Peter Martin

Mining. The invesment boom has peaked, it's probably downhill

noreply@blogger.com (freshpost) — Wed, 22 May 2013 13:34:00 +0000

Today's evocative graph from the Bureau of Resources and Energy Economics:

Here's to you, Martin Parkinson (lyrics)

noreply@blogger.com (freshpost) — Wed, 22 May 2013 09:17:00 +0000

Joe Hockey hung the Treasury boss Martin Parkinson out to dry today. Offered two opportunities to endorse him in the role he declined.

Mr Hockey pointedly refused to express confidence in the present head of the Treasury Dr Martin Parkinson who would be head of his department should Mr Hockey become Treasurer.

He had “deep reservations” about the numbers presented in the budget.

When told Dr Parkinson had taken ownership of those numbers saying they were the work of the Treasury rather than the Treasurerhe said he “would have expected Dr Parkinson to say nothing different” because he was “quite appropriately a servant of the government”.

Mr Hockey’s “starting point” was to “give public servants the benefit of the doubt about their intentions and their preparedness to work with us”.

Here's the song. Music by Simon and Garfunkel. Lyrics by the ever-clever Stephen Long:

And here's to you, Martin Parkinson

Swanny loves you more than you will know (wo wo wo)

God bless you please, Martin Parkinson

Hockey holds a place for those who sway

Hey hey hey, hey hey hey

We'd like to know a little bit about you for our files

We'd like to help you learn to help yourself

Look around you all you see are Coalition eyes

Tough pre-election outlook, or you go

And here's to you, Martin Parkinson

Swanny loves you more than you will know

wo wo wo

God bless you please, Martin Parkinson

Hockey holds a place for those who sway

Hey hey hey, hey hey hey

Hide the revenue in a place where pollies never go

Put it in your pantry with your tax reform

It's a little secret just the Parkinson affair

Most of all, you've got to hide it from the spivs

Coo coo ca-choo, Martin Parkinson

Swanny loves you more than you will know

wo wo wo

God bless you, please, Martin Parkinson

Hockey holds a place for those who sway

Hey hey hey, hey hey hey

Sitting in the Treasury on a Sunday afternoon

Looking at the candidates' debate

Laugh about it, shout about it when you've got to choose

Every way you look at it you lose...

Pay. More. Tax. Or expect less - Parkinson

noreply@blogger.com (freshpost) — Wed, 22 May 2013 02:32:00 +0000

Simple? simple.

Australians will have to either pay more tax or expect poorer government services, the head of the Treasury has warned.

Dr Martin Parkinson told a post-budget function in Sydney the share of the economy devoted to tax had suffered its most dramatic slide since the 1950s.

“From its pre-crisis level of 23.7 per cent the tax-to-GDP ratio fell to 20.1 per cent in 2010-11,” he said. “This reflects both successive large cuts to personal income tax rates and a fundamental change in the relationship between the nominal economy and tax receipts.”

Weak tax collections were set to continue. Mining companies had become more economically important and paid less a low proportion of their profits in tax, around 5 to 10 percentage points less than for the corporate sector as a whole.

“Just to be clear, this is not a judgement about what the effective tax rate paid by mining companies should be, Dr Parkinson told the business economists. “It is simply a statement of fact.”

Non mining companies would soon need to take the place of miners in driving economic growth, but there was a risk the transition would “not be seamless”.

Right now their growth was “not much bigger than the recession of the early 1990s”.

Dr Parkinson's assessment came as the Fitch ratings agency endorsed Australia's AAA credit rating, describing the nation's public finances as “very strong”...

“We view Australia's public financial position as a source of strength,” the firm's global director of sovereign ratings Art Woo told investors in Sydney.

Its propriety measure of “general government debt” representing the amount owed by all levels of government came in at 26 per cent of gross domestic product. This was below Norway's and way below that of nations such as the United States which had general government debt of 100 per cent of GDP.

Dr Parkinson said Australia's weak tax take was colliding with growing expectations of government and the rapidly rising costs of healthcare and the aging population. Reforms to improve productivity would help to some extent and would be needed whichever party won the election.

“We have a big gap between what the community demands of government and what it is prepared to pay,” he told the business economists. “We have to think about savings or new sources of revenue.”

“I am not saying we have to find extra sources of tax. I have never said that. But we cannot just keep promising to spend more and more.”

“Long run our receipts bounce around at about 24 per cent of GDP. If we are to deliver surpluses over time such that we can deal with the demographic challenge we have got to keep outlays to 24 per cent or we have got to increase taxation. It's a mathematical truism.”

The Treasury secretary declined to be drawn on whether he whether he would support an increase in the goods and services tax.

Treasury will soon release its assessment of the 'structural' or 'underlying' budget position. Shadow treasurer Joe Hockey will make the structural deficit a key part of his address to the National Press Club on Wednesday arguing the budget position is weaker than it seems. He will again refuse to release detailed policy costings until the Treasury's updated pre-election fiscal outlook to be released during the campaign.

Dr Parkinson said the Treasury's views those in the budget. If the pre-election outlook had been released on budget night it would have had exactly the same as the outlook in the budget.

In today's -Sydney Morning Herald and Age

Related Posts

. Get real, you can't have it all - Parkinson

. More tax, new taxes - Treasury prepares the way

. Parkinson: The Budget is no longer bringing in the money

Baby bonus. The needless, dangerous birth boom coming soon

noreply@blogger.com (freshpost) — Mon, 20 May 2013 05:04:00 +0000

"On Wednesday June 30, 2004 a total of 490 births were recorded.

On the next day, the first day of the baby bonus, the number of recorded births jumped to 978."

Treasurer Wayne Swan is being urged to smooth the “sudden death” end of the baby bonus, due to slump from $5000 to $500 on March 1.

When the bonus was first introduced on July 1, 2004 Australian labour wards experienced their busiest Thursday in three decades. A record 1,005 babies were born on July 1, compared to only 500 the day before, which one of the quietest Wednesdays on record.

Melbourne University economist Joshua Gans found the babies born in July 2004 were significantly more likely to be “overcooked”. Around 680 babies were born weighing more than four kilograms in that month, 140 more than in a typical month. His concern this time is that births will be brought forward.

“Frankly, I think this is worse,” he said from Canada where he is now works. “The delay increased birth weights and I recall one study that showed that could be beneficial. But in this case we are likely to suffer from earlier births meaning lower birth weights.”

Asked at the National Press Club on Wednesday whether he was worried mothers might try to bring forward births to get the bonus Treasurer Wayne Swan replied with a four-word answer: “No, I am not”.

Professor Gans and Dr Andrew Leigh of the Australian National University found mothers varied the timing of their births using cesareans and inductions. Only 42 per cent of births in the final week of June 2004 were cesareans or inductions. The rate jumped to 52 per cent the following week.

“The rates of vaginal birth stay basically flat suggesting that this isn't anything to do with misreporting or crossing your legs, this is all to do with these elective procedures being put off,” Dr Leigh said at the time.

“What worries is that this is coming because the government has set up an incentive to change the timing of your birth. It is a very weird thing and not at all something that seems to be in accord with good public policy.”

Dr Leigh is now a Labor member of parliament, presently parliamentary secretary to the prime minister.

He told Fairfax Media on Sunday he stood by his findings and was working within the government on the question...

The sudden drop in the baby bonus has not yet been legislated and could be converted to a smoothed phase out without costing money.

Dr Leigh and Professor Gans wrote to the then health minister Nicola Roxon in 2008 urging her to smooth the last planned increase in the bonus. Their pleas were rejected, in part because of “something about the fiscal year,” according to Gans.

“That doesn’t apply this year. No one has ever been able to explain to me why you can't do it more gradually,” he said.

“As I understand it, there are continual political calls for academic research to be more relevant and useful. So we do that research and it is, at best, ignored and, at worst, apparently unwelcome.”

Doctor Andrew Pesce, an obstetrician and gynaecologist at Sydney’s Westmead Hospital said while expectant mothers did ask to have the date of their deliveries optimised, he had never known one to do it in circumstances where it would endanger the child.

“If the baby has some prematurity problems she is probably going to spend a whole lot more than the baby bonus on special care nursery costs,” he said.

In today's Sydney Morning Herald and Age

Related Reading

. Baby bonus: even as it exits poor implementation continues

Related Posts

. A boosted baby bonus means... bigger babies

. Births, conceptions and deaths. Money changes everything.

. 2008: What I was about to ask the Health Minister

. 2008: Tuesday column: Axe the baby bonus

Every day it's a getting closer, more GST

noreply@blogger.com (freshpost) — Mon, 20 May 2013 02:13:00 +0000

Labor managed to have a tax review without talking about it. The Coalition has promised not to touch it in its first term.

But NSW Premier Barry O'Farrell says it’s time for a “dinkum” discussion. He says we should consider lifting the rate of the goods and services tax beyond 10 per cent.

The rate can only be varied if all of the states agree and if the Commonwealth parliament passes legislation. Opposition leader Tony Abbott has said he will allow consideration of the GST in the tax review he will commission should he win the next election, but that any changes would be put to the people first at a subsequent election.

Mr O'Farrell said a higher GST could be used to remove "anti-economic" state taxes such as those on payrolls and investment.

"People know the current tax system is failing. There are regressive taxes that we can only eliminate if we are compensated, and the best way to do that is through the GST," he told Sky News on Sunday.

"All options should be on the table, broadening the base, looking at the rate and also the rebates back to the states"...

Assistant Treasurer David Bradbury said the Coalition would face mounting pressure from Liberal states to increase the rate.

"What Mr O'Farrell did was open the curtains on this so-called tax review, which we know is going to be nothing other than a GST review." he said. “All options should be on the table means up with the rate, out with the base. It means tax on things like fresh food, it means health, it means education."

Victorian premier Denis Napthine poured cold water on the idea of a coordinated move saying a tax review was not high on his list of priorities.

