Breakfast briefing: US economy rolls on, China's struggles get Xi's attention

Economy / news

US data mostly rising; Xi turns focus to China's economy; China boosts debt limit; EU flash PMIs weak; UST 10yr 4.84%; gold up and oil down; NZ$1 = 58.3 USc; TWI-5 = 68.3

25th Oct 23, 7:24am by David Chaston

Here's our summary of key economic events overnight that affect New Zealand, with economic news is taking a bit of a back seat today but there are still key trends to note.

First in the US, the latest PMI reading for the American manufacturing sector has it out of contraction to its best level in six months. This same 'flash' report for October for their services sector recorded a three month high. Both were better than anticipated.

The next regional Fed factory survey, this one from the Richmond Fed, broadly confirmed the factory levels in their mid-Atlantic region. But they recorded a much weaker services result there.

Nationally however, the latest Redbook retail survey of bricks & mortar stores (on a same store basis) records a good expansion last week from a year ago (+5%), better than inflation by some margin now.

A feature of all these indicators is that job growth is holding and that inflation is easing.

In China, Bloomberg is reporting that Xi Jinping made his first known visit to China’s central bank since he became president a decade ago, underscoring an increased focus on shoring up the Chinese economy and financial markets. He went with other senior officials, and he also visited their sovereign wealth fund. It is doubly interesting that the central bank is not mentioning the visit. It is rare for Chinese government departments not to make a big deal about visits by Xi. China's senior leadership are meeting next week to address the growing risks in their economy.

China said it will issue ¥1 tln new sovereign debt in Q4-2023 as it raised its fiscal deficit ratio from 3.0% to 3.8%. Couching the move as 'disaster relief' is interesting and somewhat ironic.

Staying in China, it seems that while demand for infant milk powder is declining with their demographic shift, milk powders aimed at the middle-aged and elderly are seeing fast rising demand.

Meanwhile in Hong Kong, just how far they are going down the CCP rabbit-hole is clear with a new "patriotic education" program to be announced, one that is not only for students in formal education but the population as a whole. One Country, Two Systems is long gone.

In Europe, the latest flash PMIs for October are not good. Their economic downturn deepened with private sector output declining at the steepest rate for over a decade (excluding the pandemic affected months). New orders fell at an accelerating rate, pointing to a worsening demand environment for both goods and services.

Globally, a new report is noting that billionaires pay as little as 0% to 5% in income taxes, and that a global agreement for a minimum 15% income tax could raise as much as US$250 bln annually. Involved would be just 2700 global billionaires.

The UST 10yr yield has changed little from this time yesterday, now still at 4.84%. Their key 2-10 yield curve is unchanged, still -25 bps inverted. Their 1-5 curve is unchanged as well at -62 bps. Their 3 mth-10yr curve inversion is less inverted, now at -56 bps. The Australian 10 year bond yield is now at 4.72% and up +1 bp from yesterday. The China 10 year bond rate is up +1 bp as well at 2.75%. The NZ Government 10 year bond rate is -7 bps lower at 5.54%.

Wall Street is firmer in its Tuesday trade with the S&P500 up +0.5%. Overnight European markets were mostly up +0.5% although London only managed +0.2%. Yesterday, Tokyo ended its Tuesday session up +0.2%. Hong Kong fell another -1.1%. Shanghai rose +0.8% yesterday. The ASX200 ended its Tuesday trade +0.2% higher. But the NZX50 fell -0.3% in make-up trade after the holiday weekend.

The price of gold will start today at US$1974/oz and up +US$2/oz from yesterday at this time.

Oil prices have fallen another -US$2 today to be now at just on US$83.50/bbl in the US. The international Brent price is now just over US$87/bbl.

The Kiwi dollar starts today at 58.3 USc and down -20 bps from this time yesterday. Against the Aussie we are down to 91.8 AUc and a five week low. Against the euro we have risen slightly to 55.1 euro cents. That all means our TWI-5 starts today at just on 68.3, marginally up from yesterday.

The bitcoin price starts today at US$33,998 and up another sharp +8.7% from this time yesterday to an eighteen month high. Over the past week, this crypto price has risen more than +NZ$10,000. Volatility over the past 24 hours has been extreme again at just on +/- 5.4%.

Daily exchange rates

Select chart tabs

Source: RBNZ

Source: CoinDesk

The easiest place to stay up with event risk is by following our Economic Calendar here ».

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.

