Many people poorly prepared for a crisis

Personal Finance / news

New research by the Financial Services Council shows many people have little ready cash if things go wrong

3rd May 23, 10:26am by Eric Frykberg

Getty Images.

By Eric Frykberg

New research shows many people would have difficult getting access to significant cash to cope with a crisis.

Inflation, high house prices and rising interest rates are getting some of the blame.

The information comes from the Financial Services Council (FSC) in its latest Financial Resilience Index. The FSC describes itself as the voice of the financial services sector.

It shows only 53% of New Zealanders could get access to more than $5000 within a week in the event of an emergency. This was down from 59% last year.

“Despite high financial confidence driven by job security, the reality is that fewer Kiwis have household investments," said the chief executive of the FSC Richard Klipin.

"They are unable to find $5,000 in a week for an emergency and are facing increasing debt that they are unsure if they will be able to pay."

The research shows more than half of all New Zealanders are worrying about money on a daily or weekly basis and 59% said worries about money had affected their personal wellbeing, up from 53% in 2022.

The problem was even worse for younger people with 64% of the under 37s worrying about money daily or weekly.

“The impact of the current cost-of-living crisis mirrors increasing wellbeing challenges, Klipin said.

In other findings, the research showed 54% of the respondents had fixed rate mortgages which would be expiring in 12 months or less, and 30% would face the same challenge in 6 months or less.

"People coming off fixed rate mortgages...are going to feel the squeeze and need to prepare for higher monthly payments to reduce money worry and improve overall wellbeing”, Klipin said.

He added the research highlighted a real tension between spending today and having enough money left over to save for tomorrow. This problem was further hampered by low financial literacy.

"As we have seen in previous years, it’s the younger generation that are disproportionally bearing the burden of this economic cycle," Klipin said.

"Whilst older generations are also finding it tough, they have been here before and know that it will come good. For our children and grandchildren, it’s new and simply an unknown.

“What’s key, therefore, is looking out for our whānau, friends and colleagues, checking in to see how they are doing and letting them know that these tough times won’t last forever."

The FSC's Financial Resilience Index is produced annually.

It tracks several trends including financial confidence, financial literacy, financial preparedness, job security and wellbeing.

The research was conducted via an online survey done by CoreData, and received over 2000 valid responses.

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.

78 Comments

by GV 27 | 3rd May 23, 10:37am 1683067020

"Whilst older generations are also finding it tough, they have been here before and know that it will come good. For our children and grandchildren, it’s new and simply an unknown.

No, I'm pretty sure they haven't been here before. Remind me when they dealt with 80% mortgages on houses that were 11x household incomes with interest rates rising at the fastest rate they have in 30 or so years?

Comments like this undermine the enormous hospital pass older NZers have left younger Kiwis. Our predicament isn't due to a lack of knowledge or literacy. It's because a protected cohort of older NZers stuffed the place up and minted themselves in the process.

by Shaft | 3rd May 23, 10:45am 1683067515

No! We dealt with leaky homes, 24% mortgage rates, no mobile phones, no government subsidies like free loans for education, and much much more.

The only hospital pass you receive is from continually voting for Greens and labour..

by chebbo | 3rd May 23, 10:47am 1683067663

Barefoot in the snow, uphill both ways I tells ya....

by kiwikidsnz | 3rd May 23, 1:42pm 1683078121

...on our way home to t'shoebox...

by HouseMouse | 3rd May 23, 10:47am 1683067672

Boomers didn’t need loans for education because it was free!

Plus allowances galore.

by Shaft | 3rd May 23, 10:58am 1683068336

Back then university education was not free school Education is free + free lunch.. Getting paid foran education and spending it on holidays is the problem.

Never become a slave to the handout! Unless you want you're beliefs compromised and your life continually propped up!

by HouseMouse | 3rd May 23, 11:02am 1683068556

Wasn’t it at least very cheap if not free?

