Australian Government

<html><body>
EXPERT OBSERVER
On Monday the Australian government will release the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook (MYEFO). This will – as required by <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2012C00230/Html/Text#_Toc317146004" target="_blank">the Charter of Budget Honesty</a> – provide an update on the key assumptions made in this year’s budget, and track the implications of decisions made since the budget for the projected surplus.
There are two things you can count on about MYEFO.
First, the government will have to pare back its forecasts for economic growth, wages growth and employment growth.
Second, no matter what the economic reality is, the forecast for a budget surplus will remain.
The government has made economic management – as measured by the rather dubious criterion of budget balance – the central plank of its electoral strategy. As the Australian National University’s 2019 <a href="https://australianelectionstudy.org/" target="_blank">Australian Election Study</a> revealed, voters preferred the government’s economic policies to Labor’s by a wide margin (47% to 21%, with 17% thinking there was no difference). On the management of government debt, the margin was 44% to 18%.
But the <a href="https://www.rba.gov.au/snapshots/economy-indicators-snapshot/" target="_blank">economy isn’t doing very well</a>. GDP annual growth is 1.7%, not the 2.75% <a href="https://www.budget.gov.au/2019-20/content/overview.htm" target="_blank">forecast in the budget</a>. The unemployment rate is 5.3%, compared to the forecast of 5.0%. Wage growth is 2.2%, not the 2.75% forecast.
<h2>Iron ore supplements</h2>
The forecast budget surplus for the fiscal year to June 2020 will be made to hang together, thanks to a higher-than-forecast iron ore price.
That price – which determines the dollar value of Australia’s biggest export and hence the tax revenue it generates – is not reflected in the GDP figure, which only takes into account volumes.
The iron-ore price is now <a href="https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/iron-ore" target="_blank">US$92.50 a tonne</a>. The budget assumed the average price would be $US88 for the 2020 budget year, thanks to a reduction in the international supply of iron ore caused by <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02-12/iron-ore-price-explainer-after-mining-dam-collapse/10800698" target="_blank">a tailings dam bursting</a> in January at the Córrego do Feijão mine near the town of Brumadinho in southeastern Brazil.
<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/sKZUZQytads?wmode=transparent&amp;start=0" frameborder="0" width="440" height="260"></iframe>
The dam’s collapse released a tsunami of sludge that destroyed farms, houses, roads and bridges, and killed 272 people.
Ensuing mine shutdowns reduced iron ore output from operator Vale (the world’s biggest iron ore miner) by about a third. This in turn led to the price of iron ore this year being very high, as the following chart illustrates.
<hr>
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/306498/original/file-20191212-85391-1v12glu.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/306498/original/file-20191212-85391-1v12glu.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a> Iron ore price (US$/MT) <a class="source" href="https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/iron-ore" target="_blank">tradingeconomics.com</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/" target="_blank">CC BY-NC-SA</a>
<hr>
The Australian government sensibly assumed the Brazilian mine would come back online and the ore price would revert to $US55 per tonne by March 2020.
But just think about the 2020-21 fiscal year. The <a href="https://www.budget.gov.au/2019-20/content/bp1/download/bp1_bs7.pdf" target="_blank">government’s own sensitivity analysis</a> shows for the full 2020-21 budget year a difference in the iron ore price of US$10 a tonne translates to a A$3.7 billion difference in the budget bottom line.
That has helped this year, but it also shows how dependent the budget’s relatively small A$7.1 billion “underlying cash balance” is on a commodity price that’s out of our control.
Yet, given the political non-negotiability of the surplus, we can expect assumptions that stretch credulity to maintain a surplus forecast.
<h2>Some action?</h2>
This is all against a backdrop of calls for fiscal stimulus from the governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia, the Business Council, every mainstream economist and <a href="https://www.afr.com/policy/economy/ceos-call-for-fiscal-stimulus-20191209-p53i7y" target="_blank">recently Australia’s top chief executives</a>.
But any stimulus meaningful enough to boost the ailing economy would blow the budget surplus. And the assumptions have already been stretched to breaking point, so there’s very little room for the government to manoeuvre.
