by admin | Mar 25, 2025 | economics, government, government regulations, laws and regulations, politics and government
-
Budget plan tackles ‘unequal’ credit card fees
-
FURTHER READING: Federal Budget 2025 live coverage: One group of Australians not benefiting from Albo’s spending spree
The Albanese government has indicated the cessation of debit card surcharges, though they have not gone as far as prohibiting the practice entirely.
The 2025 Federal Budget presented on Tuesday evening targeted the unjust fees imposed on Australians as a result of their preferred payment methods.
‘The Government is tackling unjustified high credit card fees to secure a better bargain for customers during transactions,’ as stated in the Budget summary.
‘The administration is ready to
ban debit card surcharges,
Subject to additional efforts by the Reserve Bank of Australia and measures to guarantee that both small enterprises and consumers can enjoy the advantages of reduced-cost transactions.
There was no indication provided about when these additional charges would be prohibited.
Good news continued for bank patrons as per the latest Budget, where the administration has implemented measures to curb the tendency of banks shutting down in rural regions, albeit on a temporary basis.
The announcement stated that they have obtained pledges from leading financial institutions to keep more than 800 of their outlets operational in rural and distant areas of Australia up till at least July 31, 2027.
The banking industry has also committed to increasing its investments in Australia Post’s Bank@Post service, thereby ‘offering more assurance and options for bank customers across approximately 1,800 rural and distant areas’.
Last month, an Australian fed up with paying bank card fees and weekend surcharges wrote a 55-page letter to the Albanese government, asserting that these charges are often unlawful.
This followed the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA)
solicited inputs from the public last year as part of its examination into merchant card payment fees and surcharging
.
Over 100 entries were submitted — with 79 being disclosed publicly and 22 kept private — however, a missive penned by an individual named McLean Roche caught attention due to its extensive length, meticulous research, and intense indignation towards additional charges.
The Australian not only alleged that illegal and unfair practices were occurring repeatedly with tap-and-go fees; they also asserted that they possessed evidence of this through images of receipts and charge descriptions.
An instance that Roche provided within the filing was about ‘hosting a substantial family gathering during Sunday brunch, only to face an unexpected $101 additional charge – turning a $675 ‘fee’ into $776 because of such extra costs.’
This reflects the situation in Australia where there is rampant unchecked sur charging, a significant portion of which is unlawful.
inflationary
— this is what consumers encounter daily,” they asserted.
An additional element included in the submission was a
Qantas
receipt for airfare charges made with an eftpos card showed a supposed additional fee of $4.53, but Qantas actually levied a charge of $14.60 – representing a 69% hike.
Roche asserted that the airline insisted the booking was properly subjected to a 1.03 percent credit card surcharge, which covered their expenses related to handling the transaction. The company clarified that ‘least cost routing’ was not employed because this method does not apply when using credit cards.
Roche also highlighted numerous other occasions where they were enraged, such as ‘a sandwich with an additional 16.2 percent fee – which includes a 1.2 percent card processing charge for using a debit card, along with a 15 percent weekend surcharge.’
A different receipt included a caption stating that the ‘3.55 percent eCommerce payment surcharge is incorrect and unlawful.’
Other unspecified allegations of illegality involved a ’10 percent levy on takeaway orders,’ a ‘fixed charge of 1.5 percent,’ an additional payment surcharge coupled with a ‘daily fee,’ and a ‘2 percent retail surcharge.’
As stated by the RBA, ‘merchants possess the authority to impose a surcharge on card transactions; however, this charge must not exceed the cost incurred by the merchant for accepting that particular card during the transaction.’
Various payment options and distinct card issuers come with differing fees.
In 2023, the RBA stated that the average expense for a debit-card transaction stood at approximately 0.4 percent, whereas a credit card transaction came out to be roughly 0.8 percent, and a charge card transaction amounted to about 1.3 percent.
Roche’s assertion that the additional charges are unlawful seems to originate from the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, which prohibits stores from imposing overly high fees for credit card transactions.
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) possesses the authority to probe into and implement enforcement measures in instances where excessive surcharging may be occurring.
Roche stated in the filing that ‘It’s a significant concern that both the RBA and ACCC have not measured the extent and financial impact of all surcharges, along with various forms of exorbitant fees.’
