Thursday 14th of May 2026

a dream of a pleasant nightmarish budget....

This budget is a Labor dream come true. It will redistribute income from investors to workers.

It will redistribute real estate opportunity from the prosperous old to the aspirational young.

And, because it’s a Labor dream, it’ll be attacked by the Coalition as a nightmare. Which is exactly what the Albanese government is hoping for.

 

This budget will be attacked as a nightmare. That’s exactly what the PM wants

BY [SMH] Peter Hartcher

 

By fighting to protect investors and older people, the Coalition will defend a dying demographic. And alienate the fast-growing younger. Already, voters under the age of 45 – Millennials and Gen Zs – constitute the majority of the electorate.

And, by the next election, there will be 700,000 more Gen Z voters on the electoral rolls than there were at the last. Among these, only one in five consider themselves Coalition voters, according to Kos Samaras of RedBridge, “and that’s on a good day”.

“We are giving hope to younger generations,” Treasurer Jim Chalmers told reporters. “That’s what this budget is all about.”

Labor’s hope is that the Coalition, by trying to take the hope away, will deal the political deathblow to itself.

If the Coalition is true to its recent punch-drunk form, it will oblige.

Is the government breaking its word? Its pledge before the last election that it would not touch capital gains tax and negative gearing? Absolutely. But the chance to break the Coalition is so tempting that Anthony Albanese is prepared to break his word to do it.

For Albanese, who once said his purpose was to “fight Tories”, this will be the sweetest victory of all.

The budget might not do enough to douse the flames of the populist fire fanned by One Nation because it doesn’t lead Australia out of its low-growth, low-productivity road of economic mediocrity. The simmering popular disgruntlement that has fuelled One Nation will probably continue to rise towards boiling point.

If so, the demise of the responsible right might merely open the way to the irresponsible far-right.

But Albanese will be content to take his enemies one at a time.

It was Brutus who spoke the famous line that “there is a tide in the affairs of men, which taken at the flood, leads on to fortune”.

For Albanese, the tide is at flood. With a dominant parliamentary majority, an opposition in disarray and two years until the next election, the conditions for bold action are ideal.

“We must take the current when it serves, or lose our ventures,” Brutus urged Cassius in Julius Caesar.

And the reform need is real. Albanese hasn’t confected a warped tax system that privileges investors over workers, and well-off retirees over first home buyers. These are persistent problems, long identified by economists, that governments have feared to address.

Jim Chalmers says that the budget will “dial up tax relief for people who work for a living”. They’ll get an automatic $1000 tax deduction every year from now, plus a $250 working Australian tax offset every year from next year.

As opposed to people who depend on income from investments – “not making any judgments”, Chalmers reassures as he announces a new minimum tax on distributions from trusts, which the wealthy commonly use as tax shelters.

This budget requires the trust to pay a minimum 30 per cent, “more closely aligning the tax rates from trusts with the rates paid by workers who earn a living from wages”, as the budget papers explain.

As for housing, this is where Albanese’s Labor dream is aiming to revive the Australian Dream. Over the past quarter-century, average incomes doubled. But home prices quadrupled. This broke the dream of home ownership for ordinary workers and stoked the wealth of canny investors who bought real estate for the tax benefits.

This budget seeks to make real estate less attractive to investors, and therefore more available to first-home buyers.

But while the prime minister and his treasurer are acting boldly to rebalance the system, they are not doing it recklessly. They’re trying to not punish existing investors. There are grandfathering provisions to protect existing negative gearing arrangements, for instance. Existing capital gains will be taxed under the old regime.

Any investor looking for new negative gearing opportunities can still find them; they’ll just be limited to newly built homes, not existing ones.

The Treasury modelling guesses that the net effect of all the changes will be to temper price growth by 2 per cent, or about $19,000 for the median home, over several years. So they expect home prices not to fall, but merely to moderate in the rate of growth. This is hardly a communist revolution.

Chalmers expects that these changes will help about 75,000 Australians buy their first home over the course of a decade. This is marginal, equivalent to increasing the rate of home ownership from 66 per cent to 67. The budget contains other measures to boost home-building, including the $2 billion for local water and road connections, an initiative inspired by the independent Helen Haines.

But the tax changes themselves will make only a very modest contribution to increasing the supply of homes. As Chalmers says, they’re more about increasing the supply of hope.

Yet the big picture of Australian economic performance is not terribly hopeful.