Here you go:

https://otago150years.wordpress.com/2015/07/20/the-cost-of-an-education/

by E46 | 3rd May 23, 11:26am 1683069988

Also gotta remember that companies used to pay to train employees, these days to get the same job you need to pay for your own training.

by Ocelot | 3rd May 23, 11:59am 1683071981

That's right, every boomer will yell unashamedly about how they marched down to their local businesses, slammed their fist on the counter and demanded a job, and they got it because of their chutzpah and moxie! No education necessary.

by kiwikidsnz | 3rd May 23, 1:47pm 1683078431

I do remember negotiating an increase to the starting pay rate offered before accepting my first full time job in 1972, age 16. From $87cents/hr to $1/hr.

by Zwifter | 3rd May 23, 12:32pm 1683073956

I take it you never got much of a tertiary education HouseMouse ? If you did you would remember the fees. Polytech was like $30 a subject and the exam was like $40, it could have been the other way around. It was not free but it was "Cheap" by comparison to today. Funny thing is that back in the day only the top few percent with decent University Entrance marks actually went on to University, now days they give you a hospital pass at college and anyone goes.

by E46 | 3rd May 23, 1:29pm 1683077368

University went from a place on the best of the best went, to something that has practically become a requirement to have a chance in the modern job market. Especially for women who don't have the trades to fall back on as a decent-paying option. What career with future prospects can you get outside of the trades without a degree?

by kiwikidsnz | 3rd May 23, 4:50pm 1683089452

This was linked a few days ago, in case you missed it:

https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/01/elite-revolt/

by E46 | 3rd May 23, 7:25pm 1683098729

Didn't actually see that. I feel like we would be a lot better off with an education system similar to Germany or Switzerland where people are sorted into schools that direct them to what they are naturally more suited for. Further Education isn't for everyone yet we keep shoveling more and more people into it as there aren't many credible alternatives.

The polytechs should have played a bigger role but everyone sees them as a joke now, which we can actually pin squarely on this government for once. SIT in Invers was well regarded but they well and truly cooked that turkey.

Everything is broken christ.

by HouseMouse | 3rd May 23, 3:48pm 1683085709

Lol I have a PhD and am a university lecturer (part time)

And what’s your point? I said it was very cheap and you confirmed that…

by Rumpole | 3rd May 23, 12:50pm 1683075058

Mouse - Average wage 1975 95 GBP a week - you need to compare wages to fees as a % to equate rather than just slagging off boomers. You may have noticed employers now enticing retired staff to return to work -reasons given in UK where offers of 5,000 GBP sign up bonus offered is the 75 years old will turn up 5 days every week and do 8 hours of work, less productive perhaps than a Millenial still young enough to know everything who may not turn up on Mondays or fridays and employers really really love reliability but less impressed by know it alls who don't.

by E46 | 3rd May 23, 1:10pm 1683076252

It would be interesting to see education costs as a percentage of income. Education also wasn't as much of a prerequisite as it is today, you could get a well-paying job without having to go into further education back then.

But it certainly wasn't easy as some make it out to be back in the day, but it also isn't significantly easier today. Swings and roundabouts really but the main issue for many today is housing costs. Housing isn't like other costs, I could choose to not buy a TV or gadget, but people have very little choice in having to rent or purchase a house.

Posted this below but will reiterate it here.

The median house price now is $762,000.

The median house in 1980 was $25,500

762,000 @ 10% Deposit is $685,800 x 6% = $41,148 which is around 68% of the median income at $61k

$25,500 @ 10% Deposit is $22,950x 15% = $3,442.5 which is around 38% of the median income at $9k

by HouseMouse | 3rd May 23, 3:51pm 1683085894

Lol I provided a link to analysis that shows fees in the 70s and 80s equivalent to modern $. It came out to between $1-$2k per annum in today’s money. Most students are paying upwards of 8-9k per annum these days.

Huge difference.

Plus much great availability of allowances pre 1990s.

your turn…

by speckles | 3rd May 23, 1:57pm 1683079064

University was a token amount, except for my final year, still not a great amount $1400 for post graduate course.. I sit in generation x and I partied at Otago and still saved money…it was sweet. Those that were boomers that made University had it even better as they made a killing as there were so few graduates…unlike the explosion that came through with the next generation….

by Cheetahlegs66 | 3rd May 23, 2:53pm 1683082436

I'm eternally grateful for free education in the mid-late 80's. I came from a working class family and my folks said we can't help you financially but you can live at home free. IIRC total fees in 1984 were several hundred dollars. Add in second hand books and the total costs were well under $1000, well under. It was a doddle. Worked part-time 10hrs/week and had enough to do a bit of travel. It opened doors to employment and well paying jobs so I am now financially secure. The scarey thing is with today's fees I don't know if I would have gone to Uni. Being crap at working with my hands eg plumber, builder I probably would have gravitated to unskilled work. Eternally thankful. Education should be free but I'd close down those 3rd rate instututes that offer Diplomas in 'management' or 'IT.' Bloody scam.

by HouseMouse | 3rd May 23, 4:50pm 1683089428

Well put

by morepork | 3rd May 23, 11:42am 1683070943

A friend of mine born in the 50s, so would have been at university in the late 60s or early 70s talked about when he went to university the biggest fee was for student union membership. And his bursary from school was enough to cover it.