As per their claims, illegal extra fees have cost Australians over $2 billion in total.
This assertion is supported by a report from last November that discovered that
Australians have spent billions of dollars on unlawful charges for governmental services.
for at least twenty years.
The problem was revealed following the discovery by the NSW government that since 2016, approximately 92 million transactions incurred unlawful merchant fees totaling $144 million.
triggering a review by the Albanese Government of federal payments
.
Finance Minister Katy Gallagher stated that starting from January 1, 2025, the government will introduce legislation to prevent merchants from imposing debit card surcharges passed on by the Australian Taxation Office and Services Australia.
‘This new law will grant the finance minister authority to swiftly and effectively modify Commonwealth surcharging regulations, including preventing Commonwealth entities from imposing debit card surcharges,’ she stated.
Nevertheless, the controversial additional fees imposed during weekends and public holidays at numerous eateries fall under the purview of the ACCC to examine individually.
According to legal firm
Freedman and Gopalan
‘, adding an extra fee during weekends or public holidays is entirely permissible, provided the customer is informed’.”
There is no restriction on how high this additional charge can go. It needs to be clearly shown on the menu and should not be any smaller than the tiniest font used elsewhere on the menu.
The ACCC also tackled this concern, stating that ‘restaurants, cafes, and bistros which impose an additional fee on specific days are not required to present you with a distinct menu or pricing sheet, nor must they include the extra charge within a separate price column.’
Nevertheless, the menu should incorporate the phrase ‘a surcharge of [percentage] applies on [the specific day or days],’ with this statement being highlighted equally visibly as the highest-priced item on the menu.
Read more
by admin | Mar 25, 2025 | economics, international economics, international trade, venezuela, world
President Donald Trump stated on Monday that Venezuela has shown “extreme hostility” towards the United States, and as of April 2nd, nations buying oil from it will have to pay tariffs on all their imports into the U.S.
These duties would probably increase the taxation burden for China, which accounted for 68% of Venezuela’s oil exports in 2023, as per a 2024 report from the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
The report indicates that Spain, India, Russia, Singapore, and Vietnam are some of the nations also getting oil from Venezuela.
However, even the United States—despite imposing sanctions on Venezuela—continues to purchase oil from the nation. According to data from the Census Bureau, the U.S. imported approximately 8.6 million barrels of oil from Venezuela in January, which constituted part of the total imports for that month at around 202 million barrels.
On Monday, the Treasury Department granted an extension to US-based Chevron Corp., permitting them to extract and export Venezuelan oil until May 27. This extension, referred to as a general license, provides relief from economic sanctions and enables the continuation of their oil production activities.
In February, Trump declared an end to the business ties between Chevron and Venezuela, which had served as a crucial financial support for the South American nation.
The Venezuelan President, Nicolás Maduro, retaliated by stating that the U.S. had breached global commerce regulations through what he termed as an “unjustified, unlawful, and desperate action.” This move was aimed at impeding the progress of the South American country.
The government stated that for many years, the rejected far-right faction in Venezuela has advocated for economic sanctions, aiming to cripple the country.
Their failure stems from Venezuela being a sovereign nation where its people have stood firm with pride, and due to the global refusal of any economic tyranny.
The US president contends that tariffs will revive manufacturing jobs instead of exacerbating inflationary pressures and impeding economic growth, contrary to warnings from economists. He recently cited an informal example when Hyundai declared at the White House plans to construct a $5.8 billion (€5.4 billion) steel facility in Louisiana.
This investment clearly shows that tariffs are highly effective,” stated Trump, adding that the new facility being built by the South Korean carmaker will generate 1,400 employment opportunities.
The executive chairman of Hyundai Motor Group, Euisun Chung, conveyed to the president: “We feel truly honored to be alongside you and delighted to construct the future together.”
In 2024, Maduro was inaugurated for a third presidential term in Venezuela; however, both the country’s opposition groups and the European Union dismissed this swearing-in ceremony as invalid due to claims of rigged voting processes.
The former US President Joe Biden’s administration similarly condemned the “fraudulent” election and enacted fresh sanctions on Caracas. Notably, they raised the bounty to $25 million (€23.9m) for details resulting in the apprehension of the Venezuelan leader.