The government will probably announce some sort of “investment allowance” – where companies get a modest tax break for specific types of investments in the short term. As I <a href="https://www.afr.com/policy/economy/what-we-should-do-about-the-gdp-numbers-20190904-p52nw9" target="_blank">have argued before</a>, this will do something to boost investment and the economy generally, but not nearly as much as a full-scale reduction in the company tax rate to 25% for all businesses.
But the government can’t afford to do a proper tax cut because of its devotion to a wafer-thin surplus.
<h2>The danger of too little action</h2>
In the end, what the government ends up announcing will really be an allocation of responsibilities. It will determine how much of the work of economic recovery it will do itself, and how much it will want to palm off to the Reserve Bank.
The downside of the former is losing the budget surplus.
The downside of the latter is that the Reserve Bank will have no choice but to cut the cash rate to 0.25% in early 2020 and then embark upon a bond-buying program – i.e. “quantitative easing” or “QE”.
 
As even Reserve Bank governor Philip Lowe has himself admitted, more aggressive monetary policy brings with it the (further) risk of asset-price bubbles and financial instability.
Right now the government is putting all its chips on the surplus. Will that turn out to be a good bet? Time will tell.
2020 will reveal much about the future of the Australian economy and whether we manage to escape dramatic problems like a recession.
We live in interesting times – but perhaps more in the “Ancient Chinese curse” kind of way than any of us would like.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/128705/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;">
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/richard-holden-118107" target="_blank">Richard Holden</a>, Professor of Economics, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/unsw-1414" target="_blank">UNSW</a>
This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/vital-signs-australias-wafer-thin-surplus-rests-on-a-mine-disaster-in-brazil-128705" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

Australia’s wafer-thin surplus rests on a mine disaster in Brazil

<html><body>
EXPERT OBSERVER
Once, emulating Germany would be something to be proud of. Not at the moment.<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/richard-holden-118107"> </a>
It’s four years since then Prime Minister Tony Abbott warned Australia had been heading to “<a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/tony-abbott-claims-australia-was-heading-for-a-greekstyle-future-20150318-1m1n9n" target="_blank">a Greek-style economic future</a>”.
He was referring to what he said had been happening under the previous Labor government.
When Labor left office in 2013 the federal government’s budget deficit had been 3% of gross domestic product. The Greek government’s had been 7%.
The Australian government’s debt to GDP ratio was 20%. The Greek government’s was 177%.
Australia was never on the path to becoming an economic basket case like Greece, but right now we are on the road to becoming like another European nation.
It also starts with “G”.
Becoming economically like Germany isn’t as scary. But it is genuinely troubling nevertheless.
Germany is not in good shape
Germany’s GDP growth in the June quarter was minus 0.1%. That means economic activity shrank.
Its central bank, the Bundesbank, doesn’t see things getting better <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2019/08/19/economy/germany-recession-bundesbank/index" target="_blank">any time soon</a>, saying growth “is probably set to remain lacklustre in the third quarter of 2019”.
Interest rates have fallen so low that investors are now <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/markets/rates-bonds/government-bonds/germany" target="_blank">paying the German government to take their money</a>. The nominal interest rate on two-year German government debt is -0.90%, and on extremely long-term 30-year bonds is -0.15%.
That’s right: even for 30 years into the future, investors think its safer to lose money by parking funds with the German government than to try to make money by using them in other investments.
Put another way, markets think the German economy will be in trouble for decades, meaning short-term German interest rates will have to remain ultra-low for decades.
The German penchant for balanced budgets became (there’s really no other way to put it) fanatical in the wake on the financial crisis of 2008.
Like centre-right governments around the world – Britain was a leading example – a dark fiscal austerity took hold, at precisely the wrong time.
2009 was a time of chronically weak private demand that required both lower interest rates and, as monetary policy was running out of steam, continuing budget deficits.
Instead Germany cut government spending, pushing the budget back into surplus from 2014.
It didn’t get everything wrong.
As I <a href="http://research.economics.unsw.edu.au/richardholden/assets/greece-debt-crisis-afr-july-13.pdf" target="_blank">wrote at the time</a>, Germany was largely right to insist that Greece get its out-of-control spending and government debt under control.
But Germany’s approach to its own economy hurt it and other European economies such as Italy and Spain.
We’re turning German…
With apologies to British 1980s band The Vapors, we’re at risk of “<a href="https://youtu.be/XedDyR0opow" target="_blank">Turning Germanese</a>”.