69 Comments

by HughJorgan | 25th Oct 23, 7:50am 1698173448

Just dropping this here for discussion. The biggest issue with interest deductibility is people loading up their rentals with their own mortgage or using equity from one to fund the other. This could be resolve easily by:

1. Limiting the security pool to be asset by asset. So no grouping. So it defaults, bank losses.

2, Lending limited to a percent of the RV. Say 60%. Then if people want to regear they can do so by submitting valuations and also paying the appropriate rates. Like thin cap rules.

These two adjustments are absolutely consistent with rental properties being a business and being treated fairly.

Thoughts?

by JimboJones | 25th Oct 23, 8:20am 1698175222

They sound like tweaks to disguise holes in the tax system.

The issue is obvious: a business can claim the cost of buying an asset (such as interest), but if the asset makes a gain it is not taxed on that gain. Why wouldn't you invest in the types of assets that don't really produce anything (like an existing house) but do make a capital gain. Solutions include:

a) Tax the gain

b) Don't rebate the costs

c) Treat assets that typically appreciate in value (like houses) differently to normal business capital.

But according to the "experts" (who happen to have very rich customers who gain from the status quo), there is nothing wrong with our tax system and any of those solutions is unfair.

by sit23 | 25th Oct 23, 8:46am 1698176764

What would it take to get through to you that businesses should claim their expenses and pay tax on their profits? Profit or loss is not a gain or reduction in business asset values. It is a realised gain or loss. Why do some people still pretend to not to know this ? Including our boondoggling ex so called finance minister. It is not complex. It is not rocket science.

by M0ralHazard | 25th Oct 23, 8:54am 1698177271

Following your logic then shouldn't they pay tax when they realise the gain then?

by kiwikidsnz | 25th Oct 23, 8:58am 1698177486

In selling any business, the goodwill (incidental value added net of assets) is not normally taxable unless the business purpose was to make a capital gain.

by mfd | 25th Oct 23, 9:03am 1698177831

Can anyone buying an investment property today make the case that they are buying for yield without being laughed out of the room?

by JimboJones | 25th Oct 23, 9:14am 1698178444

Yep true. The IRD should be all over that. I guess they haven't needed to be due to brightline. Its still very hard to prove though - "I intended to own it for 30 years and expected rent to increase but circumstances changed"

by Beanie | 25th Oct 23, 9:26am 1698179198

It would be a good job for AI to trawl through all electronic data to sniff out the intention to make a capital gain. Think of all the posts ever made on sites like this one...

The onus of proof is not on the IRD, it is on the taxpayer to prove an IRD assessment is wrong.

by JimboJones | 25th Oct 23, 9:11am 1698178311

That is the current rule yes. Do you think that is fair? Oh sorry, I didn't mean to make that gain honestly, it was incidental, how about I don't pay tax on it.

by ShoreThing | 25th Oct 23, 9:18am 1698178728

Increase in value of real estate is not goodwill, it is a gain on sale of asset and should be treated as income.

by kiwikidsnz | 25th Oct 23, 10:13am 1698182039

I agree with that approach for a business that's based on property assets.

I think that the discussion on CGT usually misses the whole point of applying std. business tax.

Noting that IRD are now stating that such gains are probably taxable, see "Land" in this link

https://www.ird.govt.nz/income-tax/income-tax-for-businesses-and-organi…

by KH | 25th Oct 23, 10:13am 1698182033

The landlording business of recent years was to make a capital gain. Obtaining a rental income did not make sense when buying in recent years.

So tax those gains.

by rastus1 | 25th Oct 23, 10:47am 1698184060

Okay..for a counter argument.

Rental home goes up XX%. Landlord sells and buys the 'same' property for the same value but for 40% more. He has exchanged one asset for another.

Is there a 'gain' to tax?

No there isn't. Just a dilution of the digits being used.

Its the way the monetary system is being played by the banks that is the problem.

Tax the banks perhaps?

by mfd | 25th Oct 23, 8:55am 1698177305

People would probably be more relaxed about it if the eventual capital gains from selling those assets that increase in value were taxed appropriately.

Particularly property investors, where cap gains are clearly a (the?) major part of the business and should be taxed as income under existing rules. Probably the same with share investors. But instead we have this grey zone where it depends on what intention you pretend to have had when you purchased.

by kiwimm | 25th Oct 23, 10:08am 1698181734

How about a rule that says if you deduct interest, you pay tax on capital gains. If you don't, you don't.

Can't have it both ways.

by JimboJones | 25th Oct 23, 9:04am 1698177882

So if you buy an asset and it makes a gain, you have not made a profit and shouldn't be taxed. How is that fair? Wouldn't that lead to people only investing in the types of assets that do appreciate (like land)? How come other countries tax capital gains?