During Maduro’s long tenure as ruler, millions of Venezuelans have fled their homeland due to political instability, economic downturn, and severe shortages of essential supplies like food, medication, and power.
A more daring action against China?
Trump’s recent tariff threats indicate that his administration might be prepared to adopt more aggressive actions against China as part of their push to reshape the rules governing the worldwide economic system.
The Trump administration has already imposed blanket 20% tariffs on goods coming from China in an attempt to combat illegal fentanyl trafficking. However, adding yet another 25% duty on these imports might heighten the strain between the globe’s two biggest economic powers.
Trump said Venezuela will face a “secondary” tariff because it is the home to the gang Tren de Aragua. The Trump administration is deporting immigrants that it claims are members of that gang who illegally crossed into the United States.
Trump has labelled 2 April as “Liberation Day” based on his still unclear plans to roll out import taxes to match the rates charged by other countries, as well as fully levy 25% tariffs against Mexico and Canada, the two largest US trading partners.
The US President has furthermore raised the 2018 duties on steel and aluminum to 25% for every imported product and has pledged to impose extra taxes on vehicles, medical products, timber, semiconductor chips, and copper.
On Monday, the US stock market was rising as investors anticipated that the tariffs would be more precisely aimed rather than being widespread. Nevertheless, the S&P 500 index has declined year-to-date due to worries that a trade conflict might impede economic expansion and boost inflationary pressures.
However, Trump has been rather carefully guarding his intentions regarding tariffs, stating on Monday that although he aims to impose “reciprocal” charges, they “might end up being even more lenient than expected.”
by admin | Mar 25, 2025 | economics, food and drink, government, news, rice
Subscribe to our FREE
Newsletter
, or
Telegram
and
WhatsApp
outlets for the most recent news and information.
In February, the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security stated that starting from 1 March to 31 August, 24 million packets of locally subsidized white rice would be provided at RM26 for each 10kg pack.
It is anticipated that this program will assist approximately 400,000 household leaders (KIR), with about 77,000 extremely impoverished families set to receive assistance in the form of rice subsidies.
To make sure the program runs smoothly, various grocery stores and supermarkets have taken precautions.
proof of citizenship
a condition to purchase locally produced white rice so as to stop foreign individuals from acquiring the subsidized variety.
Yes, that indicates purchasers must present their National Registration Identity Card (NRIC) to purchase domestic white rice.
The present restriction allows each family to purchase up to two bags of rice, though certain shops impose a stricter limit of just one bag.
To avoid tampering and guarantee an efficient distribution, Deputy Secretary-General of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security, Datuk Badrul Hisham Mohd, stated that enforcement squads will operate 24/7 every day of the week to oversee the supply chain with a specialized tracing system.
Badrul additionally reminded the public
not to accumulate excessively or misuse the subsidy
To make sure the rice distribution reaches those who genuinely require it.
READ MORE:
Malaysian Rice Shortage: Unraveling the Tale
READ MORE:
“The ‘Plastic Rice’ Scare Rears Its Head Once More – Let’s Set the Record Straight!”
READ MORE:
Have You Ever Pondered About The Origin Of Those Beetle-Like Creatures Found In Rice Packs?
Share your views with us through TRP’s
Facebook
,
Twitter
,
Instagram
, or
Threads
.
by admin | Mar 25, 2025 | business, economic policy, economics, politics, politics and government
-
David Koch states that energy bill subsidies ought to be subject to income testing.
-
EXPLORE FURTHER: Key insights into reducing your energy costs
David Koch
has criticized Labor’s proposal to provide energy bill rebates to all Australian households, insisting that these benefits should be limited to those who are most vulnerable.
Prime Minister
Anthony Albanese
He has justified extending the $150 energy bill rebate to even the wealthiest families and approximately one million small enterprises instead of implementing a means test.
Mr. Albanese revealed the decision on Sunday following an estimate from the Australian Energy Regulator that suggested household electricity costs were set to soar dramatically.
up to nine percent for inhabitants in New South Wales, Queensland, and Victoria starting in July
.