Like Germany, our interest rates are getting close to zero. OK, Germany has negative nominal 30-year interest rates, but we’ve got negative real 10-year bond interest rates, and zero 30-year bond rates.
Both of our major political parties are gripped by balanced-budget fetishism, appearing to want to balance the budget regardless of the economic context.
Again, here we are not quite as fanatical as Germany, but Labor seems determined to “<a href="https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/labor-promises-23b-surplus-twice-the-coalition-s-20190509-p51lj5" target="_blank">out-surplus</a>” the Coalition to prove its economic management credentials. And the government has made delivering a surplus the centrepiece of its economic agenda.
And, like in Germany, our economic growth is slowing. We don’t yet have negative GDP growth like in Germany, but we do have negative per capita GDP growth.
…but there’s time to pull back
Poor old Reserve Bank governor Philip Lowe has been pleading over and again for more aggressive government spending, particularly on infrastructure, to help complement what he is doing on interest rates.
A couple of cheesy photo ops with Treasurer Josh Frydenberg aside, there’s no evidence of him gaining any traction in Canberra.
Structurally balanced budgets are important, and thinking government debt doesn’t matter is deeply misguided.
But this is the situation we face:
<ul>
<li>
private demand is chronically weak
</li>
<li>
our physical infrastructure has not kept pace with population growth and modern needs
</li>
<li>
our social infrastructure (including all levels of education) is not up to standard
</li>
<li>
interest rate cuts are running out of puff
</li>
<li>
the government can borrow in its own currency, long-term, for close to nothing
</li>
</ul>
Any government that won’t borrow and spend up big and smart in these circumstances is making a huge mistake – one for which we and our children will pay dearly.
If we’re not careful the old Abbott narrative of “we’re about to become Greece” will become true, except about another country whose shoes we would rather not be in.
Richard Holden, Professor of Economics, UNSW.
This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/vital-signs-economically-australia-is-at-risk-of-becoming-germany-and-not-in-a-good-way-122217" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

rh-YsoTT2xMuQ

Economically, Australia is at risk of becoming Germany, and not in a good way: Richard Holden

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Growing numbers of Australians are <a href="https://theconversation.com/moving-on-from-home-ownership-for-generation-rent-71628" target="_blank">locked out of home ownership</a> or struggling in insecure and <a href="https://www.anglicare.asn.au/our-work/research-reports/the-rental-affordability-snapshot" target="_blank">unaffordable private rental</a> markets. There are concerns about <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-02/negative-equity-on-the-rise-as-house-prices-continue-to-fall/11061780" target="_blank">home owners drowning in debt</a>. And for lower-income earners, high housing costs mean that paying for food, energy bills and health costs is an ongoing challenge.
It is time for a new way of talking about housing in Australia. The housing crisis is quickly turning into a crisis of care.
We call on the newly re-elected Morrison government and new Housing Minister Michael Sukkar to recognise that the value of housing is not just economic. Housing is an infrastructure of care. Australian governments need to ask: is this a housing system that cares?
A location for essential care
Houses are hubs of care practices and relations. They are places of everyday care, of cooking, cleaning and washing, of care between household and family members. Houses are where we care for children, elders, partners and ourselves.
Houses are also anchors for community and neighbourhood-based care. We keep an eye on neighbours’ homes, support older neighbours to <a href="https://theconversation.com/for-australians-to-have-the-choice-of-growing-old-at-home-here-is-what-needs-to-change-91488" target="_blank">age in place</a>, and care for pets.
This care work is what keeps us alive.
Even though care is not always done well, it is an essential practice that is connected in fundamental ways with housing. Without housing it can be very difficult to meet basic needs.
The care work of housing
But housing is more than just a place where care takes place. Housing systems – through housing policy, markets and design – organise the distribution of care and the ability of people to give and receive care.
<a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02673037.2019.1612038" target="_blank">In our research</a> this drives us to ask: how does the housing system support or limit the capacity of households to care?
We argue that housing is a care infrastructure and call for this understanding of housing to be at the centre of housing reform.
Home owners benefit
In Australia we value housing as an individual investment and asset. The <a href="https://rgs-ibg.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/geoj.12213" target="_blank">economic values of housing</a> (how much we can buy, sell or otherwise leverage housing for) are at the heart of how housing is usually discussed.