Again you are using accounting concepts to justify an unfair tax system. It doesn't pass the sniff test - the local property investor has a new merc in the driveway of his 5 million dollar house in Epsom yet he hasn't paid a cent of tax because he has never made a profit.

by Chaosinflesh | 25th Oct 23, 9:14am 1698178471

It's all just evidence of our broken tax system: we tax 'businesses' on profit only, and individuals on revenue. So people are incentevised to account as much financial activity as 'business' as possible.

Just tax both on revenue, and lower the tax rates/increase the thresholds. Though accountants won't like that, because their job depends on the existence of complex tax rules.

by Beanie | 25th Oct 23, 9:17am 1698178678

..apart from the $650k of gst on the house and merc.

by JimboJones | 25th Oct 23, 9:28am 1698179328

And with no income he's probably on the dole and paying a bit of tax on that too.

by LouB | 25th Oct 23, 9:25am 1698179101

You are incorrect in that assertion about tax treatment of sale of assets.

1 the asset purchase is made from tax paid capital.

2 if the market value is higher than depreciated value at sale, that is depreciation recovery and taxable.

It is anomalous that this doesn't apply to rental assets.

by Nzdan | 25th Oct 23, 9:33am 1698179635

If someone's home appreciates in value to such they can leverage equity as a down payment, and borrow the rest (effectively 100% lending), how is that asset purchase made using tax paid capital? I'm talking equity above and beyond what they've contributed in mortgage payments/initial deposit etc.

Assume the rental is geared in such a way to be neutral ($600/w costs & $600/w rent), then is it not the tenants who are providing the tax paid capital?

by LouB | 26th Oct 23, 12:46pm 1698277611

You are using a very narrow lens to recognise assets - only considering rental property.

In farm businesses for example, assets include plant, buildings, livestock, machinery, fences, and other permanent improvements.

Repair a fence it's R&M (deductible), totally rebuild the fence, capital expense and not claimable. Replace a tractor, probably depreciation recovery on sale, taxable. Capital cost of new tractor not claimable. Livestock increase in value from financial year opening to close - difference is taxed (values decrease, then difference claimable). Same with a retail business inventory value change.

Rental housing businesses are anomalous. The housing stock owned is the asset inventory and should be dealt with, for tax, the same as any business inventory.

by kiwikidsnz | 25th Oct 23, 9:41am 1698180083

My personal experience of property investment is over 15 years ago however I can confirm 2. Depreciation Clawback was definitely applied at that time. However, while I declared it up front to IRD complete with my detailed calculations on several properties I'm aware of people who didn't bother & got away without being challenged. Probably more difficult to avoid nowadays since Brightline has made records more rigorous.

by mfd | 25th Oct 23, 8:31am 1698175864

Another option that's already hopefully on the way is DTI. Even if gross rent is included as straight income (which would be crazy), most rental properties even with a 40% deposit would have a DTI of ~12 vs a proposed cap of 6-7. No one will be able to borrow heavily for a second or third property unless they have an enormous salary, and the highly levered professional property investor will go the way of the Dodo.

by JustAnOpinion | 25th Oct 23, 9:17am 1698178670

Using the equity in one house to build another is an issue I agree as it is leveraging an un-taxed income, but it is reflected in all other business, it's just Aussie banks making the money not NZ investors. For example every mortgage is massively leveraged on a small set of deposits and government securities. We could stop this through regulation and it would probably be a good idea, it will slow new rental development but that would be counter-weighed by a price reduction due to less available capital.

In regards to limiting the pool of assets used as security this is for the banks security and they will not be letting that go. That idea won't work as the banks will not make a loss, never have, never will.

LVR rules already require investors to have 35-40% equity in their properties so your suggestion is already here and working. https://www.rbnz.govt.nz/regulation-and-supervision/oversight-of-banks/…

I also think the roll back of the interest non-deductibility should come with a CGT, there is not reason it should not, the blue line pantomime is more complex than a CGT for no good reason.

I also think that the RBNZ should continue the Term Lending Facility (TLF) for ever, ensuring that lower interest has to be paid to hold higher risk assets such as business loans. The margin play will make the greedy sods behave. Sadly today we have $365 B in loans on Housing & personal and just $132 B on business loans. It should be at least 50/50 so we are investing in productive assets.

by LouB | 25th Oct 23, 9:26am 1698179177

Sounds sensible to me.

by kiwikidsnz | 25th Oct 23, 8:06am 1698174362

In local news, chickens return to roost...

