Australia July consumer optimism restrained by rate surprise, survey shows
A Westpac-Melbourne Institute survey showed its main index of consumer sentiment crept up 0.6% in July, following an equally restrained 0.5% increase in June.
The index was 12.6% higher than a year earlier at 93.1, but being below 100 that still meant pessimists outnumbered optimists.
The Reserve Bank of Australia surprised markets last week by holding rates at 3.85%, when many had looked for a further cut following easings in February and May.
Matthew Hassan, Westpac's head of Australian macro-forecasting, noted those surveyed before the decision reported an index reading of 95.6,while those surveyed after produced a reading of just 92.
"The reaction checked what would probably have been a solid rise," said Hassan. "It still leaves the consumer mood stuck
at 'cautiously pessimistic' levels overall."
A separate weekly survey from ANZ found a similar souring in mood, as its index dropped 2.1 points to 86.5 led by concerns over the economic outlook.
Likewise, the Westpac survey showed its index of the economic outlook for the next year nudged up 1.8%, while that for five years fell 2.8%.
Family finances compared to a year ago did enjoy a bounce of 5.0%, while the outlook for the next 12 months picked up by 2.6%. In a disappointing note for retailers, the index of whether it was a good time to buy a major household item dropped 2.6%.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
5 hours ago
- The Guardian
Coca-Cola to launch Coke with cane sugar in the US after Trump post
Coca-Cola has laid out plans to launch a product made with US cane sugar this year, days after Donald Trump claimed the company had agreed to replace high-fructose corn syrup. The company announced the change in a quarterly earnings report released on Tuesday. On a conference call with investors, Coca-Cola's chairperson and CEO, James Quincey, said the company planned 'to expand our trademark … product range with US cane sugar to reflect consumer interest in differentiated experiences'. Quincey said the new offering would 'complement' Coca-Cola's core portfolio of drinks, suggesting it could arrive as an alternative, rather than a replacement, for its flagship Coke product. 'This is really an 'and' strategy and not an 'or' strategy,' Quincey said, according to the Wall Street Journal. 'We are going to continue to use a lot of the corn syrup that we do now.' The drink maker's Mexican Coke is made with cane sugar and already sold in the US – but often at nearly twice the price. Additionally, the US doesn't make enough cane sugar to satisfy demand in the country. Tuesday's announcement from Coca-Cola came as food and drink companies have rolled out plans to make changes amid 'Make America healthy again' (Maha) campaign of the US health secretary, Robert F Kennedy Jr. However, experts say that drinks made with cane sugar instead of corn syrup are not necessarily healthier. Eva Greenthal, senior policy scientist at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a non-profit consumer advocacy group, previously told CNN: 'Excess consumption of sugar from any source harms health. To make the US food supply healthier, the Trump administration should focus on less sugar, not different sugar.' Coca-Cola had defended its use of corn syrup – a product some blame for soaring US obesity rates – after Trump claimed on 16 July he had convinced the brand to switch to using sugar cane in its US drinks. 'I have been speaking to Coca-Cola about using REAL Cane Sugar in Coke in the United States, and they have agreed to do so. I'd like to thank all of those in authority at Coca-Cola,' the president said in a social media post. 'This will be a very good move by them – You'll see. It's just better!' Coca-Cola said in a statement that 'high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) – which we use to sweeten some of our beverages – is actually just a sweetener made from corn. It's safe; it has about the same number of calories per serving as table sugar and is metabolized in a similar way by your body.' It added that the American Medical Association (AMA) 'has confirmed that HFCS is no more likely to contribute to obesity than table sugar or other full-calorie sweeteners'. And it said: 'Please be assured that Coca-Cola brand soft drinks do not contain any harmful substances.' In 2023, the AMA released a statement saying it recognized 'that at the present time, insufficient evidence exists to specifically restrict use of high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) or other fructose-containing sweeteners in the food supply or to require the use of warning labels on products containing HFCS'. Initially, the drinks giant responded with a neutral statement of appreciation for 'president Trump's enthusiasm' for Coke, and a vague message about 'new innovative offerings within our Coca-Cola product range' to come. The soft drinks company released an additional statement making positive claims about high-fructose corn syrup. The Associated Press and Reuters contributed
Daily Mail
5 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Reeves admits there is no 'ceiling' on the tax burden as government borrowing hits new record outside Covid in June - with £16bn spent on debt interest alone