Compare the Market economic director and former Sunrise host David Koch said limiting the rebates to battlers would see them receive bigger rebates, while reducing the $1.8billion that taxpayers are being slugged to fund it.
“For certain individuals, $150 might just be spending money for a vacation, whereas for others, it could provide groceries for the entire week and ensure their family has sufficient food,” he explained.
Through implementing a means test, the government could allocate an even greater share of that $1.8 billion directly to those who require it most urgently.
I don’t require an energy rebate, but I would greatly appreciate seeing those funds allocated to someone who truly needs them.
Starting from July 1, both households and eligible enterprises will receive an automatic deduction of $150 on their quarterly utility bills. The government plans to transfer the total sum directly to electric power providers as reimbursement for this reduction.
The rebate is not as substantial as its $300 antecedent which was applicable starting midway through 2024.
The Australian Bureau of Statistics suggested that the earlier subsidy had decreased what power consumers paid by approximately 25 percent.
On Tuesday, Mr. Albanese supported the rebate, stating that making it means-tested would limit eligibility solely to welfare recipients.
“We have two choices due to how the rebate system functions,” he stated to ABC Radio National on Tuesday.
‘You could distribute these exclusively to those receiving welfare benefits, or alternatively, offer them to every Australian.’
‘We aim to ensure that these benefits reach working Australians facing financial strain due to rising living costs. It’s much more effective to distribute aid in a manner ensuring each Australian household gets this assistance, as they truly deserve it.’
Mr. Koch dismissed that claim, stating that working individuals receive child care subsidies, and similar assistance for electricity costs could function in the same manner.
‘Subsidies for childcare are based on income levels. I fail to understand why we can’t use the same household-income criteria in this case,” he stated.
The amount of childcare support one receives is determined by calculating a percentage based on their household income.
Families earning less than $83,280 qualify for 90 percent of the eligible child care subsidies, with this percentage decreasing by one point for each extra $5,000 earned until reaching an income of $533,280.
Various other subsidies are accessible to individuals who do not receive welfare benefits in Australia, such asrebates forprivatehealthinsurance.
Alison Reeve, the Deputy Program Director for Energy and Climate Change at the Grattan Institute, informed Daily Mail Australia that neither of the proposals offered a win-win solution.
‘David Koch is correct that $150 means more to people on lower incomes than on higher incomes,’ she said.
We are aware that individuals with lower incomes dedicate a larger portion of their budget to energy costs compared to higher-income families, as they lack additional funds to invest in options that could reduce expenses over time (such as solar panels and batteries, or transitioning from gas to electric systems).
However, the Prime Minister is right in pointing out that not all individuals with a low income are getting financial assistance from the government.
‘To put it differently, if your aim is to assist low-income families, you must choose between accepting that some will not receive support at all (following Kochie’s method) or acknowledging that some may end up receiving more than they should (as per the PM’s strategy).’
Independent Senator Jacquie Lambie additionally advocated for more focused energy rebates.
‘I wonder what I need $150 for? Such a waste of cash,’ she said to Sky News.
“Why am I receiving that money, mate? Well, honestly speaking, I’d prefer for my $150 to grow to $300 when passed on to the next person who’s struggling even more,” she said to Sky News on Monday.
Not subjecting programs to means testing and just spending taxpayer dollars as though they were a pack of candies is utterly disgraceful.
With an election looming, the Coalition said it ‘won’t stand in the way’ of another round of rebates.
However it said handing over public money to electricity retailers was an unsustainable short-term measure that did nothing to address the root cause of why Australia has very expensive power despite vast supplies of coal, oil and gas.
In the long run, Mr. Dutton has pledged to reinstate the previous Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s ‘gas-powered revival’ strategy and plans to invest in two nuclear power stations by 2037 and seven by 2050.
The labor party plans to keep investing in renewable energy sources and encourage private investments through its Future Made in Australia initiative.
Following three years of energy bill assistance payments, Ms. Reeve stated that the rationale for continuing them had become invalid.
‘The policy might have been justifiable during the initial year as it allowed for rapid implementation in reaction to an abrupt surge in prices,’ she stated.