‘‘I am more interested in getting funding for East West Link Stage 1, that is my first priority and then getting on with the Metro Rail tunnel and Port of Hastings,’’ he told reporters on Sunday.

Victoria wanted a fairer share of the national GST pool rather than a higher rate.

Although forbidden from considering a change to the GST the 2010 Henry tax review published a table showing that increasing the rate of would be one of the least damaging ways of raising more tax. The least damaging was an increased resource super profits tax.

Shadow Treasurer Joe Hockey confirmed Sunday the Coalition would support the government’s decision to means test the private health insurance rebate. “We will legislate as an emergency measure,” he told the ABC. As recently as February he had been promising to restore the full rebate. “We would like to see that means test gone because we believe in a universal health system,” he said at the time.

In today's Sydney Morning Herald and Age

Related Posts

. Why the GST is failing, and why it's hard to fix

. How Australia compares on tax, graphically

. State treasurers to Swan: Collect more GST

Abbott's shame. Long may this letter be remembered

noreply@blogger.com (freshpost) — Fri, 17 May 2013 00:27:00 +0000

Why Abbott will have to clean up Labor's super tax mess

noreply@blogger.com (freshpost) — Thu, 16 May 2013 23:54:00 +0000

Here's my advice, written before I knew he was thinking along similar lines.

Accepting the bulk of Wayne Swan's budget cuts will only get Tony Abbott and Joe Hockey so far. Within their first term if elected they will have to confront the one truly enormous and growing budget cost Swan has barely tackled..

The cost to tax of the staged increase in compulsory superannuation contributions from 9 per cent of salary to 12 per cent was to have been funded by the mining tax.

Now scarcely functioning (and set to be abolished by the Coalition) the mining tax will raise just $200 million this year and a total of 5.5 billion over five years if it survives.

By contrast the existing super tax concessions cost $32 billion per year according to the Treasury figures in the budget. That figure is disputed by some in the superannuation industry, but what is not disputed is that it is set to grow.

The budget papers show it climbing from $32 billion to an astonishing $50 billion per year by 2016-17, an extraordinary increase of 60 per cent.

By then super tax concessions would cost more than the pension ($48.5 billion) and more than Family Tax Benefits and Medicare combined ($21 billion and $23.6 billion).

And the ramping up of the costs will have only begun...

The first increase in compulsory super contributions from 9 per cent of salary to 9.25 happens in July. It will be funded by employers, most probably out of wage increases they would have otherwise paid.

But that's not a cost to the budget. The cost to the budget is that those contributions will be taxed at only 15 per cent, instead of the standard rate for wage increases. For middle earners subject to the Medicare levy the standard rate is 34 per cent. (Only Australians on salaries in excess of $300,000 will be slugged more than 15 per cent, and one year after announcing the hike to a still-generous 30 per cent the government still hasn’t produced the legislation.)

The first increase in compulsory super will be followed by a second, to 9.5 per cent in July 2014. The increases won't stop until July 2019 when the lightly-taxed total reaches 12 per cent of salary. Only then, at the end of the decade, will the budget cost level off.

The government hasn't said how much compulsory super will cost the budget by the end of the decade but it if it asked, Treasury would give it an answer.

It'll fall to Abbott and Hockey to wind back what will then be the largest cost to the budget other than grants to the states. The simplest solution, suggested by Melbourne University tax expert John Freebairn is for employers to deduct tax from super contributions at pay-as-you-go rates just as they do for wages. The earnings of super funds and the payouts could be untaxed, for even greater simplicity.

It's a bold solution that should be easy to sell. Something like it will become necessary for whoever is in charge of the budget after the September election.

In The Age

Recommended Reading:

Future Challenges: Australia's Superannuation System Martin Parkinson, November 28 2012

"With the Commonwealth budget coming under increasing pressure over the next few decades, the fiscal sustainability of all policies, including superannuation, will demand greater public scrutiny. This scrutiny will be even more important to the extent that existing concessions are seen to favour some at the expense of the majority."

Related Posts

. Super. It gives the most to those who need it the least

. How unfair are super tax concessions? Two views

. While repudiating Rudd, here's an idea for Gillard -- keep super at 9%

Budget 2013-14. Will we hit the debt ceiling?

noreply@blogger.com (freshpost) — Tue, 14 May 2013 23:38:00 +0000

Probably. The next Treasurer will have to lift it.

Me on RN Drive, May 15, 2013

13 minutes, play or RIGHT CLICK to download mp3

Budget 2013-14. Me on the radio, the morning after

noreply@blogger.com (freshpost) — Tue, 14 May 2013 23:32:00 +0000

Me on Life Matters, Wednesday May 15

25 minutes, play or RIGHT CLICK to download mp3

Swan's numbers. Why he is cautious, this time

noreply@blogger.com (freshpost) — Tue, 14 May 2013 23:15:00 +0000

BELIEVE ME THIS TIME

FROM THIS:

Projected outcomes, May 2012

2011-12 $44.4 billion deficit

2012-13 $1.5 billion surplus

2013-14 $2 billion surplus

2014-15 $5.3 billion surplus

2015-16 $7.5 billion surplus

TO THIS:

Projected outcomes, May 2013

2011-12 $43.4 billion deficit

2012-13 $19.4 billion deficit

2013-14 $18 billion deficit

2014-15 $10.9 billion deficit

2015-16 $0.8 billion surplus

2016-17 $6.6 billion surplus

In the face of enormous pressure to return the budget to surplus quickly, Wayne Swan has run the other way.

Extra spending this financial year and the next will boost the 2012-13 deficit by a further $2.4 billion and the 2013-14 deficit by $720 million.

Only in the following two years will the cuts in the budget overwhelm the extra spending, pushing down the 2014-15 deficit by $6.2 billion (to a small projected surplus) and pushing down the 2015-16 deficit by $12.3 billion (to a substantial surplus).

The Treasurer has adopted what he calls this "sensible, calm and responsible approach" in part because of a fear the economy could not take a sharp shift to surplus, a concern shared by shadow treasurer Joe Hockey, who told an investment conference last month the Coalition would not "go down the path of austerity simply to bring the budget back to surplus".

Mr Swan puts it this way: "Just because the global economy took an axe to our budget does not mean we should take an axe to our economy."

Changed economic conditions have ripped $60 billion from the four-year total of expected tax collections since the last budget update in October.

The budget papers include a graph making the point that if tax collections had remained as high as in the final year of the Howard government (23.7 per cent of gross domestic product), the budget would still be roughly in balance.

Swan is clawing back two-thirds of the missing $60 billion by making $43 billion of savings, most of which increase over time instead of biting now when the economy is weak.

Emblematic is the freezing of the thresholds beyond which Australians can't get the family tax benefit. The freeze will hurt no one in the coming financial year but then will raise $207 million in 2014-15, $400 million in 2015-16 and $609 million in 2016-17. The $94,316 cut-off for the family tax benefit part A seems generous now, but it will seem less generous over time as income growth pushes more and more people beyond it.

The decision to increase tobacco excise in line with average weekly earnings rather than the much slower growing consumer price index is another measure where the impact will start low and then grow.

The extra Medicare levy, to be locked in a fund labelled DisabilityCare Australia, won't bite at all in the coming financial year. But from mid-2014 it will take $3.3 billion from incomes, then, two years later, $4.2 billion. Set at 0.5 per cent of incomes, it will climb as incomes climb.

The phasing out of the net medical expenses tax offset as recommended by the Henry tax review will save only $175 million in its first year. But it will save $510 million per year by 2016-17.

So much do the measures Swan has put in place grow over time that he reckons he can fund 10 years' worth of the national disability insurance scheme and the schools improvement program with them.

But the projections aren't worth much coming from a Treasurer who, more than most, is acutely aware of how much things can change in just one year...

The budget documents make clear that any numbers produced beyond the next years are "projections" rather than forecasts. The difference is that "projections" assume standard rates of economic growth rather than forecast what it will be. By definition, "projections" don't encompass the possibility of recessions. If Australia did manage to last another 10 years without a recession, on world-record 21 it already lasted, it would indeed be a world-beating economy and would certainly able to afford DisabilityCare and the Gonski education payments.

Much depends too on an assumption that as mining investment fades mining production will ramp up to fill the gap. Investment detracts from tax collections, production builds them. But it is a guess about what will happen assuming demand from China remains high.

The projections assume an Australian dollar "around US103 cents".

This was where it was when the budget was being finalised, but it isn't where it is now. It fell below US100 cents on Tuesday and may well stay there, highlighting how difficult it is to forecast a week ahead, let alone a decade into the future.

And some of the measures involve guesswork. Tightening the tax rules to prevent multinational corporations shifting profits offshore and related tax measures are said to raise $4 billion over the next four years. But the assumption is multinationals will agree to pay the extra tax and won't find new ways not to.

If all goes as planned, government debt will peak at $192 billion, instead of the previously forecast $145 billion. The total is 11 per cent of GDP, instead of the previously expected 9 per cent. Net debt would be eliminated in 2021-22, one year later than previously expected.

In The Canberra Times, The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age

Australia's economic future is strong but uncertain, according to the Treasurer. The massive resource investment boom is shifting to a boom in production and exports. The rest of the economy is "transitioning towards broader sources of economic growth".

But while the opportunities are "great" and the future "bright", the transition "will not be seamless".

The prices Australia gets for its exports have slipped 17 per cent in the past 18 months when expressed as a proportion of the prices the nation pays for its imports, the budget papers say.

The Treasury is expecting only a small further decline in the year ahead - just 0.75 per cent in 2013-14, followed by 1.75 per cent in 2014-15. It isn't particularly confident in the forecast, observing that the prices of key non-rural exports remain "highly volatile".

One scenario modelled on worse-than-expected export prices has employment growing at 1 per cent instead of 1.5 per cent.

The economy would grow at 2.75 per cent instead of 3 per cent and tax collections in 2014-15 would be $5.6 billion lower.

This time last year, Treasury forecast an unemployment rate of 5.5 per cent. Now it is forecasting 5.75 per cent, an outcome in part reliant on those "highly volatile" assumptions.