For affluent households housing markets can work very well as a care infrastructure. This is because these households can more readily afford housing that meets household care needs. They are also more able to invest in housing to cover the costs of care in later life and to support the needs and ambitions of children. For home owners housing is a private welfare net for funding care needs.
Australian housing and related policies create and reinforce the value of home ownership. Subsidies for first home owners, the proposed First Home Loan Deposit Scheme (<a href="https://www.liberal.org.au/latest-news/2019/05/26/ministry" target="_blank">which will be a focus of efforts by the new housing minister)</a>, preferential treatment for owner occupation in pension tests and tax breaks for investor landlords underpin the value of home ownership as an infrastructure of care.
However, for the growing numbers of households not in a position to own a home the picture is less rosy. In many cases housing becomes an infrastructure that inhibits access to necessary care. As <a href="https://theconversation.com/home-ownership-foundations-are-being-shaken-and-the-impacts-will-be-felt-far-and-wide-91664" target="_blank">increasing numbers of households rent for longer periods</a>, we risk a housing system that only cares for some.
Housing affordability
Housing affordability is a central concern. Lower income earners have less ability to choose to live in places that are well serviced or where family-based care networks are located. Less affluent areas often have <a href="https://theconversation.com/down-and-out-in-australia-the-new-way-to-define-poverty-1812" target="_blank">less access</a> to public and private care services like doctors and other specialists.
Housing affordability also shapes the ability to afford other care resources like quality food and electricity. Households that face high housing costs are often forced to compromise in these areas.
In <a href="https://rgs-ibg.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/tran.12306" target="_blank">Emma’s</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/hunger-in-the-lucky-country-charities-step-in-where-government-fails-90017" target="_blank">other</a> <a href="https://www.publish.csiro.au/book/7269/" target="_blank">related research</a> older retirees in the private rental market depended on local food charities for nutritious food. And in winter they restricted their use of heating to avoid bill blow-outs.
There are also connections between paid work, caring capacity and housing affordability. High-cost housing markets can drive people to work longer hours and multiple jobs, or require multiple income earners within a household. This can reduce the ability of individuals and households to meet domestic care responsibilities.
<h2>Tenure and care</h2>
Non-home owners also face restrictions around their use of private rental properties. For a start, <a href="https://theconversation.com/rental-insecurity-why-fixed-long-term-leases-arent-the-answer-73114" target="_blank">rental housing is notoriously insecure</a>. There are also <a href="https://theconversation.com/for-renters-making-housing-more-affordable-is-just-the-start-76263" target="_blank">restrictions</a> on the ability of renters to make a house into a home.
Private rental legislation typically does not require landlords to agree to property modifications to meet the needs of a person with disability or ageing body, even when tenant-funded.
Women in <a href="https://rgs-ibg.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/tran.12306">Emma’s research</a> reported losing bonds to cover costs associated with removing modifications that had been agreed to during a tenancy. In <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1745-5871.12058">Kathy’s research</a>, the fear of eviction meant private renters found it difficult to ask for and be granted repairs that would make their homes habitable. They endured leaking roofs and mouldy walls that made housing unsuitable for meeting basic care needs.
Such policies reinforce the value of owned homes as powerful care infrastructures for home owners, while undermining the caring capacity of households that don’t own their homes. While social housing <a href="https://search.informit.com.au/fullText;dn=763478754874546;res=IELHSS" target="_blank">enhances the caring capacity of many households</a>, social housing is <a href="https://theconversation.com/australia-needs-to-reboot-affordable-housing-funding-not-scrap-it-72861" target="_blank">chronically underfunded and undersupplied</a>.
Diversity helps meet different needs
As growing numbers of households find themselves locked out of home ownership and face difficulties securing affordable housing in our <a href="https://www.anglicare.org.au/about-us/research-advocacy/advocacy/rental-affordability-snapshot/" target="_blank">expensive private rental markets</a>, Australia badly needs housing reform.
The care work of housing must be at the centre of housing policy. The new government and minister for housing must ask: first, is this a housing system that cares? And, second, who does this housing system care for?
Historically, this question has been answered with calls to increase home ownership. But there is value in a diverse housing system because different households have different needs.
