About The Latest Interest Rate Increase

Cognitive Consonance on 30/09/2026 - 14:16

Consumers are still being blamed for inflation, and have to carry the load for it.
Just straight out bullsh*t from politicians of all parties who know nothing.
.

First, The government borrows much more that its capacity and incurs huge interest bills.
The only way they see to reduce their debt is to devalue the currency, and the only way to do that is Inflation.
In addition to that, it distorts the labour market to build whatever projects they see as vote winners, by paying egregious wages to not only drag people from the normal economy, but set off a competing wage demand cycle.
Then there's the banks.
Would not Govt or Reserve Bank enforcement of reduction of LVR's on home loans, even credit cards limits, slow down the construction industry without sacrificing existing borrowers.
Wouldn't actions like these slow down the money supply without inflation?
Or does the Reserve Bank not have to power to do anything except the same thing they have always done?
In which case what is the point of them?

Financial Interest

Comments

Best
Search through all the comments in this post.
  • Jimothy Wongingtons on 30/09/2026 - 14:20

    Or does the Reserve Bank not have to power to do anything except the same thing they have always done

    They really only have 1 lever to pull…

    • 71
    • 30year old Camry on 30/09/2026 - 14:48

      They really only have 1 lever to pull…

      That's what my wife keeps telling me.

      • 24
      • EightImmortals on 30/09/2026 - 15:35

        She says the same thing to me!

        • 17
      • Jaspa7 on 01/10/2026 - 10:26

        and yet it still never gets pulled ;(

        • 6
      • Skinnerr on 03/10/2026 - 05:55

        Pull my lever?

        • 0
        • serpserpserp on 04/10/2026 - 11:56

          You mean ding-a-ling.

          • 0
    • orangetrain on 30/09/2026 - 20:36

      They handed out $188b 0.1% loans to free lunch sponsors big banks during covid who then gave it out to homebuyers at market rates.

      It's certainly a big club lever…

      • 11
      • bargain-dev on 01/10/2026 - 10:46

        The TFF was conditional on providing business funding.

        • 1
      • retailsaver on 02/10/2026 - 21:09

        $188b of money they created out of thin air with no effort and nothing to back it except typing numbers into a computer.

        Yet people think Bitcoin is the scam.

        • 1
    • reactor-au on 01/10/2026 - 08:24

      I don't know why blame rba, every reserve bank does this.
      It's a reaction to a trigger, the trigger is never addressed because the trigger is the govt play area but the rba. So the cycle continues until rba hits their unemployment rate tolerance which they balance against their distance to inflation target.

      • 3
    • QuickToThePointless on 30/09/2026 - 14:22

      That’s exactly what Michelle Bullock said, right before she stepped out from behind the lecturn to reveal her shorts and thongs as she headed for her new holiday home

      • 0
      • DashCam AKA Rolts on 30/09/2026 - 15:27

        User name checks out

        • 39
      • Pelando on 01/10/2026 - 09:53

        And she has the perfect name to match.

        • 4
    • gakko on 01/10/2026 - 14:10

      Is she looking for a second one?

      • 0
    • Gongxifachai on 01/10/2026 - 19:39

      truth…

      • 0
    • OhNoUShiz on 01/10/2026 - 21:42

      Easy job to me. Should replace by AI. Feed all economy data in and let AI runs it.

      • 0
    • Skinnerr on 03/10/2026 - 05:57

      There's only one true Lever

      • 0
  • Wiadro on 30/09/2026 - 14:40

    tbh i think we should goto a US home loan style of lending, your interest rate does not change unless you refinance or move and change loans, as the original cost of the money lent to the bank has not changed.

    • 18
    • tenpercent on 30/09/2026 - 15:10

      Don't be rational. Boomers might get in your face and tell you you're some kind of Trump loving seppo.

      • 3
    • JimB on 30/09/2026 - 15:15

      The downside is that the longer the fixed term, the higher the interest rate.

      Loan Term
      Estimated Interest Rate
      30-Year Fixed 7.03% – 7.50%
      20-Year Fixed 7.375%
      15-Year Fixed 6.42% – 6.63%

      • 1
      • bargain-dev on 01/10/2026 - 10:48

        30y fixed in australia would be far above that (as in, well above 10%). We don't have much of an MBS market, the US is really only able to offer them because of fannie mae and freddie mac.

