More than nine million Australians struggling with less than $1000 in the bank, new research from Finder reveals
A new survey found 43 per cent of Australians have less than $1000 in their bank account, putting them just inches away from breaking point.
Of those with less than a grand in savings, the average account balance was $215 which is the average weekly grocery bill for NSW households according to Finder.
More than half of respondents admitted they lived month to month and almost one in five - equivalent to 3.8 million people – said they have $0 in savings.
Finder's personal finance expert Sarah Megginson said mounting cost of living pressures over the past few years had crippled many families' budgets.
'The nation's savings crisis has hit a breaking point, and it's pushing millions to the edge of financial ruin,' Ms Megginson said.
'For many households, even an unexpected minor expense like a cracked windscreen or an emergency trip to the dentist, it would be enough to cause serious financial stress.'
While millions have no savings, there is wide disparity between the haves and have-nots in Australia.
Finder's research showed the average Australian holds more than $43,000 in the bank, putting them in a safe financial position if an unexpected expense arrives.
Australians with low savings, however, are at higher risk of becoming overwhelmed with crippling debt due to a lack of a financial buffer, Ms Megginson said.
'While tools like credit cards, personal loans, and buy-now-pay-later services can be helpful, using them for everyday expenses can quickly lead to a spiralling financial situation,' she said.
Finder's shock revelation comes after the comparison site found many households were desperate for their tax refund.
Almost one in four respondents to another Finder survey said a tax refund was very important to their financial health while 41 per cent said the cash was somewhat important.
About 47 per cent of taxpayers expect a tax refund after July 1 and the average taxpayer anticipates a $1519 refund.
This will deliver a total of $15.3 billion back into the pockets of everyday shoppers across the nation.
Finder's head of consumer research Graham Cooke said the cash injection will be critical for Australians with little savings.
'Many households living month-to-month will be particularly keen to access these funds,' Mr Cooke said.
'For those struggling with the rising cost of living, a cash boost will offer some necessary financial reprieve.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sydney Morning Herald
2 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Don't let FOMO fool you: Selling Big Bash teams is a bad idea
Cricket Australia certainly has a challenge to grow revenue. Its commercial revenue – sponsorship, ticketing, hospitality etc – has been flat over the past five years, and its domestic media rights deal is essentially flat until 2031. Selling stakes in BBL teams will deliver an infusion of cash. The problem is that selling capital assets such as the BBL is a one-off. It sacrifices future revenue for a lump sum today. Since CA's costs won't reduce, it will still need that revenue in future years. The only way to do this is to invest the proceeds of sale into something that generates at least the same return as the BBL. Loading Effectively, this means the proceeds of sale need to be sequestered, put into the Future Fund and invested in other revenue-generating assets, most likely outside cricket. This might happen, or might not. As governments worldwide show, the temptation to spend tomorrow's money today can be overwhelming. Best to reduce costs, run at a surplus over the cycle, invest the proceeds wisely and host more World Cups. That brings us to the fear of missing out. The arguments for: Everyone else is doing it, so why shouldn't we? In particular, the England Cricket Board has sold stakes in the Hundred for seemingly good prices – especially the team based at Lord's. The IPL includes private owners, and is a success, so perhaps this is causation as well correlation? The IPL clubs are globalising and, if they end up contracting players to their franchises across the world on a 12-month basis, the BBL might miss out on having these players involved unless the IPL owners also own BBL teams. BBL clubs might not be able to afford players in demand from other privately owned leagues played in the same window. The core hope is that someone will overpay for the revenue streams CA would otherwise be receiving, or that they can generate more revenue or profit than CA and the states can. The core fear is we need to sell now or be left behind. It's possible a foreign owner can make more money from BBL clubs from overseas sources than CA can, but only if the BBL effectively becomes the Australian leg of a global T20 tour controlled by IPL owners and private equity firms. Think Sydney Knight Riders rather than Sydney Sixers. The question for CA is whether this will help it to grow the game in Australia more effectively than retaining full ownership and control. This seems unlikely. CA and the states are focused on growing Australian cricket and understand the participation and consumption markets better than anyone; foreign BBL owners are not, and won't ever, be focused on this. Nor is Boston Consulting Group. CA's flagship product, international cricket, also runs parallel to the BBL. CA has the ability to manage its schedule to maximise the audience for all formats. This will become far more challenging when private owners are solving only for BBL. And CA will not exercise the same degree of control over Indian billionaires as the Board of Control for Cricket in India does. The BCCI is in effect an arm of the Indian government; CA is not. The nub of the issue appears to be 'If we sell the BBL now we can get top dollar. If we don't, the IPL owners will compete with it and take the players'. This is already happening to a degree, with parallel tournaments over summer in South Africa and the Middle East. Is it therefore better to surrender, to take the money and run? The answer in my view is no. It is a mistake to think the BBL is popular because of specific players. Players come and go and always will. And the BBL makes stars as much as stars make the BBL. BBL is popular fundamentally because it is cricket, it is T20 and it is played in the perfect timeslot – every summer night. Its standing among global T20 leagues is largely irrelevant to Aussie fans. As, frankly, is the IPL. It is also a mistake to think the IPL is better-run. It simply operates in a far bigger market. Which brings us to cricket politics. The argument for: Key figures are in favour of it. The 'privatise' faction has existed in Australian cricket since at least 2011. However, its incentives must be carefully examined. If I am a leading player, player agent, or players' union, I want as much competition for players as possible – except when it comes to restrictions on overseas player slots in the BBL. More owners and more competitions are better. So privatisation is good. CA's incentives are the opposite. If I am associated with a potential investor or stand to make money from a transaction, I want privatisation. CA needs to discount these perspectives accordingly. Loading And if I am an executive or director who wants to be seen to 'do something', or 'leave a legacy', or just do something new, I might want privatisation. That requires a good hard look in the mirror. Administrators are only temporary custodians of the game. The real question for CA is what is best for Australian cricket fans, and the grassroots clubs and associations that ultimately own the game. Publicising the report would help us decide for ourselves. That is the right next step.