A far cry from today's students taking out loans in the tens of thousands

by E46 | 3rd May 23, 11:54am 1683071662

My parents both trained as Quantity Surveyors, which is a good-paying job. They were trained by the companies themselves and paid to do it.

Now, it's a 4-year degree that you would need to self-fund with zero industry support. Copy and paste across every industry.

by mrsbrownsboy | 4th May 23, 7:35am 1683142536

What were the allowances galore?

by Nzdan | 3rd May 23, 12:47pm 1683074847

Why didn't you just save a little harder instead of enduring 24% mortgage rates? Term Deposit rates were also double digits back then. But no, rush out at the age of 22 and take out 2 - 3 mortgages.

Let's see: Save equivalent of 2 - 3 years salary at 16% term deposit rates to buy the house vs 2 - 3 years salary at 3% term deposit rates for the house deposit.

by RickStrauss | 3rd May 23, 1:33pm 1683077591

"no mobile phones"? Woe is me.

Funnily enough, education was free. Multiple of my family members experienced it. And bursaries were very valuable.

Housing was also affordable thanks to massive govt and public-private efforts in postwar decades (that also helped grow the likes of Keith Hay, Fletchers etc), while Housing Corp loans could be had cheap.

A universal family benefit was had and could be capitalised, and is being followed now with the country's only other universal welfare benefit in old age.

by bw | 3rd May 23, 10:53am 1683067983

"80% mortgages on houses that (are) 11x household incomes with interest rates rising at the fastest rate they have in 30 or so years."

There's merit in that observation.

And the longer term answer must be to lower the price of property so that 11 times revert to 4 times.

Earlier generations could 'afford' higher % rates because the principal outstanding was so much less. When you've got a $50k mortgage at 4 times your household income, and rates go from 12% to 22 % as they did, whilst the impact isn't insignificant, it's nowhere near the disaster that might transpire if the principal is $500k and let's call it 8 time HH income.

The RBNZ has started us down the road to a correction, and having come this far, I don'tr see it turning back before the job is done.

by donny11 | 3rd May 23, 11:05am 1683068715

This is true. Imagine being the 30yo first home buyer who borrowed 800k in 2021. You will pretty much be living in poverty until you reach 50.

by LASSET | 3rd May 23, 11:18am 1683069525

Have a friend who brought at the absolute height of the market in October 2021... the house value has DROPPED more than 800k!

Household is earning somewhere around 300k, and he's wearing shoes with holes as he can't afford to buy another pair.

It's going to be a struggle.

by Independent_Observer | 3rd May 23, 1:54pm 1683078896

Let me remind you of two main themes from spruikers:

- best time to buy property was yesterday

- there is no point trying to time the market.

And yet I lived through the GFC in the USA so I know for a fact that while for a lot of the time they are right, but when they are wrong, they are very wrong. Buying at the wrong point can ruin you financially (saw it first hand as the bubble burst over there).

Sitting on an asset that is 30, 40, 50% less than what you paid for it, in a bad jobs market is extremely traumatic.

by ChrisOfNoFame | 3rd May 23, 1:25pm 1683077150

100% right, IO.

Buying at the top of the market, while maxing out the amount you can borrow over 30 years, is ruinous. ... Totally and completely ruinous. Most will never recover.

At least in the USA many states allow you to hand the keys to the bank and walk away. Not so NZ - the banks come after you - potentially for ever. If you can walk away, it is often better to do so as the amount of interest you'll be paying will be extreme. Far better to start again.

"Be greedy when others are fearful. And fearful when others are greedy." (And that is absolutely 100% not a recommendation to buy a house in NZ.)

by OldSkoolEconomics | 3rd May 23, 2:50pm 1683082245

Yip - the smart ones have less of an ego and less sense of entitlement.... those that avoid struggles later in life - put effort in at the start - they are happy to live in crappy house, rent a room if necessary, they got to uni when others land tradie jobs, they cycle when everyone else drives a new Ute, they wear old clothes when others have new Nike Airs and bling and they avoid buying expensive assets when everyone else is jumping in...