Further, those who invest in housing are dependent on the people who will rent that housing. These people in turn have the right – and need – for housing that supports their care needs. Affordable housing is only the starting point.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/117311/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;">
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/emma-power-250930" target="_blank">Emma Power</a>, Senior Research Fellow, Geography and Urban Studies, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/western-sydney-university-1092" target="_blank">Western Sydney University</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/kathleen-mee-739854" target="_blank">Kathleen Mee</a>, Associate Professor of Geography, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-newcastle-1060" target="_blank">University of Newcastle</a>
This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/is-this-a-housing-system-that-cares-thats-the-question-for-australians-and-their-new-government-117311" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Is this a housing system that cares? That’s the question for Australians and their new government

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
The latest figures put Australia near the top when it comes to company tax collections, even though our total tax take isn’t particularly high.
In international tax circles, as in other areas, we often talk about American exceptionalism.
But these days, it is becoming increasingly clear that Australia is exceptional in taxation, among members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and indeed, compared to countries around the globe.
The OECD has just produced its <a href="https://www.oecd.org/tax/beps/corporate-tax-statistics-database.htm" target="_blank">first-ever detailed comparison</a> of company tax collections and rates and effective rates around the world. The “statutory” or headline rate comparisons cover 94 countries. The harder to calculate “effective” tax comparisons cover 88 countries.
The bad news – for companies – is that Australia is close to the top among the 94 countries, and in one of the measures, the effective marginal company tax rate (more on this later), third from the top.
Click <a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/253830/original/file-20190115-152971-1oevmqr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip" target="_blank">here</a> to enlarge.
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/253830/original/file-20190115-152971-1oevmqr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/253830/original/file-20190115-152971-1oevmqr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
Interestingly, in another recent report, the OECD shows that Australia clearly falls into the “low tax” group among OECD countries, with a tax-to-GDP ratio <a href="http://www.oecd.org/tax/tax-policy/revenue-statistics-2522770x.htm">below 25%</a>. But within that context we rely heavily on company tax.
Company tax revenues are high
Australia’s A$80 billion in company tax collections in 2016 was about 4.6% of GDP, ranking Australia twelfth out of the 88 countries for which the OECD had information.
Company tax accounted for 16% of Australia’s total tax revenue, the 27th highest out of the 88 countries.
The statistics have oddities. Luxembourg and Switzerland also have a high share of company tax revenues because they attract so much global capital. In contrast, the overall high-taxing countries of France, Denmark and Finland collect much less revenue from company tax.
Click <a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/253831/original/file-20190115-152968-kcvom4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip" target="_blank">here</a> to enlarge.
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/253831/original/file-20190115-152968-kcvom4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/253831/original/file-20190115-152968-kcvom4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a> 
Headline rates are heading down
Corporate tax rates have been trending down for at least two decades. The Trump tax changes in 2017 that lowered the US federal rate to 21% was the latest dramatic change, but the United Kingdom now has a rate of 19% and many European countries sit at or below 25%. The change since 2000 has been dramatic and the global average is now 20%.
In our Asian region, the average headline corporate tax rate is 15%. As a result of <a href="https://www.oecd.org/investment/investment-policy/Towards-smarter-use-of-tax-incentives-in-Southeast-Asia.pdf" target="_blank">tax incentives available around Asia</a>, companies involved in manufacturing and supply chains often face a lower, or zero, rate.
This trend was identified by the Henry Tax Review in 2009, which recommended transitioning to a 25% rate, which today could be financed with a 1% increase in Australia’s GST rate, according to <a href="https://www.policyforum.net/australia-can-afford-cut-company-tax/" target="_blank">recent modelling by Chris Murphy</a>.
Click <a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/253833/original/file-20190115-152983-16aslqh.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;h=524&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=1">here</a> to enlarge.
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/253833/original/file-20190115-152983-16aslqh.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt=""> 
What matters are effective tax rates
The OECD also compares effective marginal tax rates (EMTRs), and effective average tax rates (EATRs), for corporate investment. These combine the headline rate with the rules for corporate investment, depreciation allowances for plant and equipment, and intellectual property investment.
In theory, investors choose to invest based on the expected after-tax rate of return, taking into account tax breaks and special rules.
The EMTR determines the tax cost of expanding an existing investment: putting one more dollar into that investment. In the EMTR ranking, Australia is third highest.
