Tim Watson retweeted
🚨 New paper🚨 What is the effect of stimulus checks on the economy? We study a natural experiment: postwar veterans’ payments. With awesome coauthors @jptguerreiro, @drkaenzig and Ed Manuel. 1/10
Tim Watson retweeted
The Australian accent was first noted around 1820. Colonial authorities were puzzled by the distinctive way the children of the settlers were speaking.
It had developed as a unique blend of English, Irish, Scottish, and Welsh dialects that had never been heard together in Britain, formed through daily mixing in the new townships.
The Australian accent evolved from:
🏴 🇮🇪 🏴 🏴
Tim Watson retweeted
🚀 Draft chapters my forthcoming MIT Press book:
𝗛𝗲𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗼𝗴𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗼𝘂𝘀 𝗔𝗴𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗠𝗮𝗰𝗿𝗼𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗺𝗶𝗰𝘀: A Tractable New Keynesian Framework
A modern, analytical roadmap to TANK & HANK models for researchers, students and policy institutions
sites.google.com/site/florin…
👇
Tim Watson retweeted
I have a new paper out today. Gen AI shows a pattern: it excels at some tasks but fails at seemingly similar ones. This "jagged" performance creates a fundamental problem for users trying to decide when to rely on AI. I explain why this happens and what it means. 👇🧵
Tim Watson retweeted
Forthcoming in the JEL: "How Do Central Banks Control Inflation? A Guide for the Perplexed" by Laura Castillo-Martinez and Ricardo Reis. aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.12…
Tim Watson retweeted
🚨 New Paper and Public Good🚨
"The Global Macro Database: A New International Macroeconomic Dataset", joint with @chenzix, Mohammed Lehbib, and Ziliang Chen.
We built the most comprehensive macro database ever—covering 243 countries from 1086-today, integrating 110 sources. 🧵
Tim Watson retweeted
DeepSeek and what happened yesterday: Probably the largest positive tfp shock in the history of the world.
Tim Watson retweeted
Don't miss out on this guide on how to run surveys: on creating your own identifying variation: more than 80 pages and an Appendix with examples including social desirability, vignettes, information treatments and more.
Tim Watson retweeted
I live in a world not built for me, here is what I have learned
buff.ly/4itPlKm
Tim Watson retweeted
TREASURY HAS RELEASED ITS LATEST ESTIMATES OF THE COST OF TAX CONCESSIONS
Exciting, huh? (I have a low excitement threshold. I am, after all, an economist.)
To me the standout is that Treasury has hugely revised up its estimates of the cost of superannuation tax concessions.
The cost of those concessions next year is now estimated at $64bn - some $9.3bn more than estimated less than a year ago.
The bulk of the higher costs are due to a huge lift in the estimated cost of tax concessions on earnings within super.
To be clear, it's hard to properly estimate the tax concessions given to super.
To be even clearer, the concessions given to earnings within super are cray cray.
That’s because parts of the tax system that make sense in isolation collide in silly ways inside super:
(1) The tax system should encourage saving – and ours does through super.
(2) The tax system should recognise that inflation can artificially inflate capital gains – and ours (indirectly) does through a capital gains tax discount.
(3) And the tax system should avoid taxing the same income twice – as ours does through franking credits.
But super funds get the benefit of all three of these. And super has a very heavy reliance on Australian shares, many of them with fully franked earnings.
The upshot is that we’ve massively overdone the concessions. Super funds make earnings on which they have to pay 15% in tax, but then those same earnings often come with a 30% tax credit attached.
Nice little earner, huh?
No wonder that Treasury has had to massively revise up its estimates of the concession ...
(More ranting here ... xitter.cf/ChrisEconomist/status/… and here xitter.cf/ChrisEconomist/status/…)
SOLVING SUPER – FOR BOTH PRINCES AND PAUPERS
Yesterday I discussed the problems (xitter.cf/ChrisEconomist/s…)
Now it’s time for solutions
Australia has an EARNINGS SUBSIDY RATHER THAN AN EARNINGS TAX
The simplest way to improve that is to lift the tax on earnings in super from 15% to 20%:
· That would mean actual taxes on earnings would rise all the way up to zero – but at least they’d no longer be a subsidy
· It keeps intact the integrity of franking – no double taxation of anything
· It also means taxes on super would actually raise the $s Treasury forecasts them to (Treasury effectively forecasts zero earnings taxes)
This proposal is the least that could be done in super. (As Major Denis Bloodnok notes, ‘the least they can do’ is the quantity that politicians specialise in.)
The more important change is needed in THE TAX ON SUPER CONTRIBUTIONS
At the moment the way we tax super means that, for every $ going into super, we give a huge tax benefit to princes, while levying extra tax on paupers
So the best reform is to give princes and paupers the exact same tax incentive to save through super
I’ve recommended versions of this reform for decades. It would be an updated and simplified version of the contributions tax changes proposed in the Henry Review
There are two steps:
· First, pre-tax contributions into super would remain exactly as now, but what actually goes into your fund is the after-tax $s
· Second, the government would then top up your contribution in your fund account by 15 cents in the $ of your pre-tax contribution
This approach:
· Means the tax treatment of every $ for every person – prince or pauper – is exactly the same. Hallelujah!
· It would massively simplify the system. Contributions would effectively be integrated into the existing personal tax system (rather than carving them out)
· And all sorts of stickytape could be discarded. No need for LISTO to help the less well off (cos that would happen automatically). No need for Div 293 tax to rein in excess tax concessions to the well off (again, that would happen automatically)
· Because this is a change to the taxation of contributions – when the money goes in – it avoids the need for any grandfathering
Super has become a force for evil
The above approach would – finally!! – treat everyone the same way
Tim Watson retweeted
📢Very important new research from @unimelb's Dr @_yi_yang, Peter Summers, @ZoeAitken11 @Kavanagh_AM @gdisney_melb looking at mortality inequalities between people with and without disability. Targeted interventions and policy reforms are needed now. thelancet.com/action/showPdf…
Tim Watson retweeted
#TTPI #Seminar Parenting Payment Single is a welfare payment for low-income single mothers in Australia. Does changing the payment eligibility have employment and earnings effects? @SobeckKristen taxpolicy.crawford.anu.edu.a…
Tim Watson retweeted
My truly wonderful friend and mentor – Geoff Carmody – has passed away.
This lovely story by @Johnkehoe23 – afr.com/policy/economy/vale-…– gets to the heart of it: Geoff had an absolute passion for a better Australia.
That meant no phone call from Geoff was ever short: he brimmed with ideas on everything from tax to super to aviation and tourism policy and the energy transition.
(And no phone call ever finished without a joke – the man had an endless supply!)
A better Australia is built on the back of people like Geoff and the passion they have.
I miss him already.
Some news coverage today suggesting the COVID-19 SME Cashflow Boost measure has never been formally evaluated- it has been! onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/…
Nice to see the COVID-19 Response Inquiry Report released today citing my research on jobs saved by JobKeeper and the SME Cashflow Boost Measure as an authoritative reference. A 🧵…
pmc.gov.au/resources/covid-1….
3. When you take out the control for SME Cashflow Boost my results are effectively the same as Bishop and Day (2020). 🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️
In short, just because my JobKeeper results are towards the upper end of what others have found plausible does not imply they are ‘overstated’.




