The path to long term prosperity has always been the same (some lucky exceptions from gamblers).

by Zwifter | 3rd May 23, 3:12pm 1683083526

The effort put in early in life accrues compound interest. I never really thought about things financially at age 17, I just went ahead and "Did it". The results later on speak for themselves and I have seen the dreamers still dreaming at age 50+ waiting for things to change. Are things different these days ? not really, the fundamentals are still the same, people that "made it" back then would still make it now.

by Chaosinflesh | 3rd May 23, 12:25pm 1683073559

bankruptcy is calling.. and I don't mean that lightly. Without no-recourse mortgages, people are going to have the next 10 years of their lives ruined while they work it out, then wait for it to drop off their record.

by Rumpole | 3rd May 23, 12:54pm 1683075272

All predicable.

by AndyBBrown | 6th May 23, 9:46am 1683323179

Bad decisions occur no matter what you personal means are - a homeless person might splurge and buy McDonalds and then eat at the mission for a week. A well off person might buy an over priced item (and have an interest rate become closer to a historic norm).

by redcows1 | 3rd May 23, 11:26am 1683069975

Along with an inflation rate of over 10% and wage rises to match eating greedily at the relative principal.

by imhenry | 4th May 23, 7:20am 1683141605

your comment leads me to think that you are a Labour Party Whinger

by Shaft | 3rd May 23, 10:41am 1683067278

Cos.... They are to reliant in the government to do everything for them. Including wiping their ass!

Labour - " we know what is best for you"

by E46 | 3rd May 23, 11:34am 1683070461

This isn't people reliant on the government. This is ordinary working people. Stop generalizing entire swathes of people it's stupid.

People are getting pressed on the cost of living, food costs, and housing costs. The median wage is $60k, after tax, student loan, and Kiwisaver which leaves around $40k after tax. That doesn't go as far as you think once rent, transport, food, and energy get paid.

by Shaft | 3rd May 23, 12:25pm 1683073515

But it is. And they are....

Who runs the economy?

Who determines how people live and pay for things?

Who controls costs, taxes, inflation etc for everything and everybody.

Who makes the rules

The government!!!

by E46 | 3rd May 23, 12:29pm 1683073765

Think you're giving the government too much credit there. The situation we are in today isn't down purely to the government in power but due to choices that have been made on both a national and individual level over the past 20 years.

Look at the UK, polar opposite government policies to what we have had and they are in an even worse state than New Zealand. Unfortunately, it isn't as simple as you try to make it and there isn't any one entity that we can blame entirely.

by OldSkoolEconomics | 3rd May 23, 3:02pm 1683082939

Ultimately it isnt the government fault.

- the majority voted the government back in

- we kept borrowing

- we bought the overpriced houses (nobody forced anyone to buy)

- [to come] we ignored climate change...

Governments do what they need to do to get elected. If the majority protested enough and voted for change - we would get change. But in the main we didnt bother.

I didnt fall into the big-house/low-rate-mortgage trap... but neither did i run for election anywhere or protest - so definitely cant consider myself a victim in this. i get the impression too many people these days lack personal accountability... they spent big and expected someone would bail them out (most mom and pop investors i know told me the govt would def bail out the housing market if it crashed... )

by powerdownkiwi | 3rd May 23, 2:39pm 1683081573

Shaft is out of alignment

We vote for the Government which best suits our back pockets - which is exactly why we're in this pickle.

by mrsbrownsboy | 4th May 23, 7:40am 1683142808

The median wage is around thay level , but for the majority of those with mortgages it is effectively double. The percentages of mortgages approved in both 2021 and 22 with 2 incomes was 96% for non investment property.

by RickStrauss | 3rd May 23, 1:34pm 1683077671

We're not talking about the aged care industry here.

by E46 | 3rd May 23, 1:46pm 1683078406

Apparently, we are living in the Soviet Union with a state-controlled economy.

by agnostium | 3rd May 23, 7:19pm 1683098346

It fits his narrative of blaming someone else, complain incessantly about the ways things are without offering any viable solutions. Libertarian bollocks.

by Rumpole | 3rd May 23, 5:12pm 1683090764

Shaft - The reason for the stench in NZ is that Labour don't know how to wipe their own ass.

by Squishy | 3rd May 23, 10:58am 1683068291

Workers are being squeezed, on the one hand inflation is diminishing wages and they're paying more income tax as inflation drives them into higher tax brackets.