        • 2
        • JimB on 01/10/2026 - 16:28

          Correct

          That's the US rates I quoted.

          Few investors/lenders here in Aust would want to take the risk of a 30 year fixed rate unless there's a large premium AND a breakage fee.

          • 0
    • Cluster on 30/09/2026 - 17:08

      Only the USA has this exorbitant privilege of 30 year fixed mortgages primarily due to their enormous bond market and the traditional insatiable appetite of investors for American debt.

      But, this is now changing. The US dollar is slowly losing its reserve currency status.

      • 1
    • Frozensage on 30/09/2026 - 17:33

      the government is subsidising u, someone has to be paying at the end of the day, and it's usually coming out of you or your neighbour's pocket one way or another.

      • 1
    • Onemoredeal on 30/09/2026 - 15:07

      Fixed rate mortgages are great when rates are low, but like fixed rates anywhere, if rates dropped again you’re not refinancing without heavy penalties . Pros and cons

      • 0
    • mr_vino89 on 30/09/2026 - 16:59

      The problem with that style of lending right now would likely see an increase is house prices (again) due to demand.

      • 0
  • tenpercent on 30/09/2026 - 15:46

    Let's not ignore the 300k people per annum sized elephant in the room that is the primary driver of the marginal increase in demand for everything. From housing (to rent or to buy), to transport (congestion anyone?), to food/clothing/furnishings/etc (3% inflation? lol pull the other one), use of the postal and delivery services (costs and/or delays), use of hospitals (ambulance ramping? multi hour wait times in EDs?), long wait times to see medical specialists (that don't seem to improve despite bringing in as many doctors as we can), overcrowded schools and classrooms, overcrowded everything.

    Unfortunately the RBA has no control over any of that. What it does have control over, interest rates, is only weakly tied to inflation, especially due to the above, but also do the growing cohort of Boomer retirees who are completely insulated and who in fact benefit from higher interest rates. The RBA has ZERO power to control their spending. ZERO. The RBA is an antiquated institution that is wholly unsuitably for Australia's modern economic and demographic circumstances.

    • 18
    • wetsandwich on 30/09/2026 - 15:59

      Uh oh, careful there, numbers = far right racism!

      Just need someone to come in here and reassure us that importing an entire city worth of low paid workers each year doesn't impact housing or wages in the slightest because they all live under a giant bridge somewhere and don't consume anything at all while they are here. Oh and their sickly old grandmothers that come along for the ride definitely don't consume any health care either.

      • 12
      • Autonomic on 30/09/2026 - 16:17

        low paid workers

        Hmm

        $70,762 was the median total income for permanent migrants aged 15-64 years in 2023-24.

        Uh oh, careful there, numbers!

        • 6
      • Cognitive Consonance on 30/09/2026 - 16:20

        I should have itemised that in my heading. Yes, the government also invents money to look after the imported masses, with little productive output to stifle inflation.

        • 0
    • freefall101 on 30/09/2026 - 18:39

      Let’s not ignore the 40% increase to oil prices. You know, the thing that underpins the cost of producing and transporting all those goods. Clothing prices don’t go up because of the minuscule increase of demand in Australia, it’s all made overseas anyway.

      • 3
      • tenpercent on 30/09/2026 - 19:20

        What I described was the situation long before this year's oil supply woes. Oil prices are just the icing on the cake.

        • 1
        • freefall101 on 01/10/2026 - 01:12

          You realise inflation is calculated regularly, that the 4% growth is from a year ago, not the situation "long before"?

          And I ssume can totally explain why inflation was lower in 2025 than 2026, right? Because immigration is the problem, with oil prices on top, it should be going bananas right? Because Labor has done nothing to slow immigration and it's only something One Nation will fix?

          And that housing prices have barely grown nationally the past 12 months? I didn't realise we'd decreased immigration so much the last 12 months that housing prices stopped rising. Did Labor already do the job you're asking of them?

          • 1
          • Overclocked91 on 01/10/2026 - 07:01

            @freefall101: Labor have been increasing immigration over the past 4 years and now all of sudden its changing when One Nation are winning seats. Immigration has a direct correlation with house prices. Feel free to google that. In addition, Trimmed inflation rate was trending up before the war. The governor also specifically stated domestic spending and pressures are causing this. Lets be honest, after the governor mentioned this, she only mentioned the war to take the flak off the Labor government.