The Age
2 hours ago
- The Age
Don't let FOMO fool you: Selling Big Bash teams is a bad idea
Cricket Australia certainly has a challenge to grow revenue. Its commercial revenue – sponsorship, ticketing, hospitality etc – has been flat over the past five years, and its domestic media rights deal is essentially flat until 2031. Selling stakes in BBL teams will deliver an infusion of cash. The problem is that selling capital assets such as the BBL is a one-off. It sacrifices future revenue for a lump sum today. Since CA's costs won't reduce, it will still need that revenue in future years. The only way to do this is to invest the proceeds of sale into something that generates at least the same return as the BBL. Loading Effectively, this means the proceeds of sale need to be sequestered, put into the Future Fund and invested in other revenue-generating assets, most likely outside cricket. This might happen, or might not. As governments worldwide show, the temptation to spend tomorrow's money today can be overwhelming. Best to reduce costs, run at a surplus over the cycle, invest the proceeds wisely and host more World Cups. That brings us to the fear of missing out. The arguments for: Everyone else is doing it, so why shouldn't we? In particular, the England Cricket Board has sold stakes in the Hundred for seemingly good prices – especially the team based at Lord's. The IPL includes private owners, and is a success, so perhaps this is causation as well correlation? The IPL clubs are globalising and, if they end up contracting players to their franchises across the world on a 12-month basis, the BBL might miss out on having these players involved unless the IPL owners also own BBL teams. BBL clubs might not be able to afford players in demand from other privately owned leagues played in the same window. The core hope is that someone will overpay for the revenue streams CA would otherwise be receiving, or that they can generate more revenue or profit than CA and the states can. The core fear is we need to sell now or be left behind. It's possible a foreign owner can make more money from BBL clubs from overseas sources than CA can, but only if the BBL effectively becomes the Australian leg of a global T20 tour controlled by IPL owners and private equity firms. Think Sydney Knight Riders rather than Sydney Sixers. The question for CA is whether this will help it to grow the game in Australia more effectively than retaining full ownership and control. This seems unlikely. CA and the states are focused on growing Australian cricket and understand the participation and consumption markets better than anyone; foreign BBL owners are not, and won't ever, be focused on this. Nor is Boston Consulting Group. CA's flagship product, international cricket, also runs parallel to the BBL. CA has the ability to manage its schedule to maximise the audience for all formats. This will become far more challenging when private owners are solving only for BBL. And CA will not exercise the same degree of control over Indian billionaires as the Board of Control for Cricket in India does. The BCCI is in effect an arm of the Indian government; CA is not. The nub of the issue appears to be 'If we sell the BBL now we can get top dollar. If we don't, the IPL owners will compete with it and take the players'. This is already happening to a degree, with parallel tournaments over summer in South Africa and the Middle East. Is it therefore better to surrender, to take the money and run? The answer in my view is no. It is a mistake to think the BBL is popular because of specific players. Players come and go and always will. And the BBL makes stars as much as stars make the BBL. BBL is popular fundamentally because it is cricket, it is T20 and it is played in the perfect timeslot – every summer night. Its standing among global T20 leagues is largely irrelevant to Aussie fans. As, frankly, is the IPL. It is also a mistake to think the IPL is better-run. It simply operates in a far bigger market. Which brings us to cricket politics. The argument for: Key figures are in favour of it. The 'privatise' faction has existed in Australian cricket since at least 2011. However, its incentives must be carefully examined. If I am a leading player, player agent, or players' union, I want as much competition for players as possible – except when it comes to restrictions on overseas player slots in the BBL. More owners and more competitions are better. So privatisation is good. CA's incentives are the opposite. If I am associated with a potential investor or stand to make money from a transaction, I want privatisation. CA needs to discount these perspectives accordingly. Loading And if I am an executive or director who wants to be seen to 'do something', or 'leave a legacy', or just do something new, I might want privatisation. That requires a good hard look in the mirror. Administrators are only temporary custodians of the game. The real question for CA is what is best for Australian cricket fans, and the grassroots clubs and associations that ultimately own the game. Publicising the report would help us decide for ourselves. That is the right next step.
The Age
4 hours ago
- The Age
The move that has killed off Friday night drinks
Gather round, young workers. Let me tell you a story of what work was like in the olden days. It might sound strange, but once upon a time people across the city would descend upon a central location at the same time, toiling away from Monday to Friday in a common space together. Then, on the final afternoon of the last workday, a small ritual would occur in many workplaces. In some of them, platters laden with 'chips and dips' would materialise on a large table near the kitchen. In others, a drinks cart would be wheeled between cubicles, offering cold drinks to weary workers. And, more often than not, a colleague would appear at your desk to invite you to the pub to digest the week's events and swap upcoming plans for the weekend. These historic vignettes are not from decades in the past, you only need to rewind your memory back to 2019 to remember them. For countless generations, workers celebrated the end of the week by heading to the local watering hole. Today, however, thanks in part to changing ways of working, WFH is killing Friday night drinks. Loading According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, about 40 per cent of Australian employees now spend some of their week under hybrid arrangements, and it's caused a drastic change to how we socialise. The most common days to be in the office? Tuesday to Thursday. And the most likely days to work from home? Mondays and Fridays. But it's not all the fault of WFH, as there's a perfect storm of trends that has led us to this moment. The first is a long-term shift of younger Australians away from alcohol.