There is no chance of squirreling away some dineros for many people.

by HouseMouse | 3rd May 23, 10:46am 1683067603

64% of people aged 37 or younger worrying about money daily or weekly - somewhat flies in the face of Pa1nter’s view of younger people having heaps of money to splurge.

by Shaft | 3rd May 23, 12:16pm 1683072997

What's new! Try pay a 24% mortgage where your first five years is paying the interest and none off the principle. Everybody worries they don't have enough money!

Most gen x worry is about not having enough for thier new I phone 27max+++,

by E46 | 3rd May 23, 12:26pm 1683073585

Stop generalizing massive groups of people

It would be stupid if I generalized all the boomers as evil fat cats conspiring to crush upcoming generations, just as it is stupid of you to generalize all of Gen X, Y, and Z. I have left-wing friends who do the same thing and it's a waste of time. it's just people trying to live their lives with the cards they have been delt.

People have more in common than we give ourselves credit for and if you took a second and had a chat with the people you keep denigrating you would find they are actually alright people just trying to get by and make a living.

And have you actually done the maths on house prices? It was only 24% for a very brief amount of time and you had massive wage inflation at the same time.

The median house price now is $762,000.

The median house in 1980 was $25,500

762,000 @ 10% Deposit is $685,800 x 6% = $41,148 which is around 68% of the median income at $61k

$25,500 @ 10% Deposit is $22,950x 15% = $3,442.5 which is around 38% of the median income at $9k

by Shaft | 3rd May 23, 12:27pm 1683073638

But you do and just have.

Boomer are bit responsible for gen Xs laziness, etc that has been push into them by the system!

by E46 | 3rd May 23, 12:55pm 1683075330

How is Gen X lazy though? That's the 45-58-year-old age bracket most people I know in that group work pretty hard. Same as those who are older and younger. I don't like these generalizations as they seem devoid of any kind of fact, it's just you assuming stuff and applying that with a broad brush. That somehow you are morally superior to everyone else and if only people now were exactly like yourself.

I prefer the numbers as it shows reality a lot clearer, you can see what the median wage was in 1980, and you can see what the median wage is now. The maths is there and the reality shows that housing is much more expensive than it was. I'm not applying any moral argument to it, it isn't any individual's fault but the reality is that housing costs are more expensive which is harming the wider economy.

Yeah, TV's, gadgets, and cars are cheaper but I would rather pay more for those than housing. I have a choice to buy a new iPhone or whatever, I do not have a choice when it comes to housing or food. I need somewhere to live. I need to eat. I do not need the latest iPhone so I use an older model that I got for free as a hand-me-down.

by Shaft | 3rd May 23, 12:59pm 1683075598

Everyday is a bank account, and time is our currency. No one is rich, no one is poor, we've got 24 hours each

by Shaft | 3rd May 23, 1:01pm 1683075709

You young bludgers wouldn't understand that!!!

by E46 | 3rd May 23, 1:24pm 1683077082

Why go there? Young bludger? I get nothing from the government and pay a shitload of tax so not sure what you're on about. Heaps of people I know under 30 don't get anything either. It's mostly people with kids that get more support which I understand on some level. If you have no dependents generally you get nothing even if you are on minimum wage. You don't need to be so negative all the time man just chill out a bit.

by agnostium | 3rd May 23, 7:22pm 1683098526

Don't feed the troll. Or I suppose you can try and talk to him but he'll blow up any minute now and get banned again.

by E46 | 3rd May 23, 7:28pm 1683098883

It does strike me as a waste of time whenever I reply to him if I am being honest lol.

by Nzdan | 3rd May 23, 12:53pm 1683075239

I'm not sure why they didn't just save a little harder instead of inflicting so much hurt on themselves by taking out a couple of mortgages at such high interest rates.

20% deposit on $762k house = $152k = 2.5x current median income.
$9k x 2.5x = $22.5k. $3k short of buying the house with cash, back when term deposit rates were double digits.

by chebbo | 3rd May 23, 12:25pm 1683073527

Hemi, try plugging in a modern-sized mortgage at current interest rates into an amortization calculator, and see how long it is before you're paying off any meaningful amount on the principle.