The department is hoping investment in housing surges in the year ahead to fill some of the gap left by mining investment.

After sliding in 2011-12 and growing at just 0.5 per cent in 2012-13, a 5 per cent improvement is expected in 2013-14. Business investment will not be of much help. Treasury expects its growth rate to slide from 10.5 per cent this financial year to 4.5 per cent in 2013-14.

Inflation, which had been a deep concern for the Treasury this time last year, and had been forecast at 3.25 per cent fuelled by the carbon tax, is now just 2.25 per cent.

That's the figure the department is targeting for the next two years, punting on the dollar staying high and underlying household demand being weak enough to force retailers to continue to discount in order to shift goods.

Business profits should remain very weak in 2012-13, slipping 0.75 per cent before recovering to record 4.75 per cent growth in 2013-14 and 5.5 per cent in 2014-15. Even after the recovery, profits will rise at much less than their historical pace of about 7 per cent a year.

The Treasury blames the high dollar, which it says is having "an acute and enduring effect on profits" as companies "squeeze margins to remain competitive".

The department's central forecast is the economy will muddle through. Economic growth will be 3 per cent this financial year, 2.75 per cent in 2013-14, and 3 per cent in 2014-15.

But it makes a point in the budget papers of saying the forecasts can turn sour - they are "always subject to a margin of error".

It says its biggest forecast errors last year concerned business and housing investment.

Ratings agencies Moody's and Standard and Poor's reaffirmed Australia's AAA credit rating on Tuesday night, saying the budget made only slight changes to previous projections and the country's debt level remained low.

In The Canberra Times, The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age

Related Posts

. The Budget. What if our prime minister gave a really good speech?

. Grattan: Why we're facing a decade of deficits

. Hockey. That surplus promise - ditch it, we're not stupid

BUDGET 2013-13 Where to find stuff

noreply@blogger.com (freshpost) — Tue, 14 May 2013 03:25:00 +0000

I'll surface at 1930 AEST

. National Times live video coverage from 1920 AEST

. Budget documents from 1930 AEST

. ABC News 24 from 1930 AEST

. ABC Metro Radio from 1930 AEST

. ABC NewsRadio from 1930 AEST

. Me, this time last year

Not rich? Why we've no idea what we actually earn

noreply@blogger.com (freshpost) — Sun, 12 May 2013 01:10:00 +0000

Sunday column

Michael was outraged. Earlier in the week I had written that anyone earning more than $210,100 a year was ultra-rich, in the top 1 per cent.

“How exactly does one draw the conclusion that earning $210k a year makes you ultra-rich, especially as I am assuming this is before tax?” he asked.

“This equates to approximately $140k net after tax as income.”

“Assuming a $600k mortgage (appropriate to this level of income) and two children in private schools plus additional outgoings this leaves a balance of only $21k for holidays and other incidentals and/or saving.”

I wrote back assuring him that, however difficult his circumstances, 99 per cent of Australians earned less than he did in 2010-11, the most recent year for which the Tax Office has figures.

Compared to them he was indeed income-rich.

Most of us seem to know next to nothing how we are really doing compared to everyone else.

Here is a test. What do you think was the average income reported to the Tax Office in 2010-11?

I’ll make it easier. You can exclude all the (mainly) low earners who don’t pay tax.

The average income earned by the Australians who did pay tax was $66,720.

If it seems as if almost everyone you know earns more than that, that could be because you don’t get out enough.

Labor MP for the Hunter Joel Fitzgibbon doesn’t get out enough. He infamously claimed a few weeks back that families on $250,000 were ''struggling''.

''Coal miners in my electorate earning $100,000 $120,000 $130,000, 140,000 a year are not wealthy,” he said.

In fact the same Tax Office statistics show the average income for the postcodes in his electorate centres around $60,000 - way below those of the people he mixes with.

And those averages hugely overstate what most people actually earn.

Astoundingly, roughly three quarters of Australian taxpayers earn less than the average. That’s less than the average. Only one quarter earns more.

The true midpoint, the income above which half of us make more and below which half make less, is $45,212.

Why do most of us take home so much less than the average? Because the average is an artifact - it is pushed up by a few truly enormous incomes at the very top.

(Think for a minute about Gina Rinehart, the world’s richest woman. Her income boosts our average income but not our typical income. If she moved overseas our recorded average income would slide but our typical income would not.)

It’s actually not that fair to single out Joel or John. None of us get out enough.

We tend to live near people who earn something near what we are earning. If they earn slightly more than us we think we’re behind. If they earn slightly less we think we’re ahead. But we don’t look far beyond them.

It’s not only that we live in suburbs where people tend to earn the same as each other. The average income in Rushcutters Bay is $203,270. The average at Ruse in Campbelltown is $46,700. It’s also that Sydney’s high-income suburbs are clustered together. Near the city and harbour are Sydney’s high earning suburbs. Further away in the south and west are the low-income ones. Those of us who live near the centre don’t even need to drive through the further flung suburbs to get to work.

In the United States it is often the other way around. The low-income suburbs are near the city, meaning that high-income Americans at least need to drive past them as they go in to town.

At work we are also likely to be closest to the people who earn the sort of wage that we do.

Surgeons earn an average of $341,600 according to the Tax Office. They associate with other surgeons. Hairdressers earn an average of just $27,600 (many are part time). They too hang around with other hairdressers.

They are also increasingly likely to marry each other. The Productivity Commission reported this year that two-thirds of Australia’s high earners were married to other high earners. A decade earlier the proportion was 50 per cent.

It’s even worse when you consider aspirations. Believing we might one day move up a notch or two we are keen to defend the interests of those above us. The shadow treasurer Joe Hockey nailed it two years ago when he attacked a budget measure with the potential to hurt very high earners.

“$150,000 a year for a family is certainly not rich Australia,” he said. “Besides I want people to aspire to earn $150,000 or more.”

That’s the problem. We think others earn more than they do, we aspire to earn more than we do, and many of us have no idea how well off we are.

In today's Canberra Times, Sydney Morning Herald and Age

What'll be inside the budget. Pain, and yet another attempt at a surplus

noreply@blogger.com (freshpost) — Sat, 11 May 2013 14:20:00 +0000

Whether that's wise or not

Good news will be scarce on budget night, but there will be something - at least for smokers.

Wayne Swan and Penny Wong had been considering a further 25 per cent rise in the tobacco excise that would have raised an extra $1.25 billion a year. Recommended by their National Preventative Health Taskforce it would have pushed the price of a pack of 30s above $20. But the government that famously took on big tobacco late last year in a war over plain packaging got cold feet. In the leadup to the budget it decided it had offended smokers enough, some of whom might still vote for it.

That means there won’t be another run of the infamous headline: “Beer up, Cigs up,” in part because the government has also rejected a plea from the Foundation for Alcohol Research and Education for a flat tax on alcohol that would have raised an extra $1.5 billion per year.

Just about everything that is in the budget will hurt, except perhaps for the lower interest rates that will almost inevitably flow from a raft of unpopular decisions.

Rates

A decade ago John Howard launched a reelection campaign from a lectern that read “Keeping Interest Rates Low”. He won, despite starting behind in the polls.

“Keeping interest rates low” is about the only slogan left for Swan and Wong as they try to sell Tuesday night’s budget. There will be no money for handouts (in fact they are grabbing money back) and they won’t be able to promise a surplus, at least not until the final year of their four-year set of financial projections.

But they will be able to promise a set of conditions that will as good as guarantee a further rate cut and perhaps a series of further cuts well into the life of the next government.

The banks will most likely get into the act themselves by cutting off their own bat, just as they did shortly after the last Coalition government was elected in 1996. They did it then not because they liked the change of government (although they probably did) but because upstart competitors such as Aussie Home Loans were stealing their customers by offering cheaper deals. The global financial crisis removed Aussie and its ilk (it is now owned by the Commonwealth Bank) but the conditions are ripe for new competitors to attack the banks again. The Reserve Bank believes they are charging more than they need to. As soon as a competitor comes in with something better, they will cut in order to compete without waiting for the Reserve. As a sign this is getting close on Friday the ANZ cut its standard mortgage rate by 0.27 points, more than the Reserve Bank’s 0.25 point cut. That hasn’t happened in years.

The Reserve Bank itself believes the resource investment boom is about to peak. “Once it has passed, the decline in mining investment – and the effect of the still high level of the exchange rate and ongoing fiscal consolidation – will weigh on economic growth,” its assistant governor Christopher Kent said recently.

The Reserve is desperate to find something, anything that will take the place of resource investment in driving growth and providing jobs. The high dollar has been making it hard for non-mining businesses to take up the slack.

That’s where “ongoing fiscal consolidation” comes in. It’s code for budget cuts. Dr Kent says it will “weigh on economic growth.”

The Bank has only one lever to boost the economy when something weighs on economic growth and it’s ready to use it.

That’ll be even further good news for the one-third of Australian households with mortgages. When Labor came to power the typical standard variable mortgage rate was 8.30 per cent. It’s now 6.20 per cent making a householder on a $300,000 mortgage an extraordinary $456 per month better off. Two more interest rate cuts in the months ahead would push the total gain well north of $500 per month.

It’s not the easiest of ways to sell a budget full of pain but Swan and Wong will try.

The levy

Never in living memory has a government gone into an election flourishing a bipartisan agreement to lift a tax. Tuesday’s budget will lift the Medicare levy from 1.5 per cent to 2 per cent of income from July 2014 with the grudging support of the opposition. The National Disability Insurance Scheme was to have been funded out of higher general tax revenues, but they are increasing nowhere near as fast as they would need to.

The increase will raise $3.3 billion per year, nowhere near enough to fund the $6 billion or more the scheme will cost the Commonwealth, and possibly a good deal more over time, but it’s a start.

It’ll cost an Australian on an average income an extra $250 per year, but only from mid-next year.