dodged on whether the tax burden could go even higher today - as government borrowing hit a new record for June outside of Covid. Challenged on whether taxes at 38 per cent of GDP represented a 'ceiling', the Chancellor stressed that her rules only covered spending and debt. Appearing before peers, she suggested the level could only be reduced by boosting the economy - which currently looks to be slowing down. Ms Reeves was giving evidence to the the Lords Economic Affairs Committee amid mounting concerns about the state of the government's finances. The public sector borrowed £20.7billion last month, far higher than the £17.6billion analysts had pencilled in. The level was £6.6billion higher than a year earlier and only behind the height of the pandemic in 2020 since comparable figures began in 1997. Alarmingly for the Chancellor, the surge was driven by debt interest as well as higher spending. Servicing debt cost £16.4billion over the month, more than double the number for the previous June. Bank of England governor Andrew Bailey tried to calm nerves this morning, insisting rising interest rates on government borrowing was a global phenomenon and the UK was not 'out of line'. Borrowing for the first three months of the financial year to date stood at £57.8billion, £7.5billion more than the same three-month period in 2024. Challenged on whether taxes at around 38 per cent of GDP represented a 'ceiling', the Chancellor stressed that her rules only covered spending and debt Ms Reeves is desperately hunting for options to increase taxes as she faces an estimated £30billion black hole in the public finances at the Autumn Budget. The tax burden is already set to hit a new high as a proportion of GDP after the last Budget imposed a £41billion increase - the biggest on record for a single package. Labour has ruled out increasing income tax, employee national insurance or VAT. Tory peer Lord Blackwell pointed out that previous governments had not managed to 'sustain' the tax burden at more than 35 per cent of GDP. Highlighting the the level was on track to reach 38 per cent, he asked whether Ms Reeves had a Do you have a 'ceiling or a view on what's the right level of taxation once you get through the current debt problem'. But Ms Reeves replied that the tax to GDP ratio was 'not a target... that reflects the fiscal rules'. 'Those are the things that are my constraints, the anchor for fiscal policy are those two fiscal rules rather than a tax to GDP ratio,' she added. Ms Reeves said: 'The best way to reduce that ratio but still have public services that we need is to increase the denominator, increase GDP. That is where all my focus is.' The Chancellor flatly refused to rule out a wealth tax, arguing that no minister should get into speculation ahead of the Budget. And she vowed to remain tough on the government's debt levels, insisting there is nothing 'progressive' about spending £100billion a year on interest payments, 'often to US hedge funds'. Many believe the Chancellor will opt to extend the long-running freeze on tax thresholds in the Autumn. The policy, in place since 2022, is due to end in 2028-29. By that point it will have dragged an extra 4.2million people into the tax system as wages rise. Ms Reeves has been carefully avoiding ruling out a 'wealth tax' - with backbenchers pushing for 2 per cent levy on assets worth more than £10million. However, she is thought to be privately opposed to the move, with tax experts and Cabinet ministers warning it would only drive away more wealth people from Britain. A raid on pensions is still said to be on the table, with fears that the Treasury is again looking at slashing reliefs. Currently higher-rate earners are spared 40 per cent tax on money that is put into retirement funds. However, reducing the relief to the 20 per cent basic rate could raise around £15billion for the government. The idea was rejected at the Budget last year, but Ms Reeves' situation has dramatically worsened. Chief Secretary to the Treasury Darren Jones said: 'We are committed to tough fiscal rules, so we do not borrow for day-to-day spending and get debt down as a share of our economy. 'This commitment to economic stability means we can get on with investing in Britain's renewal, including fixing our NHS, strengthening our national defence and building hundreds of thousands of affordable homes through our plan for change.' But shadow chancellor Mel Stride said: 'Rachel Reeves is spending money she doesn't have. 'Debt interest already costs taxpayers £100billion a year – almost double the defence budget – and it's forecast to rise to £130 billion on Labour's watch. 'Labour's jobs tax and reckless borrowing is killing growth and fuelling inflation – paving the way for more tax hikes and more borrowing in the autumn. Make no mistake – working families will pay the price for Labour's failure and costly U-turns. 'Only the Conservatives, under new leadership, will break this cycle. Only the Conservatives believe in sound money and low taxes.'
Daily Mail
6 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Could the state pension age really rise to 74?