Chalmers announced a range of productivity measures, yet none, singly or together, is sufficiently serious enough to boost productivity. The treasurer says that they will, but his budget papers don’t support the rhetoric. The papers say the outlook for productivity growth is unchanged at a plodding 1.2 per cent.

In other words, Australia is stuck at its current economic growth limit of 1.5 to 2 per cent a year. Anything faster induces the friction known as inflation, demanding Reserve Bank corrective action.

The budget redistributes hope, but, at this sclerotic rate of national growth, it doesn’t create much. A high-growth, high-hope economy? That remains a dream.

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/this-budget-will-be-attacked-as-a-nightmare-that-s-exactly-what-the-pm-will-be-hoping-for-20260506-p5zuf3.html

 

=======================

 

It pains me to say nice things about politicians, but this is a good budget

BY [SMH] Ross Gittins

Much as it pains me to say anything nice about politicians, this is a good budget. Translation: there’s a lot in it you’re not gonna like, and not much you will.

The budget’s far from perfect, of course. We’re talking about politicians, after all. But it’s good because it gets on with doing what needs to be done – not something you can say about every budget.

You were hoping there might be a big tax cut? Sorry, your timing’s out. The first rule of budgets is that they follow a cycle. If the budget comes before an election, guess what? It’s about time we had a tax cut.

But if the budget comes after an election, it’s time for some spring cleaning. Get the budget deficit heading down, not up. Stop that wasteful spending over there. End that special tax break you’re giving someone who doesn’t particularly need it.

The area where government spending has really broken out is on the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Some of it’s going to people who probably didn’t need it, so let’s stop their payments. Doing so will save more than half the net savings of $64 billion over four years the government claims it’s making.

Well, maybe. It wouldn’t be the first time a government fell short of its savings goal. Not quite as tough-guy as they’d hoped to be.

For years pollies have talked about abolishing the tax breaks that allow people to borrow heavily and get a big discount on the capital gains tax when they sell a rental property, and now they’ve finally decided to do it.

READ MORE: https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/it-pains-me-to-say-nice-things-about-politicians-but-this-is-a-good-budget-20260512-p5zw5r.html

 

======================

 

PLEASE VISIT:

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT — SINCE 2005.

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.

         RABID ATHEIST.

         WELCOME TO THIS INSANE WORLD….

"all good"....

Michael Pascoe thought no budget had had a bigger build up than this one. As it turns out …

In summary, this Chalmers budget is wildly optimistic on housing investment, kind to small business, incrementally better on productivity issues, gives the Opposition not much to rage about, picks the low-hanging fruit on taxing discretionary trusts more fairly, delivers a new acronym (WATO! The Working Australians Tax Offset) and, despite all the headlines, does little to help our housing crisis.

For all the noise around capital gains tax and negative gearing, the government claims the changes will only “help around 75,000 homeowners into the market over the next decade” (my emphasis). 

Ditto the announced-prior $2B spread over four years for infrastructure, the government says it will promote “up to” 65,000 extra homes over a decade

So, on average, we’re hoping for just 14,000 extra homes a year. In the context of our housing shortfall and how far behind the government is on its 1.2 million new homes target, it is almost marginal. 

Negative gearing lives!

And the message for retail investors who have come to love the concept of negative gearing is: Buy shares! Buy commercial property! Buy off the plan! Buy a new house! Buy through your superannuation fund! Negative gearing lives! Heck, on new housing you can keep the existing capital gains tax regime if you prefer it.

Yes, the negative gearing change only applies to existing housing purchased from July 1, 2027. 

Not such a big deal, is it? 

Along with the CGT reform, the policy aim is to deter retail investors from buying existing housing (as they overwhelmingly do), reducing the competition for owner-occupiers and developers who want to knock down existing housing to build higher density. 

And even if you insist on buying an existing house – maybe a holiday home you eventually intend to retire to – Gentleman Jim will let you carry forward any property losses in excess of rental income to use when, in time, you’ve reduced the mortgage and the rent has risen to more than cover interest. 

In marked contrast to the Reserve Bank’s pessimistic forecasts last week, Treasury reckons the tax changes will cause a sharp increase in dwelling investment. The RBA, without knowledge of the changes, guessed dwelling investment would shrink by 1.1% in 2027-28. 

Treasury says it will rise by 3.5%. Good luck with that. 

Landlord subsidies

What should be a Budget headline is that we are spending $7B this financial year and $7.4B in the new financial year on Commonwealth Rent Assistance – effectively subsidising landlords for the 1.4 million renters who otherwise couldn’t pay the asking price. 