            • 1
            • freefall101 on 01/10/2026 - 10:23

              @Overclocked91: Immigration peaked back in 2023, it has been going down since then. Yet we're still at around 300k immigrants coming in a year yet housing prices have been falling since March. How do you explain that?

              Correlation isn't the same as causation, and it's far more complex than one single cause. The huge return of immigrants post-covid definitely pushed housing prices up, but then so did the undersupply of new houses we've had since 2019, the increase to the cost of building houses (driven mostly by the Ukraine war at first, and the lack of workers to build houses) were more of the cause than immigration. If you look at the ABS data, we're building less houses now than we were in 2015, and except for a slight post-covid bump it has stayed low. Regardless of whether population goes up from immigration or birthrate, we need to build more houses and we're not.

              Also, if the governor specifically stated it's due to domestic spending and pressures, why blame immigration? Governments have been throwing cash out the door on big ticket items, using up labour resources that could be building housing. But why do you think domestic spending has gone up? Transportation costs are some of the biggest drivers behind inflation - that's domestic spending. Can't you see the clear causation to oil prices that is driving that?

              • 2
              • tenpercent on 01/10/2026 - 13:44

                @freefall101:

                Immigration peaked back in 2023, it has been going down since then. Yet we're still at around 300k immigrants

                This is a tired distraction that no one but the most rusted on ALP barnacles is falling for any more.

                "We threw you to the ground and stomped on your head in 2023 but now we're only kicking in you in the guts so things are improving guys."

                Yeah, nah.

                300k per annum net overseas migration is still 100k per annum higher than the 12 year average prior to Albo's ALP coming to power. No wonder things are breaking. Too many people, too quickly. Yes it's less than 500k, but that's hardly a consolation for the younger generations of Australians or the growing homeless population.

                If you look at the ABS data, we're building less houses now than we were in 2015(abs.gov.au), and except for a slight post-covid bump it has stayed low.

                So despite the mass migration we are still falling even further behind in housing supply. Yet the ALP persists in pursuing mass migration (albeit they're trying really hard to reframe it as if they are on the migration reduction bandwagon too, "it's not 500k any more guys - see we are reducing it - hehe"). Unless net overseas migration contributes more to the supply of additional (as distinct from new) dwellings to the market than their own demand and the natural attrition of expiring Boomers, then the problem will continue to get worse.

                we need to build more houses and we're not.

                We need to build more houses to both fill the current shortage i.e. to provide sufficient housing for everyone already here AND everyone newly arriving. See above.

                Also, if the governor specifically stated it's due to domestic spending and pressures, why blame immigration?

                Where do suppose the net increase in aggregate spending is coming from? It's from population growth, it's not because everyone in the country won the lotto. The RBA in their various communications have referred explicitly to migration numbers driving demand and thus inflation on numerous occasions.

                Sarah Hunter, Assistant Governor, 8 Sept 2026:

                While migrants do when they come here, they do add to demand. They need somewhere to live. They go out shopping, they’ll eat in restaurants and what have you. They add to demand.

                Sarah Hunter, 16 May 2024:

                Cycles in population growth tend to be driven by net overseas migration…
                A growing population clearly implies that underlying demand for housing is rising over time – all of these extra people need a place to live…
                Demand pressure, and so upward pressure on rents and prices, will remain until new supply comes online.

                RBA, Statement on Monetary Policy, February 2024:

                migrants also add to overall demand in the economy… Our overall assessment is that aggregate demand remains above the economy’s capacity to supply goods and services thereby putting pressure on inflation.

                Michelle Bullock, 8 August 2024:

                Where it’s shown up, though, is in the capital stock and the housing stock…
                When you get a big increase in demand, which you do with migration, you end up obviously with pressure on housing prices and rents.

                RBA Bulletin, July 2025:

                International students tend to add more to demand in the economy than they do to supply in the short run…
                In periods of large swings in international student numbers or when the economy has little spare capacity, this means that changing international student numbers can affect macroeconomic outcomes, particularly in sectors of the economy where supply cannot respond quickly.
                …Models of the housing market used by the RBA suggest that a 50,000 increase in population would raise private rents by around 0.5 per cent compared with a baseline projection.”