However, both the government and the opposition have been granted an extra two years to develop solutions that would protect customers from unexpected billing surprises—such as assisting households in upgrading their appliances, adding ceiling insulation, moving away from natural gas usage, or installing rooftop solar panels.
If they had invested that money in assisting those who need it most—namely low-income families and tenants—we might not require future assistance with bills. However, it appears that both parties are trapped in a pattern of continuous financial giveaways.
The discussion about energy represents the most recent frontline in the continuous maneuvering before the budget announcement, as Treasurer Jim Chalmers gears up.
To present Tuesday’s federal budget, where the Albanese government is expected to enter a deficit for the first time.
Even though they have returned to operating at a loss, Dr. Chalmers continues to stress the government’s commitment to ‘fiscally responsible governance.’
Australia’s total gross national debt has reached an all-time high of $940 billion for the fiscal year 2024/25. However, this figure is $177 billion lower than what was predicted back in 2022.
“We are reducing the debt accumulated under the Liberals, and the budget will demonstrate that this is saving taxpayers tens of billions of dollars,” Dr. Chalmers stated.
‘In monetary terms, Labor’s fiscally responsible leadership has resulted in the largest budget improvement within a parliamentary term ever recorded.’
Before the Budget announcement, Angus Taylor, the opposition’s treasury spokesperson, criticized the government for alleged inefficient expenditure and described their actions as an attempt to increase taxes.
Meanwhile, Mr. Taylor warned that escalating living costs and growing debts could lead to a ‘decade of lost opportunities for Australian families.’
“At present, according to the latest budget or rather the previous one, our aim was not to return to the earlier standard of living experienced during our time in office with the Coalition government until 2030 or even later,” he stated.
This will mark a lost decade for households in Australia.
‘Thus, the initial challenge for this budget is to swiftly reinstate our standard of living and return to the path of prosperity for Australians that we have traditionally experienced in this nation.’
Read more
by admin | Mar 25, 2025 | business, economics, investing, investing company news, investing news
In February 2025, The Nigerian Exchange Limited saw a significant drop in trading activities with total transactions falling by 16.07 percent to N509.47 billion from N607.05 billion observed in January.
The decrease was primarily caused by a substantial exodus of foreign investors, with their activities dropping by 40.36% from N71.51 billion to N42.65 billion during that period.
The NGX’s Domestic and Foreign Portfolio Investment Report, published on Monday, indicated that foreign investments decreased by 29.67% to ₦18.05 billion in January from ₦25.66 billion previously. Additionally, foreign outflows saw a reduction of 46.33%, dropping to ₦24.60 billion from ₦45.85 billion.
The decrease in international involvement lowered their total trading share to merely 8.37 percent, down from 11.78 percent in January, underscoring the ongoing prominence of local investors in the stock market.
On the contrary, local investors maintained dominance over the market, representing 91.63 percent of all trades conducted. Nonetheless, their transaction value dropped by 12.83 percent, decreasing from N535.54 billion in January down to N466.82 billion in February.
An analysis of local trades showed that individual investors invested N214.51 billion, marking a 19.76 percent decline from the N267.35 billion recorded in January. Meanwhile, institutional investors put in N252.31 billion, which represents a 5.92 percent reduction compared to the N268.19 billion they had committed in the prior month.
The decrease in international deals highlights increasing worries about investors’ trust in Nigeria’s stock exchange.
Year-to-date, the total transaction volume for January and February 2025 was recorded at ₦1.12 trillion. Domestic investors were responsible for ₦1 trillion, which constitutes approximately 89.78%, whereas foreign investors accounted for ₦114.16 billion, constituting around 10.22%.
In comparison to the corresponding timeframe in 2024 when the total transactions amounted to N1.01 trillion, there has been a rise of 10.62 percent in market activity this year. Nevertheless, the proportion of involvement from international investors has decreased from 11.78 percent in 2024 down to 10.22 percent in 2025.
In the last 18 years, statistics indicate a consistent rise in local involvement in Nigeria’s stock exchange, with domestic activity climbing by 33.15%, from ₦3.56 trillion in 2007 to ₦4.73 trillion in 2024. During this timeframe, international dealings also expanded by 38.31% from ₦616 billion to ₦852 billion. Nonetheless, despite these increases, overseas engagement stayed comparatively modest at around 15% of all trades in 2024, whereas indigenous traders made up approximately 85%.