That is the cost of governments collectively walking away from public housing over the past three decades, roughly halving the percentage of homes that are available for social housing. 

This budget, like its predecessors, is doing nothing to fundamentally change that failure. 

It is barely maintaining the status quo.

But the MSM usual suspects don’t care about that. With the negative gearing change turning out to be a bit of a damp squib, the Opposition both in Parliament and the media will be left to rail about the inflationary impact of a deficit and that some people a fair way in the future will pay more tax on their capital gains. 

Scaremongering just that

The later is an equity measure. It’s become the norm for rich people to become richer because most of their income comes lightly-taxed capital gains. Read Harry’s piece. 

No, there wasn’t mass emigration of our entrepreneurs to New Zealand and Singapore during the 14 years the CGT discount was actually based on the inflation rate. And Jim Chalmers says the alleged tricky bit for the minority of wildly successful startups is open to “further consultation”. 

In a calmly rational AFR article as opposed to the paper’s recent opinion columns, economist Christian Gillitzer showed that even for someone on the top marginal tax rate with an investment appreciating by 9% a year (i.e. a good one), yes, more tax will be paid but capital gains will still be treated more favourably than ordinary income. For investments averaging annual appreciation of 5%, the difference with the current system is marginal ($).

And the deficit?

As for the deficit, yes, if we crashed government spending to fast track to a surplus, inflation would be lower. A recession will do that for you. 

Basically, maintaining public sector spending at its present share of the economy will help maintain our weak economic growth with a marginal impact on inflation. Of course government needs to spend smarter, but the quantum isn’t scary on the OECD scale.

Despite the budget’s business investment incentives, Treasury reckons total business investment growth will fall from 4% this financial year to 2.5% next financial year and 2% in 2027-28. Not flash.

Three random observations as I run out of time:

*The Treasurer is seeking a headline for $59.4 million going to community housing providers specifically for 16 to 24 year-olds in danger of homelessness. That won’t go very far and compares with an extra $110.0 million “to support housing and related services for personnel deployed to Submarine Rotational Force – West” i.e. 

housing for the American submarine base in WA. 

*Always concentrate on what politicians do rather than what they say. For all the talk of fighting terrorism and drugs and such, spending on “public order and safety” is slated to be cut by 11% over the next four years from this budget’s $9.7B. Border protection spending drops from $2.1B in 2026-27 to $1.7B in 29-30. AI to do all?

*I’m writing in the Budget lock-up having to guess what the fishwrappers’ inevitable lists of winners and losers will be. 

The biggest winners should be accountants who charge by the hour. 

Any tax change makes them busy and the CGT indexation changes will help keep them busy into the future. What’s more, the raft of R&D and small business measures – loss refundability for start-ups, loss carry back, the instant asset write-off – will mean AI isn’t replacing accountants just yet. 

https://michaelwest.com.au/scaremongers-alert-like-negative-gearing-buy-shares/

 

 

READ FROM TOP.

PLEASE VISIT:

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT — SINCE 2005.

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.

         RABID ATHEIST.

         WELCOME TO THIS INSANE WORLD….

sugar sweet....

This week’s federal budget was meant to help tackle the cost-of-living crisis. 

But Treasurer Jim Chalmers has done little to address a big out-of-pocket health cost millions of Australians face – dental care. This highlights the blind spot in the way successive governments think about oral health.

Yes, ongoing funding has been announced for two dental schemes – one for adults, the other for children. 

These sound promising, until you dive into the details.

READ MORE: https://theconversation.com/dental-funding-in-this-weeks-budget-is-just-tinkering-around-the-edges-we-need-so-much-more-282859

 

=======================

 

THE ENEMY OF YOUR TEETH IS SUGAR... THE SUGAR INDUSTRY — MOST POWERFUL IN THE USA — SEEMS TO BE IN COHOOT WITH THE DENTISTRY INDUSTRY... SO WHAT WE NEED NOW IS FOR THE SUGAR INDUSTRY TO MAKE MORE ETHANOL FOR THE TRANSPORT INDUSTRY — ESPECIALLY WHEN OIL SUPPLIES ARE RESTRICTED... SWEET TREATS SHOULD BE OCCASIONAL... 

 

READ FROM TOP.

PLEASE VISIT:

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT — SINCE 2005.

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.

         RABID ATHEIST.

         WELCOME TO THIS INSANE WORLD….