The missing FTB boost

From mid this year the government had been planning to boost the Family Tax Benefit Part A by up to $300 for families with one child and $600 for families with two or more. It was to be part of a $3.6 billion“Spreading the Benefits of the Boom” package funded by the mining tax.

It will be be withdrawn now that it is clear the mining tax isn’t raising anything like what was expected...

The government is hoping the 1.5 million families the withdrawal will hurt don’t miss what they never quite got, but they will be left with less to spend than they otherwise would have, a prospect that led Myer boss Bernie Brookes to dub the proposed hike in the Medicare levy “not good for our customers,” an epithet for which he later apologised.

But this measure will hit his customers one year earlier.

The missing tax cut

The carbon tax might have hurt, but many Australians were handsomely compensated. From or before July 2012 pensions were boosted, income tax was cut, family tax benefits and the tax-free threshold were lifted and extra payments were directed to low-income Australians.

A bit extra was due in 2015 to when the tax-free threshold was to climb further to compensate Australians for an expected increase in the price of carbon as the scheme linked to Europe’s

But European carbon price has collapsed. Instead of the expected $29 a tonne it is now less than $5, meaning there is unlikely to be an increase to compensate Australians for.

We’ll miss out on the extra $1.59 a week from 2015. But in return the carbon component of our electricity prices will fall.

And the Coalition wasn’t going to give it to us anyway. It has promised to scrap the carbon price and all of the compensation that isn’t set in stone within months of taking office.

More cuts

It won’t be enough. Swan and Wong will need to cut still further to make room for the National Disability Insurance Scheme and Gonski education reforms and contain the deficit. Not all of the unpleasant news is out there.

We do know about a tightening of so-called thin capitalisation rules will limit the ability of multinationals to borrow in Australia to in order to make more lightly taxed profits overseas. It’ll net Swan and Wong a bit over a billion per year.

The baby bonus and the child care rebate may also be back for another trim. A year ago Mr Swan announced that second and third children would only attract a bonus of $3000, instead of $5000. Complaints quickly died down despite the opposition's unfortunate reference to China's one-child policy.

Also in the gun are the generosity of Medicare and the Medicare Safety Net, and the public service which is certain to be slugged with another “efficiency dividend”.

The changes already announced to Superannuation were and the government says it will go no further. It is also giving every sign it will keep the Schoolkids Bonus although logic would suggest it should go because it was partly funded by the mining tax, and the Coalition plans to remove it anyway.

An ever-receding surplus

A year ago Wayne Swan rose to his feet declaring “the four years of surpluses I announce tonight are a powerful endorsement of the strength of our economy, resilience of our people, and success of our policies”.

He won’t be saying that this year. The money’s not there. Whether it hurts the economy or not we are about to pay the price.

In today's Canberra Times, Sun Herald and Age

BUDGET 2013

Swan’s vanishing surplus. How he’ll share the pain:

From mid 2013

A planned boost to Family Tax Benefit A axed. A family earning up to up to $78,000 with two children under 12 would lose $600.

From mid 2014

An extra Medicare levy lifting the total from 1.5% to 2%. An Australian on $50,000 would pay an extra $250.

From mid 2015

A planned boost to the tax free-threshold axed. It was to have been worth $83 for incomes up to $65,000.

Also at risk

. Tax rules for multinationals

. Access to the Medicare Safety Net

. Access to the Baby Bonus

. A public service “efficiency dividend”

Wayne Swan will deliver his sixth budget at 7.30 pm Tuesday night

Related Posts

. Budget 2013. Bad for shape-shfting multinationals, smokers...

. Why it'll be a near $10 billion deficit, with lots of small cuts

. Budget 2013. What if our prime minister gave a really good speech?

. Grattan: Why we're facing a decade of deficits

Memories. Keeping interest rates low

noreply@blogger.com (freshpost) — Tue, 07 May 2013 21:32:00 +0000

When Howard left office the average standard variable mortgage rate was 8.30%

The stubbornly high Aussie. Why the RBA cut and will cut again

noreply@blogger.com (freshpost) — Tue, 07 May 2013 21:25:00 +0000

Deep concern about the high Australian dollar drove the Reserve Bank to cut its cash rate to the lowest level on record Tuesday, a cut quickly passed on by all but one of the big banks.

The board acted without waiting to know what was in next week’s budget after being told that the mining investment boom might have peaked and there was insufficient activity elsewhere in the economy to take its place. Information supplied to the Bank by mining companies suggested the peak “may well be upon us.”

Instead of sliding with minerals prices as would have been expected, the Australian dollar has remained high during a year in the price of Australia’s resource exports has slipped 9 per cent.

Denied the chance to become more internationally competitive, non-mining businesses have failed to invest as the Reserve Bank wanted. The Bank has also found that mortgage holders banked most of its two most recent rate cuts by boosting repayments rather than borrowing more.

The cut in the cash rate from 3 to 2.75 per cent takes it below what the government dubbed the “emergency levels” it fell to during the global financial crisis. The rate is lowest since the bank began publishing its cash rate at the start of the 1990s. An older series of records suggests it is the lowest since 1959 - when Elvis Presley was in the US army, John Lennon and Paul McCartney had not yet named their band The Beatles and Robert Menzies had just started his record run as Australia’s prime minister.

Financial markets expect further records to tumble. Futures trading late Wednesday predicted another cut of 0.25 points within three months.

Treasurer Wayne Swan rejected as “grossly inaccurate” the suggestion rates were now at lower than emergency levels.

Wider margins mean the rates charged to bank customers are still well above those that prevailed during the 2008-09 crisis.

The standard variable mortgage rate hit a low of 5.75 per cent during the crisis. Even after Tuesday’s cut the lowest standard bank rate will be 6.13 per cent, offered by the National Australia Bank within minutes of the Reserve Bank’s cut in full.

The only big bank not to pass on the 0.25 per cent cut in full was the ANZ whose rate committee meets on Friday.

The cut will slice a further $47 from the monthly cost of servicing a $300,000 loan, taking the monthly saving since 2007 to $456...

Shadow Treasurer Joe Hockey said it would only be good news for the economy if it kick-started credit growth.

“This has been undertaken by the Reserve Bank not because the economy is doing well but because the economy is not doing well,” he said.

“The Bank has taken this leadership position because the budget is in chaos and the government is not providing leadership.”

Governor Glenn Stevens highlighted the stubbornly high Australian dollar in a statement accompanying the cut saying it had been “little changed at a historically high level over the past 18 months, which is unusual given the decline in export prices and interest rates during that time”.

Demand for credit remained “relatively subdued”.

The Bank will watch closely official data on business investment, wholesale prices and employment during the next month as well as assessing the impact of the budget before deciding what to do next.

In today's Sydney Morning Herald and Age

Standard rates this morning

NAB: 6.13% (down 0.25 points)

Commonwealth: 6.15% (down 0.25 points)

Westpac: 6.26% (down 0.25 points)

Bank of Queensland: 6.26% (down 0.25 points)

ANZ: 6.40% (rate committee meets Friday)

Bendigo Bank 6.51% (under consideration)

MORTGAGE SAVING PER MONTH

$20,000 $3

$40,000 $6

$60,000 $9

$80,000 $12

$100,000 $16

$150,000 $23

$200,000 $31

$250,000 $39

$300,000 $47

$350,000 $54

$400,000 $62

$450,000 $70

$500,000 $78

$600,000 $93

$700,000 $109

$800,000 $124

$900,000 $140

$1,000,000 $155

Assumes 25 year 6.20% variable mortgage

Related Posts

. April: What's the RBA's Plan A? Hoping something comes up

. RBA in March. Quietly happy, prepared

. February. Why it's it's on standby to cut again

Earn $210,000? You're in the top 1 per cent

noreply@blogger.com (freshpost) — Mon, 06 May 2013 23:12:00 +0000

An income of $210,100 per year makes you ultra-rich, an income of $688,700 makes you uber-rich.

Labor MP Andrew Leigh has calculated the new cut-off points as part of his research for an upcoming book on inequality in Australia entitled Battlers and Billionaires. He began the research in his earlier life as a professor of economics at the Australian National University. He has updated the calculations using Tax Office data for the 2010-11 financial year released last week.

That data shows that only 1 per cent of Australians earned more than $210,100 per year, up from a cut-off point of $194,400 the year before. Only 0.1 per cent of Australians earned more than $688,700 per year.

The data shows inequity climbing for the second consecutive year after sliding during the global financial crisis. In 2010-11 the top one per cent of earners took home 9.2 per cent of Australian income, up from 8.6 per cent two years before. In 2006 before the crisis hit the take exceeded 10 per cent.

“The global financial crisis was just a small deviation from a big long-term trend,” Dr Leigh said. “In just about every English speaking country in the world inequality has been climbing since the early 1980s".

Incomes were their least-equal in 1950 when the top 1 per cent of Australian earners took home 14 per cent of the nation’s pay packet. “It was the Korean war wool boom,” Dr Leigh says. In that year an astonishing 90 per cent of the top group were farmers.”

Buy 1981 the share of the top 1 per cent had fallen to 4.6 per cent, its lowest on record.

“What we have seen since is a globalisation of the jobs market. Executives are mobile. Companies are in an international bidding war to attract and retain them"...

“We have also seen an explosion in information technology. The high earners in the corner offices benefit from this much more than those sitting in the middle.”

“When I worked in a law firm in the 1990s we employed juniors to find documents. Now that’s being done by intelligent machines. The gains are being captured in the wages of the people who want the information rather than the wages of the people who used to find it for them.”

The figures show only 0.05 per cent of Australian taxpayers earned more than a million dollars - around 6,000 people.

In today's Sydney Morning Herald and Age

Related Reading

. The millionares who pay no tax - Tim Colebatch

Related Posts

. Negatively geared. Our landlords lose $13.2 billion, mostly on purpose

. Tax Stats - the crisis was a leveler

. 2011 - Our rich are getting richer again

Budget 2013. Bad for shape-shfting multinationals, smokers....

noreply@blogger.com (freshpost) — Mon, 06 May 2013 02:21:00 +0000

And so many others as it spreads the pain around

Treasurer Wayne Swan has reached out to his colleagues in Russia and the United Kingdom as part of global assault on multinational profit shifting that will form a corner stone of the May 14 budget.