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/independent-experts-find-potential-1b-hol…

by The Person | 25th Oct 23, 8:35am 1698176152

That's the same clowns that National paid to approve their tax policy

by Happy_Medium | 25th Oct 23, 8:37am 1698176230

Is Castalia the same group who reviewed National’s tax policies?

by JimboJones | 25th Oct 23, 8:41am 1698176496

Does anyone actually believe that "three prominent Wellingtonians are so worried about the city council’s finances that they’ve paid for independent experts to take a look at the books"? Do they actually lose sleep about it or something?

by agnostium | 25th Oct 23, 8:53am 1698177193

It's a National hit job on the incoming Green Minister. Castalia are economic guns for hire. They'll tell you whatever you pay them to tell you.

by agnostium | 25th Oct 23, 9:02am 1698177776

"The Department has been requested to provide commentary on the Castalia Reports, most notably that prepared for Whangārei District Council. The Department considers the Castalia report misrepresents the evidence base and analysis supporting the reform proposals, and reaches conclusions that are not well supported by the available empirical evidence from similar reforms undertaken in other jurisdictions"

https://www.dia.govt.nz/commentary-on-castalia-reports-three-waters-ref…

by JustAnOpinion | 25th Oct 23, 9:27am 1698179273

Have you read the rebuttal?

https://www.dia.govt.nz/diawebsite.nsf/Files/three-waters-reform-progra…

Weak AF as my kids would say. Castalia determination - "Govt analysis on the requirements is top down using ivory tower BS rather that the detailed bottom-up data-based local authority projections" DIA rebuttal - "yeah but our BS models were approved by Beca... and anyway we accounted for Iwi and climate change wokesim..."

Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

by kiwikidsnz | 25th Oct 23, 9:43am 1698180213

Thanks, you beat me to it.

by Happy_Medium | 25th Oct 23, 11:26am 1698186382

Did YOU read the rebuttal? Nowhere does DIA say the model was approved by Beca, it says BECA reviewed the applicability of EU standards to NZ…

by JustAnOpinion | 25th Oct 23, 1:36pm 1698194179

EU Model was reviewed by Beca, did you not understand what I wrote? That they were using top-down models (from the EU!!! why?) to do their estimations. You are proving my point...

The local authorities have base data on actual usage, growth projections based on ACTUAL consenting information, quotes from suppliers for infrastructure... etc But no let's rely on a model from the EU!!

Sometimes I despair!

by agnostium | 25th Oct 23, 2:35pm 1698197733

That's not what the rebuttal says.

by JustAnOpinion | 25th Oct 23, 3:21pm 1698200483

Yes it is.

by KH | 25th Oct 23, 10:19am 1698182372

Jimbo. So why did you think the three did it. ?

by JimboJones | 25th Oct 23, 10:48am 1698184081

by agnostium | 25th Oct 23, 8:53am

It's a National hit job on the incoming Green Minister. Castalia are economic guns for hire. They'll tell you whatever you pay them to tell you.

by kiwikidsnz | 25th Oct 23, 8:16am 1698174976

"...if Australia adopted New Zealand's approach, we could have an extra 500,000 willing workers – a fair chunk of them paying tax."

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-10-25/over-65-retire-work-pension-new-…

by JimboJones | 25th Oct 23, 8:38am 1698176305

I'm sure we could get dole bludgers to do more work if we paid them both the dole and a wage too.

NZ would be such a good candidate for a UBI. We already pay everyone that doesn't work, all we need to do is increase the lower tax thresholds so the government gets a lot more tax money and give that money back to workers in the form of a UBI. For most NZers (workers, pensioners, beneficiaries) it would make very little difference, but it would remove so much government overhead, unfairness, etc. We could probably have a flat tax system too which would allow some big efficiencies. You could choose your own retirement age, if you lose your job you still have income while you look for another, if you are on the dole or DPB you could get some part time work that isn't pointless, if you have kids you can get a UBI for them too instead of all the current unfair handouts, etc. Everyone would be incentivised to work if they can, and if they can't they get the same as everyone else.

by Chaosinflesh | 25th Oct 23, 9:06am 1698178005

It seems to work on the over 65 bludgers - almost 1/3 of whom choose to remain employed. However - 2/3 of them [choose/chose] not to, so why would we expect anything different from the younger cohort?

by Nzdan | 25th Oct 23, 9:28am 1698179315

We have at least a couple of over 65 dole bludgers at work. Full personal use company vehicles, life insurance, health insurance. The least productive people in our organization, exasperated when they turned 65 and not shy to gloat about their taxpayer funded payrises. Had to create a role surplus to our requirements so a young talented team member could progress their career, otherwise they were going to respond to the head hunting opportunities.

