Trouble is - and I've said this over and over - until such time as there is a moratorium on cost of living rises, which is a pretty major step - any increase is always only ever going to follow COL rises, and then actually contributes to further rises.

Unless you live in a controlled economy, these two can never be reconciled - what CAN be effected is to stop unnecessary additions to cost of living - primarily 'privatisation' nonsense -  and retain public utlities and services in public hands.

Worked well for years - then the parasites got into the act, starting with that leech, Greiner, and his rapacious ideas on 'government' - for him and his, that is.... not for the people.  A Lib 'elder statesman' - and the morons still listen to this thief.

freediver wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2020 at 9:59pm:



I'm only going by what is written in the Deloitte Access Economics report! - It sounds like you don't think it's very credible, is that correct?  Anyway all aspects of the report are laid out with references to the primary studies.


From the report :

- $3.3billion a year would show up as extra spending by consumers

- 12,000 new jobs

- Australian wages would lift by around 0.2%

- Stronger economy would boost corporate profits

- Federal Government would raise an extra $1.0billion in taxes

- State and Territory Government revenues would increase by some $0.25billion

- Reduced financial pressures on the poor lead to better health outcomes


Importantly:

- Newstart benefits haven’t risen in line with national living standards for a quarter of a century

- So Newstart has shrunk as a share of:

–average wages,

–median wages,

–the minimum wage, and

–the age pension


At this point, I think anyone who still considers denying Newstart recipients a reasonable increase, are plainly and simply being mean spirited!

https://www.acoss.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/DAE-Analysis-of-the-impact-o...

So the whole basis of the "economic case" is that Australians as a whole would save and invest less, instead giving money to people who will spend everything they get?

Does the "extra" spending take into account the lower spending by whoever is paying for the increase?

freediver wrote on Jan 4^th, 2020 at 11:28am:


It seems like a very detailed report so it most likely does.

The positive attitude of the Governor of the Reserve Bank toward an increase also indicates an overall benefit for the economy!

January 1 2020
The economic case for increasing Newstart
Canberra Times
   

Latest News

Imagine a single policy that could boost our lacklustre economy by $4 billion, create an additional 12,000 jobs by 2021, disproportionately support regional and remote communities doing it tough with drought and bushfires, reduce inequality by benefiting the poorest fifth of Australians 28 times more than the richest, disproportionately support women, boost wages and corporate profits, and increase federal and state tax revenue by more than $1.25 billion.


Compared to the age pension, disability support payments, the minimum wage and average wages, Newstart has shrunk dramatically over the past 25 years.

Now suppose this policy has longer-term benefits: that it could automatically boost the economy during times of weakness without the time lags associated with infrastructure and other stimulus spending; that it would automatically withdraw from the economy when times were good without the permanent cost of tax cuts and other stimulus measures; and that it would boost GDP growth and reduce economic volatility.

And suppose the cost of this policy was only 0.6 per cent of the federal budget, meaning it could be funded without losing the politically cherished budget surplus.

Sound good? Then, congratulations, you support increasing Newstart.

Newstart is the main income support payment for people who are unemployed. Compared to the age pension, disability support payments, the minimum wage and average wages, it has shrunk dramatically over the past 25 years. This is bad news for the economy, and even worse news for the 723,000 people who are forced to live off it.

While the age pension has doubled in real terms since 2000, Newstart has remained unchanged. The reason is simple, but illogical. Newstart is indexed against inflation, whereas other government payments are indexed against wages, which more accurately measure living standards. If inflation and wages moved together, this wouldn't be a problem. But wages have outgrown inflation by 40 per cent over the past 25 years, meaning that Newstart recipients, in real terms, have fallen far behind.

By any measure, people on Newstart are among the most disadvantaged. If a society can be judged by how it treats its most vulnerable, Australia is not looking good. An analysis by ANU economists Ben Phillips, Matthew Gray, Cukkoo Joseph and Richard Webster shows that the poverty rate among households that depend on allowances as their primary income rose from 39 per cent in 1993 to 80 per cent in 2017.

Before we get onto the economics, it's worth rebutting some of the common misconceptions about Newstart.

The idea that people on Newstart are lazy young urban-dwellers is not only factually incorrect (the typical Newstart recipient is a middle-aged woman living outside the big cities) but ignores the fact that, across the economy, there is only one vacant job for every 4.4 unemployed people. It's hard to take a job that doesn't exist. And despite all its controversy, Newstart happens to be one of the cheaper welfare programs around, costing less than one-seventh of the age pension. Increasing Newstart is also the quickest, easiest and most effective way of reducing poverty in Australia.

READ MORE:

    Editorial: The Newstart payment is far too low
    Public housing residents on Newstart falling behind on rent
    Newstart: It's a daily battle just to survive

The argument that increasing Newstart reduces the incentive to find a job is similarly baseless. Newstart is so low that the Grattan Institute has found that it stops people looking for work. Many people on Newstart already have jobs but cannot get enough hours. And if you're aware of research findings on intergenerational disadvantage, you'll know that your childhood postcode shapes your life outcomes. Demonising the poor, in other words, is a bit like demonising someone who didn't win at a game of luck.

There is also a strong economic case for increasing Newstart.

Consider the short-term benefits first. You didn't have to go to the Boxing Day sales to know that the economy is not doing well. And it's little wonder. Compared to the first half of the decade, retail spending growth over the past five years is down 30 per cent, quarterly wage growth is down 40 per cent and consumption growth is down 15 per cent. The rate at which the economy creates new businesses has fallen from 14 to 11 per cent. Investment now contracts each quarter by an average of 0.4 per cent and productivity growth has flatlined. GDP growth remains around global financial crisis levels.

What the economy needs is more demand. While businesses have stopped investing and expanding, their profits are at record highs, the ASX200 has broken new ground, bond yields and interest rates are at record lows and share buybacks and dividend payouts are at unprecedented levels. The message from the data is clear: businesses are awash with cash, and can easily get more if they want it, but they will only invest and hire if there is demand for what they sell.

Enter Newstart. The ANU's economists show that the poverty gap for people on Newstart - the absolute difference between a household's income and the poverty line - has increased five fold.