Financial Leigh

27/08/2026

❄️💰 Snowy Hydro 2.0

The numbers:

• March 2017: announcement: $2 billion, around four years to build.

• December 2017: feasibility study: $3.8 to $4.5 billion.

• December 2018: Final Investment Decision: $6.1 billion.

• August 2023: project reset: $12 billion & completion by 2028.

• October 2025: Cost reassessment released advising budget unachievable.

• March 2026: $11.1 billion already spent and only 73% complete.

• Today: A new cost assessment report is now 1 month overdue.

That means 92.5% of the $12 billion budget has already been spent while the project is only 73% complete.

If you simply extrapolate the spending so far: $11.1 billion ÷ 73% = $15.21 billion

So even if the remaining work costs no more per percentage point than what has already been completed, the project comes in at around $15.2 billion, roughly 7.6 times the original $2 billion estimate.

And the timeframe is under pressure too.

The Auditor-General found the project is behind schedule and there is currently no agreed baseline schedule for completion.

There is also a new detailed cost reassessment underway. It was launched in October 2025 and was originally expected to take up to nine months, but as of August 2026 it had still not been delivered to the Federal Government.

Chris Bowen has said it will be made public shortly after he receives it.

So we should soon get a much clearer picture of what Snowy 2.0 will actually cost and when it will actually be finished.

Let’s see what’s in store next. 🍿

.0

26/08/2026

Black Market 🚬🚬🚬🚬🚬🚬

Australia spent years making legal ci******es more expensive to discourage smoking.

The result?

The ABS estimates illicit sources accounted for 12% of to***co and ni****ne consumption in 2017 and around 80% in 2025

Meanwhile, the Government originally forecast $14.7 billion in to***co excise revenue for 2026-27. It now expects just $3.6 billion.

That’s an $11.1 billion downgrade.

And organised crime groups are estimated to be making $4.1 billion to $6.9 billion in profit from the illicit to***co trade.

So naturally, the solution is obvious...

Make the legal ones more expensive....problem solved.

***cotax

11/08/2026

FREE CHILDCARE? 👶

Australia already spends billions subsidising childcare, yet families are still paying thousands out of pocket just so both parents can work.

With birth rates falling and an ageing population, maybe free childcare isn’t as crazy as it sounds.

Maybe the bigger question is: can we afford not to?

05/08/2026

Made the news! Not behd, good size.

“It astounds me that the government are so short sighted on this."

04/08/2026

THE BREADWINNER TAX 🍞

In Australia, income splitting isn't allowed. You're taxed as an individual, no matter what your household looks like.

The result: a family where one person earns $300k pays around $107k in tax. A family next door earning $150k each pays around $80k. Same household income, $27k difference, purely because of who earned it.

The obvious fix is both parents working. But with kids, that triggers childcare costs, which can swallow most or all of the tax saving. And when you apply for the Child Care Subsidy to ease that? It's means tested on your entire household income.

That's the contradiction. When you're paying the government, you're two individuals. When the government's paying you, you're one household. Family Tax Benefit, Child Care Subsidy, the private health rebate, all assessed jointly. Your tax return, strictly solo.

Other countries do it differently. The US lets married couples file jointly and effectively split income across both tax brackets. France and Germany go further, adjusting tax based on household size.

Australia keeps it simple. Taxed as individuals. Means-tested as a household.



SHOULD AUSTRALIA ALLOW JOINTLY FILED TAX RETURNS FOR COUPLES?

20/07/2026

The Hokey Pokey Strategy, aka debt recycling. 🕺

In this example, the homeowner has:
• A $4 million home loan
• $4 million in available cash
• A 6% interest rate

That means $240,000 per year in interest.

Instead of investing the cash directly, the homeowner uses it to pay down the non-deductible home loan, redraws the money through a properly structured investment loan, then uses those funds to purchase income-producing shares.

The result?

The debt is still $4 million, but the interest may now be tax deductible. 🧾

And this strategy isn’t only for people casually finding $4 million behind the couch.

Whether your home loan is $400,000 or $4 million, if you have a home loan, available cash and you’re already planning to invest, debt recycling may allow you to progressively convert non-deductible home debt into tax-deductible investment debt.

You put the money in,
you take the money out,
you purchase the shares,
and turn the tax treatment around.

And that’s what it’s all about. 🪩

The loan structure, movement of funds and investment purpose all matter, so obtain appropriate tax and financial advice before implementing the strategy.

09/07/2026

ABC, Always Be Closing 💰

01/07/2026

**Meet your new landlords 🙋‍♂️**

As foreign institutional investment into Australia's Build-to-Rent sector continues to grow, many Australians are asking a simple question.

Why can an overseas pension fund leverage into thousands of new Australian homes, while an Australian can no longer borrow inside their SMSF to buy one?

Canadian pension funds are among the largest foreign investors in Australia's Build-to-Rent sector, investing billions into apartment developments designed to be held for decades, not sold off one by one.

Eligible institutional investors can access benefits like:

• 15% tax through Managed Investment Trusts
• 4% depreciation on eligible Build-to-Rent projects
• Land tax concessions in NSW and Victoria
• Tax incentives designed to attract overseas investment
• Access to large-scale wholesale funding

This isn't about being against foreign investment.

Australia benefits from overseas capital, and Build-to-Rent can play an important role in increasing housing supply.

The question is whether Australian investors should have access to similar opportunities, or whether governments should continue expanding incentives for large institutional investors, including overseas pension funds, while Australians face increasingly restrictive investment rules.

What do you think?

16/06/2026

Pack ya bags! We're going to Singapore!

Ever wondered why a foreign billionaire pays less tax on an Australian warehouse than you do? Welcome to the world of MITs (Managed Investment Trusts).
Here is the brutal economic truth behind the video:

The Global Bait: Australia’s government created MITs with one goal, attract international capital into our major infrastructure and property projects. To compete with America and Europe, we have to offer a discount.

Their Rate: Foreign investors from recognized countries get a flat 15% tax on income and capital gains (and as low as 10% for eco-friendly green buildings). If their home country doesn't tax foreign earnings, that 15% is all they pay.

Your Rate: Meanwhile, local Aussie investors are a "captive market" the government knows you are trapped here. So, on the exact same asset, a top-bracket Aussie pays 47% on income and 23.5% on gains (which is staring down hikes to 30%+ in the near future).

The Bottom Line: While the economic purpose of an MIT is to grease the wheels of international investment, Australian investors have every right to feel completely pi**ed off. The system effectively gives foreigners a massive tax advantage to outbid locals on our own dirt.