on 07/05/2026 - 13:59

            @BigTriangle:

            sometimes the jokes write themselves

            Factually speaking

            is Australia has never been richer then we were in the 80s and 90s

            the irony of your comment actually had me laughing gotta be a gen Z with zero knowledge of history

            • BigTriangle on 07/05/2026 - 19:25

              @Checkmate3023: The economy didn't spring into existance when Thatcher, Reagan and Hawk were elected. They all inherited economies that had decades of growth and investment. And to the uncritical eye, looting the economy like a venture capital company looting a newly aquired corporation looks a lot like sucess. Untill there's no assets left to sell, corporations move off shore and and we turn into a service economy.

              "the irony of your comment actually had me laughing gotta be a gen Z with zero knowledge of history "

              If you want a win you're going to have to do better than a Ad Hominem.

              • Checkmate3023 on 07/05/2026 - 20:06

                @BigTriangle:

                The economy didn't spring into existance

                No one is saying they did

                Your comment was…

                these leaders helped destroy the richest and most prosperous nations on the planet…

                Those leaders lead the richest economies on the planet and infairness bar they are still arguebly some of the wealthiest economies on the planet to this day….

                If you want a win you're going to have to do better than a Ad Hominem

                Not here to convince you of anything or win any arguement i know I'm right bcuz im ideals are based on facts and not opinions like the vast majority of hard left Marxists on here

                The fact you think socialism works when historically it pretty much never has worked kind of proves how wrong you are….if you can or cant admit that I personally dont care but facts are fact champ

                • BigTriangle on 07/05/2026 - 20:43

                  @Checkmate3023: Can you write that again in english please.

                  Socialism doesn't work? How about democratic socialism? Or are Norway and their ilk failures?

                  Also, where did the tsunami of fake brides ripping off the system go? You were pretty adamant that was a huge risk to Australian men.

                  Have you been chatting to Hot Russian Women On Line and had to pay for a "translator" and a plane ticket?

                  " Those leaders lead the richest economies on the planet " You missed the bit about rich economies where the wealth and income are skewed so badly there is increasing disruption of our societies, hence the need for a militarised police force, draconian anti protest laws and the rise of racist, populist politicians with no plan beyond hating imigrants, or maybe the disabled.

    • R4 on 03/05/2026 - 18:25
      -1

      OzB has always been dominated by charge at home, city boy Champagne socialists and new Australians - most of whom live in their silos in the East Coast shitholes of New Mumbai and New Shanghai (the cities previously called Sydney and Melbourne).

  • browser on 04/05/2026 - 08:26
    +1

    Younger people have mortgages, older people do not.

    Older people have savings, younger people do not.

    This is like comparing someone who have ate their lunch with someone who have not.

    Tom have food, Ben do not.

    Ben have shit, Tom do not.

    • browser on 04/05/2026 - 08:35

      A more serious response: young people have an easy life, too much free time on their hand so they have to constantly think of ways to entertain and to spend money to feel good, on things like cars, gadgets, holidays, eating outs, luxury goods, which lead to no savings and mortgage pain.

      • CoreArchitect on 04/05/2026 - 10:42

        I think it's a combination of factors. The one you identified — lack of struggle is definitely one.

        But I also think that the Australian laid-back culture has contributed over the decades. In the lucky country, there was minimal struggle and plenty to go around, for decades. That has bred complacency.

        Now everyone is surprised as to why migrants from "other cultures" are getting all the good jobs and opportunities.
        Perhaps it's because they were born and grew up in an environment which prepared them for the struggle to get the best opportunities.

  • KangaDrew on 30/04/2026 - 17:58

    Younger people without mortgages, not impacted

    Uhhhh, have you not seen the insane rental prices being asked for these days? Sure, there's no mortgage impact, but they're paying someone else's mortgage while trying to save for their own. And you can guarantee that the vast majority of landlords are going to pass that higher interest rate straight onto their tenants.

    Younger people - amongst others - are absolutely impacted. In a different way, sure, but the net result is the same.

    • LFO on 01/05/2026 - 10:49
      -4

      Younger people could live at home with their parents and spend as little as they wish.

      Perhaps that is how Older people managed to own their homes … (and focusing in savings not bigger expenses)

  • SuperMid on 01/05/2026 - 08:41

    Boomers: could afford to purchase a property with minimal to zero prior family financial support (loan)

    Current and previous gens: realistically, a very high majority who have a property, have a high dual income or cash from parents to help with deposit. Otherwise just straight up saving for a house on your own is very difficult.

