Australians are forking out more of their hard earned cash than they can afford and it’s becoming an increasingly worrying problem, the ABC has revealed.
Speaking to Australia’s national broadcaster recently, Kennedy said figures show households across the country will be spending more than they earn.
“Consumer spending is now outpacing disposable income, a clearly unsustainable relationship,” he explained.
While Aussies begin the trend into “dis-saving”, or spending more than they earn, Kennedy told the ABC households don’t have many options to help the country return to a healthy level of savings and consumption.
Either people spend less or income needs to increase.
This news follows the recent release of new figures, claiming the wealthiest 20 per cent of Aussie households are funding the benefits of the bottom 60 per cent.
The findings, published by the Centre for Independent Studies showed that the lowest earners are being paid more in government benefits than they are contributing in tax.
Overall, almost half of all Australian households received a greater amount in taxpayer-funded benefits between 2015 and 2016, than they paid into the public purse through means of taxation.
The study defined benefits to include ‘in kind’ benefits such as health and education, as well as cash benefits such as pensions, while taxes included income tax and a range of indirect taxes such as GST and excise tax.
“When the number of public sector employees is added, there is a clear majority of voters benefiting more from government than they contribute,” report author Robert Carling said.
He added: “If the population of households is divided into quintiles (slices 20 per cent each) from lowest to highest income, not only the first and second quintiles are net beneficiaries but also the third (middle) quintile.
The data obtained from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) found, on average, that households received $76 more per week in total benefits than they paid in taxes. These figures have reduced slightly since a previous study, carried out between 2009-2010, which revealed a difference of $99 per week.