The budget will stop overseas headquartered firms from loading up their Australian arms with debt which used to generate profits that are taxed elsewhere.

When Australian borrowing climbs above 60 per cent of assets the firms will no longer be able to deduct interest expenses from their Australian income. The present limit is 75 per cent.

Mr Swan has written to Russia’s finance minister Anton Siluanov and to Britain’s chancellor of the exchequer George Osborne asking for support for coordinated action against profit shifting at the next G20 finance ministers meeting in July. Russia will chair the meeting. The specific measure included in the budget will raise $2 billion over four years.

Parliamentary Budget Office calculations obtained exclusively by Fairfax show mining tax revenue sliding well below the budget target. Income from the minerals resource rent tax is set to be around $1 billion per year less than expected in October. When more recent iron ore prices are fed into the model the tax will raise only $800 million this financial year instead of the expected $2 billion. In 2016-17 it will raise $1.8 billion instead of 2.8 billion.

The Office modelled a Greens proposal to lift the rate of the MRRT from 22.5 per cent to 40 per cent. It found it would have raised an extra $2.5 billion this financial year and an extra $4.8 billion per year by 2016-17. Other proposals include extending the tax to minerals other than coal and iron ore and limiting the so-called starting-base for the cost of projects. The combined savings amount to $3.9 billion this financial year and $6.5 billion per year by 2016-17.

Up for further consideration is a 25 per cent hike in tobacco excise that would raise an extra $5 billion over four years...

The increase was considered but rejected in the leadup to the October minibudget. It would push up the price of cigarettes to more than $20 per packet. The proposal would implement a long-standing recommendation of the National Preventative Health Taskforce.

The Foundation for Alcohol Research and Education has revived a proposal for a flat tax on alcohol, one that would remove the low-tax and tax-free status of many types of wine. Recommended by the Henry Tax Review but ruled out by the government at the time, the proposal is backed up by a new cost-benefit analysis that finds it would make 85 per cent of taxpayers better off, hurting only the remaining 15 per cent. It would net the budget $1.5 billion per year.

As Cabinet meets to sign off on further budget measures Monday the Australian Industry group has counselled it not to cut too hard merely in order to bring the budget close to surplus.

Almost half of the 330 manufacturing, services and construction firms surveyed by the group rate returning the budget to balance as the least important of five priorities for the government.

The most important is cutting the company tax rate followed by boosting infrastructure spending and government support for research and development and training.

“It shows that business believes that in this current economic environment balancing the budget is not the main game," said Ai Group chief executive, Innes Willox.

"While businesses appreciate the need for budget discipline, in this slowing economy the majority of businesses rank objectives that will help rebuild competitiveness more highly than bringing the budget back into balance,” he said.

In today's Sydney Morning Herald and Age

Related Posts

. Let's impose a special tax, on Apple, Google, and Starbucks

. Why it'll be a near $10 billion deficit, with lots of small cuts

. Grattan: Why we're facing a decade of deficits

Why it'll be a near $10 billion deficit, with lots of small cuts

noreply@blogger.com (freshpost) — Sat, 04 May 2013 00:09:00 +0000

Not as dramatic as you've be led to believe

A mere ten days away, Wayne Swan’s sixth budget is nowhere near complete.

Last minute decisions and rapid responses to deteriorating conditions have become a hallmark of what he and his department have put themselves through each May.

Two weeks ago Europe’s carbon price collapsed, robbing the budget of $5 billion per year after Australia links to the European carbon price in 2015.

While not quite working around the clock (as did happen during the global financial crisis) staff in the Treasury building are working until midnight and sometimes beyond in a last-minute scramble to find money and politically acceptable savings, arriving back hours later wrung out.

Until January Jim Chalmers was Wayne Swan’s chief of staff. He says while no six consecutive Australian budgets have been framed in more challenging circumstances, this one is especially difficult.

“It’s the dramatically lower expected tax take,” he says. “If this one makes the necessary room for the schools plan and disability care despite falling company revenues it will be more difficult to land than the others but will arguably have bigger socio-economic dividends.”

His bugbear is forecasting. “It’s like throwing darts at a moving dartboard in a stiff wind,” he says.

The Treasury is being blamed for the revenue forecast spectacularly wrong. As recently as October it was forecasting revenue down only $2 billion on what it expected last May. It is now likely to be down an extra $12 billion, an extraordinary deterioration for an economy not actually in an economic downturn.

The events since October couldn’t have been foreseen and weren’t, despite of queue of critics lining up to say they always thought the revenue forecasts were fanciful.

“The critics were right for all the wrong reasons,” says former Treasury official Stephen Koukoulas, who also briefly worked as an economic advisor to prime minister Gillard.

“Well good on them. They said the budget wouldn’t get back into surplus this financial year and it won’t. They deserve to go to the top of the class for their forecasting ability. Except that their reasons were wrong. They thought the economy would be a lot weaker than the Treasury thought. It isn’t. Treasury got economic growth pretty much right"...

What Treasury didn’t get right, what no mainstream forecaster foresaw, was that the Australian dollar would stay high as the prices for Australian exports fell.

“It hasn’t happened before. The terms of trade and the dollar typically move together. If you had been within Treasury arguing that the terms of trade were going to fall 13 odd per cent but that the dollar was going to remain high at about 103 US cents no-one would have believed you. You would have been laughed out of the room. It made no sense.”

The high dollar removed the cushion Australia had previously enjoyed whenever export prices fell. The full force of the collapse in late 2012 flowed straight through into Australian dollar income. Company profits shrank. Budget revenue slipped behind target.

That the high dollar is an vote of confidence by international money markets is cold comfort.

So too is the continuing boom in mining investment notwithstanding some high-profile cancellations.

The more that resource companies spend building new plants the more they more they cut their taxable income. That their taxable income is already being hit by an unprecedented combination of lower prices and a high dollar makes the hit to Wayne Swan’s budget all the more painful.

A weaker outlook for resource prices would normally be expected to curb mining investment, but the big projects already underway can’t easily be stopped. In time the canceled projects will benefit immediate tax revenue, just as the completed projects will boost long term revenue. But that’s in the future. Right now Swan’s budget is wearing the pain of an investment boom without reaping the benefit.

And the mining tax itself has raised nothing like what was expected, in part because the government didn’t fully understand what it had signed up to when it sat down around the Cabinet table with the chiefs of BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto and Xstrata. A second tax measure, introduced at the same time, is doing better. The government extended the existing offshore petroleum tax to the North West Shelf and to onshore petroleum. It’s doing so well that the Coalition plans to keep it should it win office, while axing its better-known cousin.

The financial task facing the government isn’t as big as it would have you believe.

It has promised not to make up the $12 billion the budget has fallen short, suggesting it’ll forecast a deficit for this financial year and for the next of around $10 billion to $12 billion. Compared to previous years it’ll be a good outcome. The deficit for 2011-12 was $43.7 billion.

To get there all it has to do is to pay for its new measures with cuts or extra taxes. The big new measures are the National Disability Insurance Scheme and the Gonksi education reforms to the states. The 0.5 per cent extension to the Medicare levy announced this week gets it much of the way.

“It isn’t financially difficult, it’s politically difficult,” says koukoulas. “They only need a few billion, but finding that without annoying people - in an election year - will be awfully hard.”

“I have seen the Treasurer and Finance Minister put up good ideas and have minister after minister knock them down. The process is exhausting. What starts out as a big measure ends up small.”

The cuts to superannuation tax breaks announced early ahead of the budget are a case in point. After considering measures that would have raised it between between $500 million and $1 billion per year, the government settled on a package that made $900 million over four years. Tellingly it received few complaints from the superannuation industry.

“They ended up with a few crumbs off the table,” Koukoulas says. “If they had gone in hard they could have easily got another billion or two and hurt very few people. We would have forgotten about it by now and they would have got a big chunk of cash.”

Koukoulas thinks the government’s reluctance to offend means the big budget decisions are already known. What’s left will be a multitude of small measures, each offending someone, but most of them not too much.

Reports on Friday suggested the government was unlikely to go after the massive $3 billion paid to the mining industry in diesel fuel rebates. The rumours themselves were enough to spark a advertising campaign hammering the message that taking money from mining is “a really dumb idea”.

It’ll go after easier targets, some of whom fear even worse under the Coalition. The public service will get another so-called “efficiency dividend”.

What it won’t be able to do is to lie. Even a minor fudge would be found out. On Monday August 12 the Governor General will issue writs for the election. Ten days later the heads of treasury and finance have to release what’s known as PEFO - the pre-election economic & fiscal outlook. A creation of the former treasurer Peter Costello as part of the Charter of Budget Honesty PEFO has to represent their own views, free from the dictates of political masters. With a change of government likely they will have every reason to call it exactly as they see it. Fiddles will be exposed, which is why there almost certainly won’t be any.

The heads of departments might even go further, offering their own views as to whether finances are sustainable beyond the standard four years of “forward estimates” included in the budget. Such an assessment would be appropriate given that many of the budget measures will have a life of well beyond four years, including the National Disability Insurance Scheme.

And if the heads don’t do it, the Parliamentary Budget Officer will. The new post, set up as part of the agreement with the independents gives former finance department deputy secretary Phil Bowen the right to report on whatever he chooses. Within weeks of the budget he will deliver his assessment of whether it is in sustainable balance, and for good measure he will look back ten years to examine whether previous budgets were.

Calculations released by the Australia Institute on Saturday show the six successive years of personal income tax cuts kicked off by the Howard government in 2003 are costing revenue $38.9 billion per year. The cost over and above the price of merely indexing the tax scales so people weren’t pushed into higher brackets is $25 billion per year.