PUNCH disclosed that foreign investors pulled out ₦455.62 billion from the Nigerian stock market in 2024, far exceeding overall investments and highlighting worries regarding investor trust, even as the Central Bank of Nigeria attempted to stabilize the naira.
Provided by SyndiGate Media Inc.
Syndigate.info
).
by admin | Mar 24, 2025 | economics, financial markets, investing market news, news, stocks
Stocks largely climbed across Asia on Tuesday, continuing the upward trend from Wall Street amid reduced concerns about President Donald Trump’s proposed tariffs. Meanwhile, investors were anticipating the upcoming release of crucial U.S. inflation figures.
A surge in tech giants including Tesla and Nvidia helped New York markets higher, with sentiment buoyed by indications from the White House that next week’s glut of levies would be less severe than feared.
Trump has dubbed April 2 “Liberation Day” as he pledges to impose reciprocal tariffs on trading partners in an effort to remedy practices that Washington deems unfair.
After returning to power in January, Trump has adopted an aggressive policy stance, targeting both allies and adversaries, which has sent shockwaves through financial markets and heightened concerns over the worldwide economic situation.
Recently, he indicated that certain nations might receive waivers or cuts from the upcoming week’s actions, providing investors with a badly needed boost of hope.
Market-watchers say the final outcome would likely see the tariffs changed after negotiations.
The current surge of pessimistic stories—driven by politically biased consumer confidence reports and an influx of negative opinion pieces—appears more exaggerated than warranted, according to Stephen Innes from SPI Asset Management.
Furthermore, IG Market Analyst Tony Sycamore commented: “It’s anticipated that this process will be better organized and structured compared to earlier efforts. The figures set to be disclosed on April 2nd may potentially see reductions following negotiations.”
Nevertheless, the president gave a shock by threatening nations that imported oil and natural gas from Venezuela with significant tariffs, which might affect China and India as well as other countries.
During early trading, markets in Tokyo, Sydney, Singapore, Taipei, and Wellington increased in value; however, those in Shanghai and Manila declined.
Hong Kong’s index fell over one percent, largely due to a nearly five percent decline in the stock price of major Chinese technology company Xiaomi following its successful raise of $5.5 billion through a substantial share issuance aimed at boosting its electric vehicle endeavors.
Despite a rise of approximately six percent in South Korea’s car manufacturer Hyundai after announcing a $21 billion USD investment, Seoul likewise fell.
Attention is also focused on the release of U.S. personal consumption expenditures data this week, as it serves as the preferred measure of inflation according to the Federal Reserve.
The readings will be carefully observed following warnings that prices may increase due to Trump’s tariffs.
The Atlanta Fed president, Raphael Bostic, indicated that the measures suggest the bank will probably reduce interest rates only one time this year.
“I moved to one mainly because I think we’re going to see inflation be very bumpy and not move dramatically and in a clear way to the (Fed’s) two percent target,” he told Bloomberg Television on Monday.
Since this is getting delayed, I believe the corresponding policy measures will also need to be postponed.
Oil prices maintained their gain from Monday, which was over one percent, following President Trump’s warnings about Venezuelan crude oil.
Prominent individuals at approximately 0230 GMT
Tokyo – Nikkei 225: Increased by 0.7% to reach 37,881.70
Hong Kong – Hang Seng Index: Down 1.7% at 23,502.90
Shanghai – Aggregate: DECREASED BY 0.1% TO 3,367.17
Euro/dollar: DROPPED to $1.0799 from $1.0805 on Monday
Pound/dollar: DECREASED to $1.2917 from $1.2924
Dollar/Yen: Increased to 150.64 yen from 150.58 yen.
Euro/pound: INCREASED to 83.61 pence from 83.58 pence
West Texas Intermediate remains steady at $69.09 per barrel.
Brent North Sea Crude: REMAINS STEADY AT $72.37 PER BARREL
New York – Dow: Increased by 1.4% to close at 42,583.32 points.
London – FTSE 100: Decreased by 0.1 percent to close at 8,638.01.
Page 6 of 11« First«...45678...»Last »