Sometimes these bludgers are unemployable and better off on the couch.

by JustAnOpinion | 25th Oct 23, 9:40am 1698180037

So why are they there? Where is the young talent to unseat them? Sounds like you are jellies to me.

Unless they own the business they must bring value to it surely? Sounds like half the story here.

by Nzdan | 25th Oct 23, 12:36pm 1698190579

No jellies, I'm in a completely different remote function to the business. They're there because they call on the same 20 or so clients that deal with the business regardless of who is driving the company car and dropping off biscuits.

The young person appointed in the extra role is bringing through new accounts and expanding on their opportunities. Not defaulting to "just offer A because that's why I've done all my life", despite having B and C in our wider product range and declining on the basis it's "too hard". Also does a lot more tasks themselves instead of just passing the buck to the internal staff who are busy enough as it is.

by JustAnOpinion | 25th Oct 23, 1:39pm 1698194377

If those 20 or so clients would deal with just anyone then I do wonder why they are keeping the oldies on?

Perhaps they have a relationship with those clients, perhaps they are preserving the existing revenue streams those clients represent to afford to invest in new products, new staff and new clients?

by Beanie | 25th Oct 23, 9:41am 1698180114

If they are so useless why aren't they sacked? Either by the correct method, or by the incorrect method + cash.

by refactornz | 25th Oct 23, 9:45am 1698180323

Your blame should be directed at management for not running an efficient business.

by JustAnOpinion | 25th Oct 23, 9:32am 1698179578

lol the trolling is strong in this one...

In the main the retired in this country have worked long and hard all their lives. Everything you see around you was pretty much built by them or their mums n dads. As Maui would say "your welcome..."

Don't confuse the terminally lazy with the retired unless you are so simple is to not understand the difference.

by JimboJones | 25th Oct 23, 9:56am 1698181013

Are you retired if you are still working? Or are you just over an arbitrary age? How does age determine if you have improved the country more than someone else?

Not sure if your comment was directed at me, but my point is that the government already pays everyone who doesn’t work, why not make it universal and get a ton of efficiencies along the way. We could get rid of almost every possible handout if everyone got the pension, have a flat tax system as the UBI is effectively a large tax free threshold for workers, and reduce poverty along the way (possibly for free from the efficiencies).

by JustAnOpinion | 25th Oct 23, 10:00am 1698181240

We only live to 82 on avg as a male in NZ so at 65 you have 17 years to run. By the time you "retire" you have already worked and paid tax for 43 years so you are over the age that you should HAVE to work.

If your skills are wanted in the work force then there should be no problem with you continuing to support society in that way. The attempts to "shame" retirees that are continuing to work when they don't have to are bewildering.

You do understand that there are 277,410 working age people receive a main benefit (not sickness). Those lazy folk should be your focus surely?

by kiwimm | 25th Oct 23, 10:40am 1698183619

If you are a man who has made it to 65 then your life expectancy is 86 in NZ (88 for females). Life expectancy at birth is lower as you lose some along the way.

The difference is important in terms of Super paid.

by JimboJones | 25th Oct 23, 11:00am 1698184821

Yes and you may not have worked and paid tax for 43 years too, for example you may have gone to university and received that handout (as I did).

One reasonable solution is to give universal free tertiary education, but every year you receive it is a year that your pension is delayed. Its mainly people in office jobs that can work past 65.

by JustAnOpinion | 25th Oct 23, 11:11am 1698185464

It's more likely you would have worked and paid taxes even longer (like I have) as most were earning as teenagers (as I was). University being free would be a good idea if you wanted people to have that experience. The current state of academia makes my blood run cold and we are not Hong Kong yet...

People get mentally fatigued as well so office jobs have wear and tear as well.

Frankly people who compare people who have worked hard, raised the next generation, and built an impressive set of infrastructure with the terminally lazy dole bludgers are ether a bit simple or have some misguided agenda.

by mfd | 25th Oct 23, 11:33am 1698186811

If you're arguing that Super is deserved by those who hard worked hard, why do we not apply any test to receive it? It's handed out to virtually anyone over the age of 65, even the dole bludgers of yesteryear.

by JustAnOpinion | 25th Oct 23, 12:31pm 1698190299

Not sure of your point here. My argument is exactly that Super is deserved by those who worked hard.