Swan has a week and a bit to get the pieces to fit. The document needn’t be printed until Sunday. The final piece of the forecasting puzzle - the exchange rate assumption - won’t be settled until Thursday or Friday. He will rise to his feet on Tuesday.

In today's Sydney Morning Herald

Related Posts

. The Budget. What if our prime minister gave a really good speech?

. Grattan: Why we're facing a decade of deficits

. Graphed. Why the budget is bleeding

The NDIS. Why Joe Hockey is wrong, big-time

noreply@blogger.com (freshpost) — Thu, 02 May 2013 11:15:00 +0000

Joe Hockey is Wrong. The shadow treasurer said Wednesday he did not see a National Disability Insurance Scheme levy as “the right solution in this environment”.

“If the economy is underperforming, you don't tax it to increase performance. You never tax and regulate your way to prosperity,” he told Sky News.

He is quite right to say that taxes by themselves can’t improve economic performance. But they can improve economic performance if they are used for that purpose.

The Productivity Commission examined the question in its 2011 inquiry chaired by Patricia Scott, who worked Joe Hockey as the head of his human services department in the Howard government.

It found whereas the financial cost of the National Disability Insurance Scheme would be $6.5 billion, its economic cost of far less. The $6.5 billion was merely “a transfer of resources from one group to another”.

The economic cost would be around $1.6 billion, flowing from the distortionary impacts of raising the revenue.

“Given this, the NDIS would only have to produce an annual gain of $3,800 per participant to meet a cost-benefit test,” the report said.

“Given the scope of the benefits, that test would be passed easily,” it concluded.

One of the economic benefits was what it did for the lives of the people it helped.

Another would be its success in bringing into the workforce Australians who were previously unemployable for life.

“Were Australia to achieve employment ratios for people with disabilities equivalent to the average OECD benchmark — a highly achievable target given the proposed reforms — employment of people with mild to profound disabilities would rise by 100,000 by 2050,” it said.

In fact it expected an employment gain of 220,000. This isn’t the same as the employment gain often claimed by promoters of major projects which amounts to no more than moving existing workers from one region to another. The Productivity Commission was talking about actual newly-created workers able to produce things for Australia they otherwise would not have.

As Australia’s population ages and the supply of workers for each non-worker shrinks, finding extra workers able to make the things we need will become the main game in town.

The Productivity Commission said the newly-created workforce would be likely to push gross domestic product one per cent higher than it would have been by the middle of the century.

In the dollars of the time that would be $32 billion in additional GDP “in that year alone”. In the dollars of 2050 it will be more like $200 billion per year.

Some things are worth doing precisely for the reason that they will boost Australia’s economic performance. Whatever its other merits, the National Disability Insurance Scheme is one of them.

In today's Sydney Morning Herald and Age

Related Posts

. 2012. The NDIS, Labor is poised for greatness

. 2011. It felt like I was at the birth of Medicare... Our proposed national disability insurance scheme

Negatively geared. Our landlords lose $13.2 billion, mostly on purpose

noreply@blogger.com (freshpost) — Wed, 01 May 2013 09:09:00 +0000

Australia's shame

Negatively geared property investors lost an astonishing $13.2 billion in 2010-11, up from $10.1 billion the year before.

The latest Tax Office statistics show the average loss per negatively geared investor was $10,950, up from $9,130 the year before. The average loss for high income a negatively geared investor earning more than $180,000 was $23,800.

Higher interest rates and rising property prices during 2010-11 swelled the losses.

The figures identify negative gearing as one of the key drains on personal tax collections with one in every seven Australian taxpayers now a property investor and one in every ten negatively geared.

The 2010 Henry Tax Review declined to recommend against the practice, its chairman Ken Henry telling a press conference as he was preparing the report that he "still wears the scars" from an earlier short-lived experiment with limiting negative gearing in the 1980s.

“I actually think Henry was incredibly wussy about it,” Bank of America economist Saul Eslake said Tuesday. "I have to translate the words ‘negative gearing’ to people overseas because it just sounds crazy to have a system that rewards people for losing money.”

“Removing it would be close to the top of my agenda. I have a list of what I regard as the worst tax decisions of the last twenty years. One is the halving of the headline rate of capital gains tax (in 1999) that made negative gearing attractive.”

“The others are the abandonment of indexation of petrol excise, the Senior Australian Tax Offset - the measure that says if you are over 65 you pay less tax on a given amount of income than if you are under 65 - and the abolition of income tax on super fund earnings paid to people over 60.”

“They would be my contenders for the dumbest tax decisions of the last twenty years. Frankly, I can’t choose between them"..

The tax statistics released Tuesday also identify fuel tax credits as by far the most expensive offset in the tax system, costing $5.1 billion in 2010-11 and $5.5 billion in 2011-12, way in excess of the next biggest contenders, the Education Tax Refund which cost $700 million and the research and development tax offset which cost $614 million.

The credits are for fuel used in heavy vehicles and are overwhelmingly used in the mining industry.

“The argument for it is that the purpose of fuel excise was to pay for roads, and that mining companies get a rebate because they don’t use their vehicles on public roads. I guess there is some merit in that argument, although in my view not enough merit to justify $5.5 billion of revenue forgone,” Mr Eslake said.

The tax statistics identify residents of the eastern Sydney postcode 2027 as Australia’s highest earners, taking home a home an average taxable income of $203,270 each. The postcode takes in Darling Point, Edgecliff, Rushcutters Bay and Point Piper. Around 50 of them are also farmers in primary production trusts or partnerships, losing between them $6.7 million.

Australia’s second and third highest earning postcodes are 3944 and 3142 taking in the Victorian town of Portsea and Toorak and Howkesburn in Melbourne. The average income for each is around $180,000.

Only 2501,400 Australians earned $180,000 or more in 2010-11, enough to put them into the top tax bracket. The bracket took in 2.7 per cent of all taxpayers.

The average male income during 2011-11 was $63,000. The average female income was $42,150.

In today's Sydney Morning Herald and Age

Related Reading

. The millionares who pay no tax - Tim Colebatch

Related Posts

. What's the deal with negative gearing?

. Want to be landlord? Dive in

. What were they thinking? The tax heists that made us a nation of losers

The Budget. What if our prime minister gave a really good speech?

noreply@blogger.com (freshpost) — Tue, 30 Apr 2013 09:02:00 +0000

People would make fun of her:

Below the fold is the heart of a truely excellent speech.

Here's my take:

Gillard and Swan have tried everything else. Now they’re trying honesty.

A year ago they locked in permanent increases in payments to families and Australians on welfare worth $1 billion per year to be funded by “spreading the benefits of the boom”.

They made no mention of the possibility that the boom wouldn’t last, whereas the extra payments would continue for ever.

The legislated increase in lightly-taxed superannuation contributions starting in July will cost the government a fortune by the time it is complete at the end of the decade. It was to be funded by a mining tax, one leading economist Ross Garnaut said Monday was deeply flawed and might never raise much money.

The National Disability Insurance Scheme eventually set to cost $6 billion per year was approved with not a whisper how it would be paid for.

As revenue began to fall well short of the forecasts in October the government fudged things, producing a budget update that attempted to make up the shortfall by one-offs such as making some quarterly company tax payments monthly and hoovering up earlier money in unclaimed bank accounts.

All the while its official line was nothing much was wrong. The budget was still on track for a surplus.

Until December when Swan admitted the jig was up and told the truth about the futility of cutting for cutting’s sake, merely in order to announce a surplus (a view endorsed in the past fortnight by his shadow Joe Hockey).

Now the prime minister has laid bare the whole truth. The easy days of Mining Boom Mark I are over and will not return. Company tax reached “an astonishing 5.3 per cent of gross domestic product” in the final year of the Howard government. It is now 4.5 per cent. Capital gains tax was 1.5 per cent. It is now 0.4 per cent.

Normally low inflation might be welcome, but right now it is hurting profits, weighing on investment plans and weighing down the company tax take. Normally strong overseas confidence in Australia would be welcome, but right now it is keeping the dollar high and further denting company profits and investment plans.

The prime minister has levelled with us. She hasn’t said what she is going to do.

In today's Sydney Morning Herald and Age

Julia Gillard:

The back drop to our Budget decision making – Australia’s resilience, global weakness, a persistently high dollar – have been known for some time.

What is new is how strong the revenue pressures on the nation’s Budget are.

We must plan for these strengthening pressures – and that is a key part of preparing our Budget for this year.

The persistent high dollar, as well as squeezing exporting jobs, also squeezes the profits of exporting firms: with lower profits for these companies comes lower company tax going to Government.

We can’t assume this will change soon.

The high dollar is also placing competitive pressures on firms here, who face new pressures from cheaper imports – holding down prices across the board, with the high dollar making it hard for these firms to pass on price increases, holding down profits – and in turn holding down company tax.

Consumers do benefit, but many businesses are doing it tough.

All this means the data on our economy now reveals a significant new fact.

This is the striking and continuing divergence between what economists refer to as real GDP growth and nominal GDP growth.

My best shorthand description of those terms is this.

Real GDP growth is growth in the volume of the economy.

The actual activity in the economy, how many jobs there are, the quantity of infrastructure we build, the amount of goods and services we export – how many tonnes of coal, how many international students pay for a course here, how many houses are built.

Nominal GDP growth counts this growth in volume and it also counts growth of the prices of all these things.

Today, real GDP is growing solidly – we’re creating more jobs, exporting more goods and services and buying and selling more from each other, just as we planned.

However prices are growing at a slower rate than is usual for this stage of the economic cycle, a slower rate than was forecast – and so nominal GDP growth for this current year is significantly slower than was forecast and we expect nominal GDP growth for future years to be revised down.

The current data shows nominal GDP growth after the first half of the 2012-13 year was an annual rate of two per cent.

At Budget last year, we had forecast nominal GDP to grow at five per cent.

What’s changed?

While the prices of our exports continue to be lower than their recent peaks because of weak global demand and increasing global supply, the prices of imports are now lower than forecast because of the strength of our dollar.