                So the RBA is certainly signalling to the market.

                Can't you see the clear causation to oil prices that is driving that?

                Does your memory extend back before the start of the current Iran war and other Mid East troubles? These housing supply and broader inflation issues have been ongoing long before the oil price woes. Both dinosaur parties have been wholly inept, incapable or unwilling to solve them. The oil prices are just the icing on the cake.

                • 2
    • Cognitive Consonance on 30/09/2026 - 16:34

      Ok, for a slightly different perspective, a fair porportion, not all, of boomers "who are completely insulated".
      Many are asset rich/cash poor and live on the pension, maybe plus HEAS which nets them a living income.
      If they downsize, say clear $750,000 on their house, they lose the pension, and start getting taxed on their savings interest, and eating into their savings.
      If they buy, the entire double storey market is off limits, stairs are the enemy of age.
      So they have to move out of the suburbs of their lifetimes, and windup in shitty burbs they have no knowledge, friends, social groups or doctors.
      And SFA left for their children. I am not disagreeing, just lifting a bit of the curtain
      That's government agenda , neary as good as a death tax.

      • -1
      • Jolakot on 30/09/2026 - 19:32

        Why should I subsidise someone else's inheritance?

        • 8
        • BobLim on 01/10/2026 - 00:01

          IMO pensions should be a loan (ala HECS), not a gift. Repay it out of the estate before any inheritance is distributed. Simples.

          • 0
          • Jolakot on 01/10/2026 - 09:35

            @BobLim: People would just engineer their wealth to have nothing when they die, already gifted or borrowed against.

            But I've always argued that the Home Equity Access Scheme should be made mandatory for 100% of the pension if eligible

            • 1
            • Cognitive Consonance on 01/10/2026 - 20:53

              @Jolakot: The HEAS requires a caveat on your property, so is not available if you don't own a home.
              But the concept of a pension being a loan has merit
              Bringing them together would be a huge task.

              • 0
          • tenpercent on 01/10/2026 - 11:45

            @BobLim: Grandfather it for anyone born before 1980 though, right? That is the way a certain generation does things in Australia. Suck the teat, pull up the ladder at every stage of life. /s

            • 1
      • tenpercent on 01/10/2026 - 20:19

        If they are in the fortunate position to be able to financially self-sustain their retirement without relying on the government (i.e. without age pension) then what are they whinging about?

        • 0
  • rambutann on 30/09/2026 - 14:31

    Nah.. a better lever is variable personal income taxation but good luck convincing the public of that.

    • 17
    • mskeggs on 30/09/2026 - 14:43

      I'm interested in this, but don't know enough yet.
      If it works like the opposite of contracting forces, where welfare rises in times of increased unemployment and rates get cut to spur borrowing it sounds sensible.

      The current approach leads to people getting angry irrationally as they pick up on their personal favorite reason for inflation, be it immigration, middle east wars, gov spending, rich people profligate spending, minimum wage rises etc. when they all contribute.
      But raising interest rates just beats up mortgage holders and geared businesses. And actually benefits those with savings etc.

      • 2
      • rambutann on 30/09/2026 - 15:02

        In my mind it wouldn't be linear.. higher tax brackets would be impacted more, lower tax brackets less.

        Using interest rates is stupid because a large portion of society lives off bank interest or other similar means.. half of society spends more, half spends less, we end up in the same position.

        In the instance of my work, price rises are inevitable with rising labor costs, rising domestic freight (spending hundreds of thousands extra on fuel per annum for an 8 figure top line business) & rising international freight (was ~$1500USD for a container ex. China 4 months ago, now its $6,000USD).

        • 2
        • mrvaluepack on 30/09/2026 - 22:33

          wtf you on about? we already have a progressive tax system which hasnt really kept up with inflation.

          • 3
          • rambutann on 01/10/2026 - 08:56

            @mrvaluepack: I'm suggesting we adjust those tax rates instead of interest rates.
            So say you're in the 45% tax bracket, instead of raising interest rates, that tax bracket increases to 50%.