Your point about a test to receive it is a little different surely, we don't do that with the bludgers of today why would we bother applying it to bludgers who need to keep bludging into their retirement. Its a bed that we are already in we don't need to decide if we want to get into it.

Even though I would like to see some consequences for people who do not try to work or choose not to work, practically speaking I believe we have a bell shaped curve for competence that means some (less than the total) people on the dole are just not employable.

by JimboJones | 25th Oct 23, 11:46am 1698187600

No one is comparing the individuals, they are comparing the benefits. They are both payments from the government for people who cannot work; the pension is not a reward for a lifetime of paying lots of tax as you can receive it without having paid any net tax.

I know people that were on the dole after uni (in fact I was for a while) that then went on to get really good jobs and pay lots of tax, and I also know people that haven't tried very hard in their life (maybe not unemployed but probably paid very little net tax in their life) that are now getting a pension that they haven't contributed very much too. It works both ways.

Its certainly fair for current tax payers who are paying pensions to people on 6 figure incomes to question how valid that is. We can question that while also questioning why we pay terminally lazy dole bludgers too.

by refactornz | 25th Oct 23, 11:53am 1698188014

They are both payments from the government for people who cannot work

That's not true though.

1. The pension is not means tested so the payment has no connection with the ability to work.

2. Many people on the dole *could* work, but choose not to.

by JustAnOpinion | 25th Oct 23, 11:06am 1698185180

Its actually only 80 according to Stats. https://www.stats.govt.nz/topics/life-expectancy

by kiwimm | 25th Oct 23, 11:24am 1698186269

You need to use mortality tables by age and birth year to see how much longer a 65 year old male will, on average, live for: How long will I live? | Stats NZ

by JustAnOpinion | 25th Oct 23, 10:09am 1698181780

Jimbo my comment was not aimed at you and yes I agree with what you have said. I was part of the "Yang Gang" specifically for that reason but he was far, far, far, faaarrrr to capable a person to be considered for President.

by Chaosinflesh | 25th Oct 23, 10:05am 1698181550

;_; My point is that, we determine if people who choose not to work are bludgers or not based solely on their age, not their capability to work. As proven by those still working whilst claiming super, and yet apparently that's ok, but if a job seeker takes up even part-time employment, their benefit gets reduced at such a rate it's simply not worth the extra stress and hassle of even trying (for those with low skills and no long-term outlook). Coupled with low-wage jobs often being correlated with 'temp' and 'casual' contracts that allow the employer to dump people at will, causing even more stress, and it's no wonder people will sit on the JS instead of seeking employment.

by JustAnOpinion | 25th Oct 23, 10:13am 1698182038

OK, thanks I get what you are saying a bit more now. I agree the penalty rates on additional work while receiving an benefit should be the same and lower across the board.

I am actually in the same camp as Jimbo as regards the value of a UBI but in reality it would not work here due to the victim-hood industrial complex.

My point to you was there is a very real difference between the wasters on the dole and the retired. They deserve your respect.

by agnostium | 25th Oct 23, 1:37pm 1698194264

"My point to you was there is a very real difference between the wasters on the dole and the retired. They deserve your respect"

Nah. You can get the super benefit just by being old. You could have inherited your family's fortune and never worked a day in your life, living off interest and you'd still get it. You could be on the dole because you've got serious mental health issues and never had a loving stable family that taught you the skills required to get a job or buy you an education.

There is absolutely no fast and hard difference between super benefit claimants and other benefit claimants. There will be a wide difference across both categories.

by JustAnOpinion | 25th Oct 23, 1:41pm 1698194506

lol, thanks for the comedy gold, but you do you.

by Chaosinflesh | 25th Oct 23, 1:53pm 1698195192

Oh, I agree with all points regarding UBI too.

Retirement for anything other than medical reasons is a choice. Taking the benefit intended for those who cannot work is not something worthy of any respect - especially if you continue to work at the same time.

by JustAnOpinion | 25th Oct 23, 2:37pm 1698197845

OK well we will have to agree to disagree on your last point as I think those who have poured their life into working in a society, paying taxes to support themselves and the non-workers deserve a retirement, but I respect your right to disagree.

by Audaxes | 25th Oct 23, 9:26am 1698179168

A feature of all these indicators is that job growth is holding and that inflation is easing.

There is a very big difference between the US fiscal position and that of many many other advanced economies (10 in primary surplus this year) Link