Mortgage rates may have been 24%, but it was on a much lower amount. That is by far preferable to today's situation.

by Shaft | 3rd May 23, 12:30pm 1683073825

Boohoo!... Move south and buy a cheapie!.

by Zwifter | 3rd May 23, 12:37pm 1683074245

Another huge factor is peoples expectations these days have just shot through the roof. What people call a house these days would have been a mansion back in 1980 so you cannot even compare the pricing. People just wanted less back then, hell you were luck to have one car in the family back in the 70's.

by Nzdan | 3rd May 23, 1:02pm 1683075733

People's expectations? Are you talking about new builds? Why are we talking about new builds for First Home Buyers?

I think you're seeing these McMansions springing up and getting a little confused, these are not being built at the request of aspiring FHB. These FHB are not asking for this, and then finding their finances don't stack up after the fact.

by Pa1nter | 3rd May 23, 12:24pm 1683073461

Young being 18-24, not 37. People in their 30s will be doing it hard, for sure. Liabilities will be at all time highs, and incomes not fully established.

by Retired-Poppy | 3rd May 23, 10:58am 1683068317

I read an article recently about a couple who moved to "greener pastures" in Australia and were overjoyed to be finally approved the mortgage they always wanted and despite repeated attempts, were declined for in NZ. They really wanted this mortgage as they would now get ahead.

Unless one cannot save a dollar to save ones self, is it a fallacy that leveraging both incomes to the eyeballs is the only way to achieve financial security? How secure will they feel if one income goes down? With a backdrop of falling house prices, for some, accruing gigantic deposits that earn interest is too darker an alternative than paying it!

by treadlightly | 3rd May 23, 10:57am 1683068273

Financial illiterates! we should put economists at the head of that list as they don't even understand where money comes from.

Household savings or net financial assets can only be created from government budget deficits as it is the issuer of our currency. Bank lending creates assets and liabilities in equal measure and so they cannot create net financial assets.

http://gandalf.fcee.urv.es/professors/AntonioQuesada/Curs1718/IntroMacr…

by redcows1 | 3rd May 23, 11:29am 1683070193

Long maintained that if more of the population were actually truly financially literate they'd riot in the streets and raise every financial institution to the ground.

Ignorance is bliss

by Pa1nter | 3rd May 23, 12:53pm 1683075221

The information is readily available for anyone with half an interest.

And therein shows why there won't be rioting in the streets; most peoples attention is usually diverted to their personal issues than grand systemic injustices.

by Sibrit | 3rd May 23, 5:04pm 1683090288

Agree. Because dealing with "grand systemic injustices" takes more people than can actually spare the time or money. This is why many policies that would make it better for all of us never get off the ground, especially if they have a negative impact on a minority group that does have the time and money to fight it.

by agnostium | 3rd May 23, 7:26pm 1683098785

Spot on.

If you want to change the system, you have to pick the bit you personally are going to focus on and invest time and effort in joining forces with others who also want to change and grind away at it.

Ranting on interest.co.nz comments section like Hemi does is futile and actually counterproductive. Most of his attacks are against politicians. People who have actually chosen to put themselves out there and try and make a difference. The sorts of people we actually need.

by Hastings | 3rd May 23, 11:10am 1683069012

“What’s key, therefore, is looking out for our whānau, friends and colleagues, checking in to see how they are doing and letting them know that these tough times won’t last forever."

Okay, I see you’ve lost your job and about to lose your house. You’re living on food bank parcels but the bills keep pouring in. I’m here to tell you that it’s only transient…isn’t it?😮

by nktokyo | 3rd May 23, 1:02pm 1683075735

This could have been said any time in the last 20 years.

by ChrisOfNoFame | 3rd May 23, 1:14pm 1683076467

I expect many won't be able to hit up the bank of mum & dad either as they're tapped out helping junior buy the millstone that is around their neck.

by Sibrit | 3rd May 23, 4:58pm 1683089922

"The problem was even worse for younger people with 64% of the under 37s worrying about money daily or weekly."

What are they worrying about?

It's one thing to be worried about putting food on the table for their young family, but it's something else entirely if they are worried about not being able to get the latest iPhone.

The former need our help. The latter need a swift kick up the backside.

by LouB | 3rd May 23, 10:22pm 1683109322

Hmm, remember the 66% top marginal tax rate

by wingman | 8th May 23, 8:48am 1683492499

That's right 66% marginal tax rate.....it was hardly even worthwhile going to work so people sat down and worked out ways to avoid tax.

What's the top tax rate now? 40%?