            Reduces spending, increases government income, which can ultimately be poured back into the economy to invest in new infrastructure and create jobs when the economy is struggling.. and that 45% tax bracket would reduce to 40% when the economy is in struggle street.

            • -3
            • mrvaluepack on 01/10/2026 - 12:41

              @rambutann: So when inflation shoots up even further we might get up to 99% tax? Lol

              • 2
              • rambutann on 01/10/2026 - 13:46

                @mrvaluepack: That's like saying 'So when inflation shoots up even further we might get up to 99% interest rates'.
                On the flip side, when the economy nosedives, tax rates could go to 0% to incentivize spending.

                It's a financial lever to restrict spending within the economy.. and it has much more of a universal impact compared to interest rates which disproportionately negatively impact the lower & middle class and benefit those who live on savings.

                As I said, it's not something that would ever occur, because most of the public aren't intelligent enough to fathom how and why it's a better financial lever. Most individuals would view it as 'arghhh more tax f the government' and have amnesia when tax rates are cut to prop up the economy.

                • 1
                • tenpercent on 01/10/2026 - 14:01

                  @rambutann: Increasing the tax rate of the top tax bracket isn't necessarily going to impact the the biggest cohort insulated from negative impacts of interest rate changes. They're retired, no mortgage or significant debts, large savings, getting part aged pension, maybe some tax free money from their super, or one of those juicy grandfathered pension schemes from the old days. They're living large, but they're probably not in the top tax bracket. So while I agree with your intuition that interest rates are a weak tool and not fit for purpose, fiddling with taxation rates is probably not going to work either. They will be, by and large, insulated from that as well.

                  • 1
                  • rambutann on 01/10/2026 - 15:26

                    @tenpercent: I was only using the top tax bracket as an example. All tax brackets would be impacted in my mind.

                    • 0
                    • tenpercent on 01/10/2026 - 19:52

                      @rambutann: That's a little better, in terms of being broad reaching, but it won't affect those with big savings accounts or big super accounts, i.e. the growing cohort of big spending retired boomers. They will still be unaffected.

                      • 1
                      • rambutann on 01/10/2026 - 21:39

                        @tenpercent: I believe overall they will be more considered in their spending overall.

                        I know a few retired boomers who are terrified to see their net wealth decrease, so they would be more impacted and in theory have less money to spend (but this is oldies without pension funds, they are living off investments).

                        If you assume they spend more than they earn then yes those boomers are unlikely to be impacted by the variable taxation logic.

                        • 0
                • ChupaCabra on 02/10/2026 - 10:26

                  @rambutann: The money is going somewhere though and they rightfully earned it. I think your suggestion would be better if say it forced them to put more in super rather than being taxed more. We also can’t trust our government not to spend extra taxes or line their own pockets

                  • 0
            • MrFrugalSpend on 02/10/2026 - 00:26

              @rambutann: govt spending is one of the main causes of inflation. they don't adjust it based on when things are busy and inflation is high… why would you give them more money and take it from people actually working to drive the economy forward so the govt can waste it to buy more votes?

              • 2
              • fusion17 on 02/10/2026 - 19:28

                @MrFrugalSpend: They knew about this for at least 6 months.
                Even last year, the rba warned them without saying it loud and clear as they are now, but they didnt even try to reign it in.

                You look at something like the immigration loopholes/bridging visa's theyre trying to close now, its only because they're under pressure at the polls.

                • 1
        • kaleidoscope on 01/10/2026 - 18:08

          higher tax brackets would be impacted more, lower tax brackets less.

          Thats how it is even now… people just find ways to avoid* the ceiling and yet still receive all gov and medical benefits..

          • 2
    • Cognitive Consonance on 30/09/2026 - 16:09

      Yeah but, that still blames the public

      • 1
    • surg3on on 01/10/2026 - 08:18

      It's not better. It doesn't slow borrowing and spending as much and does nothing for corporations. That said, flexible taxation band controlled by the RBA would be an excellent tool for them to consider

      • 0
    • welcomeUniverseWorld on 30/09/2026 - 23:40

      What is that? Not interested to pay more tax

      • -1
    • wetsandwich on 30/09/2026 - 16:04

      I actually thought up my own scheme where they could have separate interest rates per postcode (or some other easily-administered way of varying it) and maybe also different for commercial versus residential. Example, you have a new city and you want everyone to move there > interest rates are say 1% lower than the base rate in that new suburb. And after everyone builds a house there, you need more businesses such as cafes and shops, so commercial lending in that area is 2% less than base rates so it's basically free money if you start building shopping malls there.
      And the CBD is already a highly developed area so now rates are +0.5% there to slightly discourage lending.
      This would overall be a way of guiding investment and construction to areas which actually need it, rather than just a blunt hammer smashing the entire economy at once.