The prices of goods produced at home are also lower than forecast because competition from imports is so fierce.

This is now putting so much downward pressure on prices that growth in nominal GDP is actually lower than growth in real GDP.

What’s more, this has now been true for nearly an entire financial year – since the beginning of the June quarter last year.

This has never happened for such a long period in the whole half a century and more of the National Accounts.

Not during the global financial crisis, not during the 1991 or 1982 recessions.

Not even during the Menzies “credit squeeze” of 1961, which was effectively a deliberate policy attempt to slow price growth, do we find a similar effect.

Now, that’s a long explanation of a pretty technical fact.

But for the Budget bottom line, it’s a very meaningful fact – because, naturally enough, companies don’t pay tax on volume, they pay tax on value, which is driven by price.

The Pharaoh might have kept one fifth part of the grain from the field but the Tax Commissioner collects in dollars and cents.

So even if the economy is growing as much as expected, when prices are growing much less than expected, tax grows much less too.

The “bottom line for the Budget bottom line” is this: the amount of tax revenue the Government has collected so far this financial year is already $7.5 billion less than was forecast last October.

Treasury now estimates that this reduction will increase to around $12 billion by the end of the financial year.

This unusually low revenue, which wasn’t forecast even a few months ago, creates a significant fiscal gap over the Budget period.

Put simply, spending is controlled but the amount of tax money coming to the government is growing much slower than expected.

Inevitably, confronted with the facts, the economic simpletons and sloganeers will squirm and throw in arguments to distract.

First, you will be told that revenue for the next financial year is still expected to be more than this financial year. That’s true – at the same time our population will be larger, more people will be on the age pension, health costs will continue to rise.

Indeed the growth in health and in the age pension will be far higher than the growth in tax money.

So revenue growth will be less than natural growth in key areas of expenditure and is spectacularly lower than reasonably predicted.

It is the failure of growth in tax money to match reasonable predictions that creates the Budget challenge.

Second, you will be told it isn’t about less tax money in but about spending.

However... of the advanced Western economies, only Switzerland spends a smaller share of its economy on government than does Australia.

The total size of government here is less than the US, less than the UK.

Not as measured in revenue either, measured in spending.

And let me reiterate, for the future we will continue to match new spending in the Budget with savings.

Given all this, tax money down, spending controlled, the question for Budget planners is difficult to answer, but simple to state: how, and how fast, to fill that significant fiscal gap?

Australia will not go back to the extraordinary revenue peaks of “mining boom mark I” from 2002-03 to 2007-08.

While we should expect revenue to improve as we move to the production and export phase of the current mining boom, it’s clear that the extraordinary revenue peaks of the mid-2000s won't be repeated.

The overall story: by 2005-06 the share of the economy taken in tax reached a peak of 24.2 per cent – compared to 22.4 in 1996 and 22.2 as we reported in our last update in October.

The huge profits of that time meant that company tax revenue reached an astonishing 5.3 per cent of GDP in 2006-07 compared to a share of 4.5 per cent of GDP last financial year – a fall of around $10 billion in company tax a year.

Capital gains tax was 1.5 per cent of GDP in 2006-07 – last financial year it was 0.4 per cent.

We collect less than one-third of the amount compared to seven years ago and in dollar terms the drop in tax collection is around $15 billion a year.

Quite apart from any other factor, remaining competitive in the contemporary global economy doesn’t allow us simply to turn back time on tax collection by dialling up tax revenue to these levels.

Related Posts

. It is possible for inflation to fall too low. It has - Swan

. Grattan: Why we're facing a decade of deficits

. Hockey. That surplus promise - ditch it, we're not stupid

Austerity. Why it is suddenly no longer fashionable

noreply@blogger.com (freshpost) — Sat, 27 Apr 2013 01:23:00 +0000

That appalling spreadsheet error

Austerity: a spreadsheet error? BBC More or Less special 21 April 2013

9 minutes, play or RIGHT CLICK to download mp3

It’s been an appalling fortnight for peddlers of austerity. Bit by bit the weight of Australian and international opinion has shifted away from surplus towards deficit, away from repayment towards debt and away from containing inflation to rekindling it.

Australia contribution was startling. As recently as December opposition leader Tony Abbott was promising surpluses “in each year of the first term of a Coalition government,” although he qualified the promise by saying it was “based on the published figures”.

Last week he declared “all bets are off”.

"We were confident that we could deliver a surplus based on what the government was telling us until just before Christmas," he said. "But all bets are off given that the Government won't tell us what the deficit will be."

His treasury spokesman Joe Hockey fleshed things out. Enforced austerity at a time when the economy was fragile could send things pear-shaped.

“It is important to be prudent,” he told an investment conference. “We are not going to go down the path of austerity simply to bring the budget back to surplus, because it would end up being a temporary surplus depending on how deep the deficit is that we inherit.”

“The challenge will be how to get the settings right to bring the budget back to surplus, to start to pay down some of the government debt - whilst at the same time not constraining what I think will be a sense of optimism and hope if there is a change of government,” he said in further remarks not previously reported.

“I think companies will unleash their balance sheets, and I think consumers will as well if there is a change of government, and I am very mindful that we don’t want to be the ones that close down that optimism.”

The Coalition’s new caution about a swift return to surplus, coming months after the government’s embrace of caution, means there is now no mainstream political party promising to quickly end the deficits, or to quickly pay down the government debt they will pile up.

In January Hockey was committed to a surplus “to the core of my bones”. Events since have chilled those bones.

The Reserve Bank is worried there simply isn’t enough happening in the economy to take the place of mining investment as it turns down. The December quarter national accounts released in March showed machinery and equipment investment down 2.5 per cent. Hours worked slipped 0.1 per cent. Household spending climbed just 0.2 per cent.

The consumer price figures released Wednesday put March quarter seasonally-adjusted inflation at just 0.1 per cent. Businesses are having to discount to get Australians to spend. (Woolworths cut average prices 2.5 per cent in the quarter). The discounting is squeezing their profits and providing little reason to invest, at exactly the time the economy needs non-mining investment.

To further cut government spending at such a time could risk recession. Overseas the idea that government debt itself causes recession got hammered at about the same time as the Coalition’s rethink in Australia...

Internationally renowned economists Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff became disciples of the austerity movement in 2010 when they published a provocative paper entitled “Growth in the Time of Debt”. They claimed to have discovered a tipping point. Government debt didn’t seem to do much harm until it reached 90 per cent of gross domestic product. But from that point economic growth crumbled.

“Even advanced economies hit a ceiling,” they wrote. “Current debt trajectories are a risk to long-term growth.”

Mitt Romney’s vice presidential running mate deployed their finding in campaigns. In Britain an advisor to David Cameron used it to back spending cuts which as it happened pushed the UK into recession. In mainland Europe it prodded already weak economies to cut spending further.

At the University of Massachusetts a graduate student had been having trouble with his homework. Thomas Herndon had been trying to replicate Reinhart and Rogoff’s findings. Eventually they gave him their spreadsheet and showed him how to use it. When he did he found glaring - almost inconceivable - errors.

In attempting to average 20 cells on their Excel spreadsheet they had only highlighted 15, leaving out the first five in the alphabet - Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada and Denmark. And there was more. When he and his teachers recalculated the spreadsheet the tipping point disappeared. All that remained was a mild negative correlation between government debt and growth, one more likely to be the result of weak growth pushing up the debt ratio than other way around.

A laughing stock on US television all week and mocked more seriously by US economist Paul Krugman as the “coding error that destroyed the economies of the Western world,” the findings had carried weight in Australia. Just this week the Grattan Institute cited them in support of the proposition that high debt could slow economic growth “for a long time”.

Austerity for austerity’s sake is suddenly unfashionable. The Grattan Institute’s talk of a decade of deficits has become more of a forecast rather than a warning.

The Reserve Bank meets in ten days time, a week before the budget. It is increasingly concerned about the economy and it’s in no mood for austerity.

In today's Sydney Morning Herald

Related Posts

. The shocking truth about the IMF's misforecast

. Debt free. Got any other ideas to stifle growth?

Related Reading

. Did a coding error basically destroy the economies of the Western world?

. Forget Excel: This Was Reinhart and Rogoff's Biggest Mistake

. The Grad Student Who Took Down Reinhart And Rogoff

. Reinhart And Rogoff - We resent the attempt to impugn our academic integrity

. Krugman - While the austerity doctrine imploded, austerity strengthened its grip

. Krugman - Other austerity bloopers

It is possible for inflation to fall too low. It has - Swan

noreply@blogger.com (freshpost) — Wed, 24 Apr 2013 21:18:00 +0000

So low has Australia’s rate of inflation fallen that the Treasurer is worried and the Reserve Bank is rethinking the economic outlook.

Australia’s quarterly rate came in at just 0.4 per cent in the March quarter. In the six months to March following the one-off jolt to prices from the introduction of the carbon tax, prices climbed just 0.6 per cent. Annualised, the six-month inflation rate is just 1.2 per cent.

The only substantial price increases in the March quarter were usual jump in recorded pharmaceutical prices after each December’s expiry of the Medicare Safety Net and the January increase in school fees. Even those increases were well below those of the year before, pushing the Bureau of Statistics’ calculation of Australia’s seasonally adjusted inflation rate down to just 0.1 per cent.

“The high dollar is weighing on prices,” said Treasurer Wayne Swan. “And the flipside of the high dollar weighing on prices is that this is putting immense pressure on the profitability of many businesses, large and small, right across our economy.”

Mr Swan said said Australia was probably in the grip of deflation.

“Price growth for domestic goods and services, which is a broader group of prices than to the consumer price index has generally been much weaker than the CPI we are seeing today. Quarterly growth in the prices for all goods and services in our economy as measured by the GDP deflator has been negative in four of the past five quarters.”

“Just as the high dollar is affecting the profitability of businesses, it's also having a very big impact on government revenues across the forward estimates, largely through the impact on profits and prices.”

“This sustained hit to revenues means we're going to have to make some difficult and tough decisions in this year's Budget, but Labor's choice will be to support jobs.