  • CoreArchitect on 01/05/2026 - 10:02

    The title of your post seems a bit out of kilter with the questions posed in the body, no?

    Inflation management via interest rates is not directly related to the population profile, it's macro control — as in across the entire economy.

    It's abit of a black box: Prices starts to grow, to slow this growth, reserve bank hikes rates. This has an effect across the entire economy, NOT only a specific segment. They want to reduce demand across ALL sub-markets.

    Hence, your point in drawling parallels that younger people have less disposable income is redundant. Because it's relative.

    A fictional old person has disposable income of 5,000: interest rate hike reduces spending by 0-1,000
    A fictional young person has a disposable income of 2,000: interest rate hike reduces spending by 0-500

    The net market affect is the net demand of goods and services that both groups consume is reduced. Causing growth to moderate. The reserve bank doesnt care that much about the proportion of the reduction. They just want to reduce demand.

    Hence, it's very difficult to come up with a new way to control supply and demand at a macro level. Outside of a central-control economy. Where the government controls all inputs and outputs into every sector. Like they did in the USSR.

    • danwylie on 01/05/2026 - 15:23

      They may WANT to reduce demand across all sub-markets but in practice the older cohort has more savings and own their home and an interest rate rise gives them more disposable income, not less. As the population ages the cohort of people who are unaffected (or are even better off) by interest rate rises is growing, so the net effect of an interest rate rise is blunted causing the RBA to raise interest rates more which is brutal on those with less savings and a mortgage.

      • CoreArchitect on 02/05/2026 - 21:08

        What you say is true. Although you draw the wrong conclusion due to a missed consideration:

        There are more mortgage holders currently than there were in say the 1970. Based on that, nothing is blunted at all. If anything, it's more effective today.

  • fl360 on 01/05/2026 - 16:29

    I do believe this is a feature, or a flaw of democracy, from time to time it is working against you if you are the minority in the voting game.

    In some situations, I think relocation is the key to solve these problems. Just like the young Koreans who sick of working for the big moneylords and move elsewhere.

  • R4 on 01/05/2026 - 19:10

    Australia has many problems but immigration is one of the biggest. Too much migration and the wrong kind of migrants. Economy is growing but living standards are falling because of it. Canada recently cut migration. Their universities and other vested interests chucked their toys out. Their population has fallen - as had their house prices. Canada is our closet peer country in the World. It's no coincidence that increases in migration and the rise of PHON are occurring at roughly the same time. I'm not saying that PHON have all the answers but it does show that Australians are waking up to the problem. The next election is going to be very interesting.

    • AustriaBargain on 01/05/2026 - 20:23

      We just need more homes and more services near those homes. But everyone with a little bit of money has a vested interest in supply being constrained, they are betting against the interest of the country as a whole and they will vote to save their investment.

      • Antikythera on 01/05/2026 - 20:35
        +1

        we need to inflate the boomers' nest eggs out of significance.
        mandated 5% wage increase per year for the next 50 years.

        • AustriaBargain on 01/05/2026 - 20:37

          We should let Australians invest in Australia. Let us invest in the next Bluey, not in existing homes that would exist exactly the same with or without your investment. Incentives should only be for new developments.

      • R4 on 01/05/2026 - 22:57
        -1

        We definitely need to build more homes but that's only one part of the solution. We also need to reform our immigration, tax and energy policies.

        • AustriaBargain on 02/05/2026 - 00:00
          -1

          Like most of the wealthy developed world, our fertility rate is too low to support growth let alone replacement. And it's politically not viable to spend many billions of dollars on incentives and childcare for low income people to have more babies, News Corp simply won't allow it. We need those migrants and the longer we delay laying inroads for migration, the lower quality migrants will be left for us after countries like Canada and Japan clean up on the good migrants.

          • R4 on 02/05/2026 - 02:18
            -1

            @AustriaBargain: I reckon a large percentage of the migrants we're currently taking in are of low quality - hence the drop in our per capita GDP and living standards.

            • tenpercent on 02/05/2026 - 18:06
              +1

              @R4: That's right. Not many were buying what ON was selling 2 decades ago because we were importing quality. Now the average quality has declined and so ON is on the up and up.

              • R4 on 02/05/2026 - 19:05
                -2

                @tenpercent: Yep. They are directly related. But we're seeing this all across the West now that people are realising that mass migration and multiculturalism have largely failed.

            • monky on 03/05/2026 - 15:10

              @R4: Why make a value judgement on the character of many thousands of essentially anonymous people, and extension dehumanise them?

              Respectfully, just take a moment to consider if your position is reactionary in any way… And maybe get some therapy.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join