      • -2
      • JIMB0 on 30/09/2026 - 16:06

        Sound like a centrally planned economy. Not many of those left in the world.

        • 5
      • freefall101 on 30/09/2026 - 18:34

        Used to be the government sold off land for peanuts to people rather than property developers who bank land, and it didn’t cost $500 and hour for a tradie to lay bricks.

        Easier way would be property tax. Stamp duty is already a huge chunk of state govt revenue, and property value drives the price. Just move to an annual tax instead.

        • 2
      • tenpercent on 30/09/2026 - 17:34

        Sounds like special economic zones. Although usually it is tax concessions used to encourage investment in those areas.

        • 0
      • geebi on 03/10/2026 - 13:13

        Loans are used for more the mortgages. How would you do this with businesses ?

        Like we can all dream up plans but interest rates are the only proven way to get inflation down.

        • 0
    • Bludgeman on 01/10/2026 - 14:27

      You're suggesting tax the rich more, so clearly you're not in that bracket because you wouldn't suggest to hurt yourself.
      So, what's the incentive to work harder and earn more if you're just going to be punished?
      The rich will just stop working.

      • -2
      • rambutann on 01/10/2026 - 15:25

        I was using the higher tax bracket as an example.
        It would impact everyone, but the impact would be higher for those on higher incomes..
        Right now we have boomers making bank from interest, falling into the highest tax bracket. They are only going to spend more money with rising interest rates.

        You are only focusing on the event of increasing taxation to slow the economy. The opposite would apply when the economy needs a boost. someone on the 45% tax bracket may go down to 30% to increase their disposable income, which would likely see more money move through the economy.

        • 2
      • Rick Sanchez on 02/10/2026 - 01:32

        "you wouldn't suggest to hurt yourself" - the whole point of policy is to progress as a society. I'm ok with getting taxed more in my bracket, or other changes that might affect assets etc if it results in a net positive.
        "The right will stop working" nonsense. There's a loooot of room before they would even feel it.

        • 2
  • Cludos on 30/09/2026 - 14:58

    surprised it's taken 24 hours to get this up and running lol
    should have a poll
    affected
    not affected
    boomer thanks Jim/Albo
    Gen Z just booked next holiday as still living at home and couldn't GAF.

    • 13
    • Onemoredeal on 30/09/2026 - 16:48

      My brother has resigned himself to the fact that the only possible way his Gen Z kids are moving out is if he downgrades to a one bed unit .

      • 3
      • HelpMeiCantSee on 02/10/2026 - 23:11

        I would be absolutely happy to have my kids as long as they need/would like to.

        Wtf am I going to do with an empty house. If it helps them get ahead, bonus.

        Maybe I’m the strange one and actually enjoy the company of my kids.

        • 1
      • Cludos on 30/09/2026 - 17:11

        haha good on them

        • 0
    • Jaspa7 on 01/10/2026 - 11:44

      E) millennial just wants milk that tastes like real milk

      • 2
      • Mad Max on 01/10/2026 - 11:50

        They are working at it. They have the formula almost right. Just a few more chemical ingredients and they will be able to mass produce it.

        • 2
    • FrozenFred on 30/09/2026 - 15:08

      doesn't everyone go on holiday every year as its the australian thing to do

      • 1
  • Iwantthebestprice on 30/09/2026 - 21:10

    Wow it really seems after reading all these comments that Jim and the finance minister doing their media runs saying government spending is not to blame is working. Almost no one here has said reduce government spending. Sure the honourable mentions include increase super, reduce migration, target postcodes with higher tax rates, increase tax rates on high earners and the blame on the war in Iran (when rates were increasing before orange man dropped the first bomb).
    But for once just look at the facts:
    Government spending:
    2022-2023 $627 billion
    2026-2027 $829 billion
    A 32% increase in government spending in 3 years!!
    The insane amount of money flowing through the economy and competing with private enterprise is complete insanity.
    While I don’t believe liberals would be any better.
    For the government to sit here and say we’ve increased money flowing through the economy by 32% in 3 years and that’s not having an affect is outrageous.
    While labour is making efforts to reduce this, like the NDIS changes, which cannot come soon enough, more needs to be done, and while they continue to deny it and the public keeps blaming each other they will not learn.