Countries that provide a tax break known as <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-the-government-can-pay-for-its-proposed-company-tax-cuts-92739" target="_blank">allowance for corporate equity</a>, including Belgium and Italy, actually have negative tax rates on increased investment.
The EATR reflects the tax rate that would be paid on an entire new investment. In the EATR ranking, Australia is, again, near the top in ninth place, at 30% – the same as our statutory rate.
Click <a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/253834/original/file-20190115-152980-11hzrfk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip" target="_blank">here</a> to enlarge.
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/253834/original/file-20190115-152980-11hzrfk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/253834/original/file-20190115-152980-11hzrfk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
Unlike many other countries, Australia has few tax incentives. We do not have a low tax regime for intellectual property or accelerated depreciation for new equipment – except for small businesses, and mining exploration. Only in research and development did Australia provide higher tax subsidies than some other countries and the R&amp;D concession is <a href="https://www.budget.gov.au/2018-19/content/factsheets/6-tax-integrity" target="_blank">being tightened</a>.
Overall, Australia’s high rate and broad corporate tax base makes new investment, or the expansion of existing investment, expensive relative to other countries.
Why are we such an outlier?
Australia is a resource extraction and exporting economy.
We haven’t had to compete quite as hard for foreign investment as other countries.
Our relatively high rate of company tax serves two purposes: to tax company profits and to get a fair return on resources in the ground which state governments, through royalties, don’t properly charge for.
And we are geographically isolated, meaning that, even in the global digital economy, it is hard for companies to service us from offshore. Many have to be here and subject to tax.
Also, and importantly, our reliance on corporate tax is not as dramatic as it seems, because of our almost unique dividend imputation system. About one third to one half of corporate tax revenues are handed back to shareholders in credits against company tax already collected. (New Zealand, which has an imputation system, also has high corporate tax revenues).
Kevin Davies suggests that the “real” corporate tax rate in Australia, taking account of dividend imputation, is <a href="https://theconversation.com/australias-company-tax-burden-is-just-a-myth-10433" target="_blank">below 20%</a>.
But that assumes a closed economy. The reality is that the imputation system subsidises some domestic investors – especially tax-free retirees with self managed super funds – while pushing the full weight of company tax onto foreign investment, at the expense of the economy as a whole, and at the expense of Australians who could potentially benefit from that investment.
The political heat generated by Labor’s proposal to end the payment of imputation cheques to <a href="https://www.afr.com/personal-finance/superannuation-and-smsfs/retirees-mobilise-to-stop-franking-credit-change-20181119-h18290" target="_blank">retirees who don’t pay tax</a> shows their high value to domestic investors. Self-managed super funds are <a href="https://www.intelligentinvestor.com.au/the-franking-elephant-in-the-room-1888156" target="_blank">massively overweight in stocks that provide imputation credits</a>, skewing the Australian share market and the dividend policy of our largest companies.
Does it matter?
Australia’s high company tax rate, and the bias in our imputation system against foreign equity, mean that large multinationals will increasingly borrow to finance Australian investment rather than issue shares.
They will get tax deductions for outbound flows of interest, service fees and royalties, while shifting more and more of their sales, marketing and intellectual property offshore where they can.
Australia can, and is, clamping down on profit shifting, but it’s a never-ending battle.
<a href="https://taxpolicy.crawford.anu.edu.au/publication/ttpi-working-papers/12644/australias-high-company-tax-rate-and-dividend-imputation-poor" target="_blank">A bold suggestion </a>is that we should scrap our system of dividend imputation and use the money saved to dramatically cut the rate of company tax. It would make Australia much more attractive to foreign investors, although much less attractive to retirees.
Another idea <a href="https://theconversation.com/heres-a-long-term-budget-fix-that-would-boost-investment-replace-company-tax-with-cashflow-tax-108347" target="_blank">aired in The Conversation late last year</a> is that we should make new capital investment fully tax deductible, turning company tax into a “cashflow tax”.
What we’ll probably end up with is a compromise – a combination of permitting greater deductions for new investment and lowering the rate will be the answer, while limiting or ending dividend imputation.
There’s much to be proud of in being a weird mob.
But as David Ingles and I argued in a <a href="https://taxpolicy.crawford.anu.edu.au/publication/ttpi-working-papers/12216/australias-company-tax-options-fiscally-sustainable-reform" target="_blank">research paper</a> last year, it is not smart to ignore what’s happening in other places.