A new review of the state pension age has triggered speculation that it may have to rise substantially to contain rapidly rising costs. The state pension age is going to rise from 66 to 67 within the next couple of years, and the next increase after that is now officially up for debate. The Government is required by law to review the state pension age every six years, so it has ordered two reports which will look at when to hike to 68. But a recent report by independent think tank, the Institute for Fiscal Studies, warned that without reform of the state pension triple lock , the retirement age would have to rise to 74 by 2069. Could this really happen? We explain what you need to know about the state pension age and why it could increase. What is happening to the state pension age? The studies, one by the government's actuary and the other by an independent expert, are expected to consider the link between when you can draw the state pension and life expectancy, intergenerational fairness, and the bill borne by taxpayers. The state pension is currently almost £12,000 a year if you have paid enough qualifying national insurance years to receive the full amount. The qualifying age will rise to 67 between 2026 and 2028. The next rise to 68 is technically not scheduled until the mid 2040s, which will affect those born from 6 April 1977. The last two reports in 2017 and 2023 recommended speeding up the increase to 68, but the Conservative government ignored them, and current Labour leaders could do the same. Will the state pension age have to rise faster? The Government has effectively, if not in so many words, told the experts working on the next two reports to operate under the assumption that the triple lock pledge will remain in place indefinitely. This means that the state pension increases every year by the highest of inflation , average earnings growth or 2.5 per cent. The Government has promised to stick to the triple lock for the whole of this parliament. Pension experts are weighing in on the chances of a state pension age rise to 68 in the near future, and the trade-offs with the triple lock in terms of the cost to taxpayers. A recent report by the Institute for Fiscal Studies pointed to government modelling on how to limit public spending on the state pension to below 6 per cent of national income. To achieve this AND retain the triple lock state pension guarantee, it worked out the state pension age would have to rise to 69 by 2048–49, and then jump to 74 by 2068–69 - which would be bad news for people in their 30s and younger now. Nerves were also rattled lately when Denmark's government moved to hike its retirement age to 70 by 2040. Meanwhile, it is worth noting that the minimum pension age for accessing workplace and other private retirement savings is due to rise from 55 to 57 from April 2028. Governments have in the past tended to keep the state pension and private pension ages roughly 10 years apart, so any future increases could well continue to happen in tandem. This combined with a faster rise in the state pension age could cause a serious headache for those hoping to retire earlier. Triple lock is 'elephant in the room' 'The third state pension age review will be watched like a hawk by swathes of middle-aged workers,' says Jason Hollands, managing director of Evelyn Partners. 'The triple lock is not within the remit of the Commission, but it is in some respects another elephant in the room, as while it remains it seems inevitable that state pension ages must be raised. 'That's not so much a problem for wealthier savers who can fund a few years of retirement wholly from private income. 'It's more of one for less well-off workers who might have to work until and even beyond state pension age, and then also might not have as many years of life expectancy to draw on the state pension.. 'Would a lower state pension at an earlier age be fairer than a higher one at a later age? It's a question worth asking.' State pension costs are set to spiral 'There is an increase to age 68 pencilled in for 2046, but a faster increase is definitely on the cards,' says Rachel Vahey, head of public policy at AJ Bell. 'The first two reviews of the state pension age advocated bringing this forward, but successive governments have treated the issue like a hot potato. 'This latest state pension age review, however, may eventually force the government's hand. 'State pension benefits are one of the single biggest expenses for the Treasury and account for more than 80 per cent of the £175billion pensioner welfare bill. 'Without policy intervention, state pension costs are set to spiral to nearly 8 per cent of GDP over the next 50 years based on the current trajectory, up from 5.2 per cent today. 'The second state pension age review in 2023 recommended that the increase to 68 should be introduced between 2041 and 2043 to help reduce costs, although the government under Rishi Sunak opted not to commit to that timetable. 'However, the new Labour government may feel it needs to consider the rise to age 68 more closely, particularly if it wants to demonstrate steps toward long-term fiscal prudence.' Triple lock vs state pension age - a hard choice 'The Government instructs the reviewers to assume "current policies regarding the entitlement and value of the state pension remain unchanged over the long term",' says Steven Cameron, pensions director at Aegon. 'The future value of the state pension is currently set by the triple lock. The Government has not committed to retaining the triple lock beyond this Parliament but has instructed the review to assume it continues indefinitely. 'While some may take comfort in this, it could be false comfort. The purpose of the review is to look at the age the state pension starts from and the role this plays in managing the long-term sustainability of the state pension. 'As other reports have shown, the triple lock puts the long-term sustainability of the state pension under huge pressure. So the conclusions from the review may be that if the triple lock continues, state pension age will have to go up further and faster than if it didn't continue.' 'For those already receiving their state pension, any threat to the triple lock will be bad news. 'But for those who haven't yet reached state pension age, the consequence of an ongoing triple lock could be having to wait extra years before receiving their state pension. 'That's a hard choice, but it's one we need to face up to as a nation. Undertaking this independent review will allow the Government to set out these choices to the voting public.'