    • 13
    • bigbadboogieman on 01/10/2026 - 07:58

      This govt is absolutely to blame. They are in their second term and have absolutely flogged every day Aussie with fiscal mismanagement.

      • 1
    • Cognitive Consonance on 30/09/2026 - 21:46

      My bad, I should have followed through, on reducing borrowing to reduce spending.
      The big fix is Hanson.
      If you have read up on Don Chipp and his Australian Democrats, his motto was "Keep the bastards homest". He didn't last too long but had the desirable effect.
      And Hanson may be the key.
      Everyone with two eyes could see the NDIS was going to be what it is, but both parties were afraid of puttng th ebrakes on a vote winner.

      • 0
    • Autonomic on 02/10/2026 - 14:42

      Half of that is due to inflation. ~15% over 3 years isn't much. Seems in line with historical numbers?

      • 0
  • Dollar General on 30/09/2026 - 14:40

    Some people benefit from rising rates, particularly savers

    • 10
    • Drakesy on 30/09/2026 - 14:44

      a certain generation is booming!

      • 13
      • Dollar General on 30/09/2026 - 16:08

        I’m not a boomer

        Gen X

        • 5
        • serpserpserp on 04/10/2026 - 11:58

          Pretty much the same.

          • 1
      • Frozensage on 30/09/2026 - 17:32

        not all boomers have planned out their life and end up with no mortgage and plenty of cash at 70. Heaps I know still renting. Boomer is a big catchall.

        • 2
        • Drakesy on 30/09/2026 - 17:37

          If you literally grew up in the golden years where you could afford a house and 2 kids on one income and still rent at 70 i would love to see how they go at being a millenial today.

          • 23
          • Gunnar on 30/09/2026 - 17:41

            @Drakesy: And don’t forget the great super schemes!

            • 8
            • Drakesy on 30/09/2026 - 17:42

              @Gunnar: Oh yeah,

              Gold state super, the social great drain.

              Mum's on it.
              She retired at 59
              Literally receives 75% of her final salary for life fixed to CPI. Doesn't have a mortgage so just goes into funding her holidays

              Absolute joke.

              • 11
          • gromit on 30/09/2026 - 21:29

            @Drakesy: The reality is the majority of boomers are not wealthy, 35% don't even own their own home and a huge portion are on the pension.

            • 1
            • qtr pounder on 30/09/2026 - 22:02

              @gromit: Maybe they should have skipped the smashed avo toasts and pulled themselves up by the bootstraps.

              • 5
          • tenpercent on 30/09/2026 - 17:58

            @Drakesy:

            f you literally grew up in the golden years where you could afford a house and 2 kids on one income and still rent at 70 i would love to see how they go at being a millenial today.

            To be fair though, there would be a larger number of women of that generation who escaped violent marriages (DV was a more common thing in that generation - "fetch me my belt, son") and who ended up with very little, and have been trying to catch up ever since (both financially and career wise, especially if they were stay at home mums). They may even have (re)started their independent financial lives and careers around the same time as those struggling Millennials.

            • -1
            • Drakesy on 30/09/2026 - 18:05

              @tenpercent: *women could afford to escape violent marriages back then.

              nowadays just trying to afford a rental on a single income is extremely difficult - especially with house price rises and does contribute significantly to women remaining in abusive relationships.

              • 5
          • JIMB0 on 30/09/2026 - 18:07

            @Drakesy:

            If you literally grew up in the golden years where you could afford a house and 2 kids on one income

            We're still in the golden years.

            • -6
            • brendanm on 30/09/2026 - 19:09

              @JIMB0: House prices now at 13:1 ratio with wages. One of the largest declines in living standard in the OECD. Now having more money taken off us from the CGT changes. Yeah it's just fantastic.

              • 11
Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join