One of the surprises in the March quarter was that so-called imported inflation remained low even though the dollar scarcely climbed...

“Theoretically, tradable deflation can only continue if the Aussie dollar keeps on rising,” said Commonwealth Bank senior economist Michael Workman.

“But while the Aussie dollar did not appreciate significantly over the first quarter tradables deflation continued. It seems like the effects of a high currency are being drawn out, international exporters are discounting their prices and as a result domestic retailers are discounting their stock more than usual."

Sales figures for Woolworths show its average food and liquor prices slipped 2.5 per cent in the March quarter after sliding 2.8 per cent in the December quarter. Coles prices fell 1.3 per cent.

The Reserve Bank sees the lower-than-expected inflation as a sign that retailers are cutting prices in order to keep consumers spending.

The Bank is updating its view of the economy in the wake of the figures and will present a somewhat more downbeat view to its board at its May meeting to be held one week before the budget.

Futures trading lifted the likelihood of a rate cut at the May meeting from 31 per cent to 44 per cent.

“The chance of a further cut in May has clearly increased,” said BT Financial Group economist Chris Caton. “It may now be close to 50-50.”

“What we find out in the next two weeks, about both the Australian economy and the rest of the world, could tip the balance.”

GOING DOWN

Prices in the three months to March

Bread: Down 0.3%
Milk : Down 1.5%
Eggs: Down 0.1%
Clothes: Down 3.3
Furniture: Down 6.8%
Motor vehicles: Down 1.3%

GOING UP

Rents: Up 0.8%
Electricity: Up 2.4%
Petrol: Up 1.2%
Transport fares: Up 3.3%

ABS March quarter consumer price index

In The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age

Related Posts

. Truth in reporting. Australia's rate of inflation is how low?

. You're not squeezed. The truth about your cost of living

. What's the RBA's Plan A? Hoping something comes up

6401.0

Really Rio? The judge who put its claims about jobs to the test

noreply@blogger.com (freshpost) — Mon, 22 Apr 2013 03:13:00 +0000

Thank heavens. Monday Column

If only judges thought about economics.

Rio Tinto lashed out at the NSW Land and Environment court last Monday after it overturned a government decision to approve a massive expansion of its Warkworth open cut coal mine in the Hunter Valley.

The decision was “significantly obstructing investment and job creation in New South Wales,” the mining giant thundered.

It was “a blow to our plans for the Mount Thorley Warkworth mine and the jobs of the 1300 people who work there”.

If only the judge had thought about the impact on jobs.

As it happened the judge spent a good deal of time considering the impact on jobs, especially Rio’s far-fetched claim that its plan would have created an extra 44,600 jobs.

What he found will send shockwaves through the ranks of economic consultants. It will never again be safe to come up with a big number for jobs created (“direct and indirect”) expecting the decision maker to give it a tick because it is the outcome of an economic model.

The Treasury has been on to the scam for a long time.

In an economy near full employment you can’t create extra highly skilled jobs.

Here’s its former secretary Ken Henry addressing troops in 2007:

“Consider, for example, recent commentary in the press which argues that the government should support a nuclear power sector because jobs would be created. Where will the nuclear scientists and technicians come from? Is it seriously being suggested that they will come from the dole queue or from Indigenous Community Development Employment Projects?”

“The next time any of you get an opportunity to write a coordination comment on a Cabinet submission that proposes a taxpayer-funded handout for some stunning new investment proposition – and I predict that some of you won’t have to wait very long for such an opportunity – I suggest you draw attention to the submission’s failure to identify the businesses that will lose labour, and be forced to reduce output, if the proposal is agreed to.”

Rio Tinto used what is known as an input-output model to argue that if it spent more at its mine in the Hunter more jobs would be created elsewhere in the Hunter. That’s the sort of thing an input-output model is likely to conclude. Mining’s links to some industries (such transport) are strong, its links to others (such as communications)are weak. The model assigns each link a ‘multiplier’ and - voila! - out comes a disturbingly precise estimate of the total number of jobs created. Rio said expanding its mine would create an extra 44,675 jobs, where each is defined as full-time and lasting for one year.

It’s a common (if flawed) technique. Pizza Hut used it to claim the introduction of the Big Foot pizza would create thousands of jobs. But the organisers of really big events such as the Sydney 2000 Olympics have shied away from it, perhaps fearing close scrutiny...

The study conducted for Rio by Andrew Searles of The Hunter Valley Research Foundation was a good example of a well-constructed input-output study (although the data he used was more than a decade old). The main problem with it is that is was an input-output study. As with all such studies it assumed there were unemployed resources on tap, ready to meet the firm’s needs.

“I am sure Dr Searles will agree with me,” the Australia’s Institute’s Richard Dennis told the court. “Quite explicitly the input-output data that is before you assumes the existence of what I refer to as a ghost workforce.”

“The idea that there are unemployed skilled mining and manufacturing workers in the Hunter Valley at the moment sitting and waiting for these projects to go ahead, I just don’t think is plausible, accurate or useful.”

Indeed the mining industry itself had been warning of chronic shortages and bidding up wages to grab workers from other industries.

Counting as jobs created the jobs workers went to without counting as jobs destroyed the jobs they went from was double counting.

“What would happen if every industry were to commission a consultant to write the same report for them,” Dr Denniss asked rhetorically.

“If every industry were to go and try and estimate the indirect jobs that flowed because of their industry’s existence, what you find is that Australia would employ around 200 per cent of its current workforce,” he replied using calculations from Bureau of Statistics input-output tables.

Dr Searles said he thought there was enough skilled unemployed labour in the region to meet the needs of the expanded mine and that the unemployment rate might climb in the future.

The court was told the rate for Singleton Council was 1.1 per cent.

Dr Dennis extolled the virtues of computable general equilibrium model which takes skill shortages into account. Dr Searles said he had never used one.

It wasn't Rio’s finest day in court, but it would be wrong for it to claim the judge didn’t seriously consider its claims about jobs.

In today's Sydney Morning Herald and Age

12/10224 - BULGA MILBRODALE PROGRESS ASSOCIATION INC v MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND INFRASTRUCTURE & ANOR

Related Posts

. The monorail, the V8 Supercar race and the millions (handed over)

. The Beckham visit. It'll be worth millions

. Garbage in, garbage out. What Hockey specified in economic modelling

Grattan: Why we're facing a decade of deficits

noreply@blogger.com (freshpost) — Sun, 21 Apr 2013 23:41:00 +0000

Australia faces a decade of budget deficits with the annual total set to pass $60 billion in 2023 unless governments take tough action to “share the pain,” a leading think tank has warned.

The Grattan Institute’s assessment comes as Treasurer Wayne Swan confirms the budget had taken a $7.5 billion hit since the mid-year update in October.

“We have seen a really unique event in our economic life,” Mr Swan told the ABC from Washington where he has been attending international meetings.

“We have seen the terms of trade come down but the dollar didn't move. That's caused a hit, if you like, a sledgehammer to revenues in the budget since the mid-year update of something like $7.5 billion.”

“And of course the impact won't just be in this financial year, it will also be across the forward estimates.”

The Grattan Institute says while notionally on track to surplus at the moment, the combined total of state and Commonwealth budget deficits should reach 4 per cent of gross domestic product by 2023, which is around $60 billion in today’s dollars and would be around $100 billion in ten year’s time.

“Initiatives such as national disability insurance scheme, the education reforms, direct action on climate change and parental leave are only a small part of it,” Grattan Institute chief executive John Daley said.

“The big driver, costing $30 billion, is extra spending on health. Contrary to popular belief the extra spending isn’t being driven by aging. It’s that compared to ten years ago today’s 60 year olds see the doctor more often, have more tests, face more operations and take more drugs. We are getting something out of the extra spending, more people are staying alive, but the question is - who is going to pay for it?”

The Institute also believes welfare spending will have to climb in part because the present Newstart unemployment allowance is unsustainably low...

It says company tax revenue, mining and carbon tax revenue and general tax takings will slide as a proportion of the economy as the price of exports slips.

“The problem is the attractive solutions won’t buy that much money,” said Mr Daley. “Cutting middle class welfare won’t be enough, Australia doesn’t have that much. Even if you axed the baby bonus, the schoolkids bonus and parts of Family Tax Benefit B that go to high earners you’d only make $4 billion.”

“Eliminating government waste won’t help much either. Axing the Commonwealth departments of education and health might save the wages of $5000 public servants, but that’s only around half a billion.

The Institute says the gap can only be closed by higher taxes, meaning the days of “painless” budget fixes are over.

“The places to look are company tax and company tax concessions, income tax and goods and services tax. The old idea that you can introduce a change with no losers (at least none earning less $100,000) won’t work.

“Everyone will have to share the pain. Victoria’s Kennett showed what could happen in the early 1990s. It was explicit about saying that everybody was going to have to share in bringing the budget back into surplus.”

A spokesman for Mr Swan rejected the suggestion the Treasurer would not take hard decisions saying its new spending on schools was funded by cutbacks in other areas.

It had tacked health spending by means testing the private health insurance rebate and “cutting the millionaires’ dental scheme.”

Mr Swan told the ABC he was not going to make up for a shortfall in May’s budget by “savage cuts”.

“That would not support jobs and growth and it would lead to higher unemployment,” he said.

In today's Sydney Morning Herald and Age

$60 BILLION IN DEFICIT

The Grattan Institute’s 2023 forecast

$30 billion - Extra health spending

$7.5 billion - Extra welfare spending

$7.5 billion - Gonski and other initiatives

$7.5 billion - Weaker company tax

$7.5 billion - Weaker mining and carbon tax

Total deficits of all Australian governments, in 2013 dollars

Grattan Institute, Budget Pressures on Australian Governments April 2013

Related Posts

. Hockey. That surplus promise - ditch it, we're not stupid

. Graphed. Why the budget is bleeding

. You died "vomiting money to anyone who could vote" Keane on the Coalition