It is true we are geographically isolated, and it is true our resources make us different, but we exist in a global tax environment in which investors consider tax when they decide where to put their money. It is beyond our control.
Miranda Stewart is a Professor at the University of Melbourne
This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/new-figures-put-it-beyond-doubt-when-it-comes-to-company-tax-we-are-a-high-tax-country-in-part-because-it-works-well-for-us-109875" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

When it comes to company tax, we are a high-tax country, in part because it works well for us: Miranda Stewart

<html><body>
Premier Gladys Berejiklian has announced Dr Paul Paterson as the new Chair of the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART).
The telecommunications and media consultant Dr Paul Paterson has recently been chief economist at the Department of Communications.
He has held senior roles in the private sector as a strategic advisor on telecommunications since 2004, following six years with Telstra during the transition to a competitive telecommunications market.
He managed Telstra’s role in the process of opening up the public telephone network to competition.
In the 1990s, Paterson worked for the NSW government, first as chief economist in the Premier’s Department during the Fahey government and later as executive director of policy and resources in the Department of State and Regional Development.
He has also worked as chief economist and as director of strategy for OTC Limited.
<a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/subscribe" target="_blank"><img src="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/c_scale,w_580,q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/po.images/2019/1/1/Strip%20ad%20keep%20up%20in%202019.jpg" alt=""></a>
The Premier thanked outgoing Chair Dr Peter Boxall for his significant contributions in the role over the last seven years.
“I am pleased to welcome Dr Paterson to the role and have no doubt he will continue to protect the interests of consumers and taxpayers of NSW,” Ms Berejiklian said.
The IPART secretariat has around 130 professional staff for its price setting, quality monitoring and licence compliance roles for energy, water and transport utilities in NSW. It also conducts independent inquiries on economic and regulatory matters for the NSW Government.
Dr Paterson was previously appointed an IPART Tribunal member in 2013, before taking up his senior role in the Commonwealth Government.
He has 30 years’ of experience as a senior industry economist and has held senior roles in several Commonwealth and State government policy, research and regulatory bodies, including:
<ul>
<li>Adjunct Professor, University of Technology Sydney Business School</li>
<li>Head, Commonwealth Bureau of Communications Research &amp; Chief Economist Department of Communications</li>
<li>Director Regulation, Telstra</li>
<li>Executive Director, NSW Office of Economic Development</li>
<li>Visiting Economist, Commonwealth Treasury, and</li>
<li>Assistant Secretary, Policy and Analysis, Commonwealth Bureau of Labour Market Research.</li>
</ul>
His first job in 1977 was at the Bureau of Agricultural Economics. In the mid-1980s he was with the Paris based Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.
Dr Paterson will begin his appointment as Chair from 11 February 2019. 
He will join existing Tribunal members Mr Ed Willett and Ms Deborah Cope for a five-year term. 
In 2016 IPART undertook a review at the request of the NSW Government on the local government rating system.
The purpose of our review is to develop recommendations to improve the equity and efficiency of the rating system, in order to enhance councils’ ability to implement sustainable fiscal policies over the long term. 
</body></html>

Paul Paterson to chair the NSW Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal 

<html><body>
The change in leadership of the Commonwealth Government has brought new ministers to the portfolios that are connected with important housing, homelessness, cities and urban issues.
The Hon Scott Morrison MP (Liberal Party), the Prime Minister, has engaged closely with housing issues in his previous roles as Treasurer and Minister for Social Services.
Prime Minister Morrison also has a strong background in housing issues having been National Manager, Policy and Research, of the Property Council of Australia between 1989 and 1995.
The Hon Josh Frydenberg MP (Liberal Party) is Treasurer, a role that has a large impact on the work of those in Australia’s housing and homelessness sector.
The Treasury oversees the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation and the Bills relating to the National Housing and Homelessness Agreement, which enables the Commonwealth to provide financial assistance to the states for housing, homelessness and housing affordability matters. 
Senator the Hon Bridget McKenzie (The Nationals) is the Minister for Regional Services, Local Government and Decentralisation. As part of this Ministry, Senator McKenzie sees ‘getting people out of our congested cities and into our regions' as a core priority. 
The Hon Paul Fletcher MP (Liberal Party) is the Minister for Families and Social Services. Minister Fletcher has a background in the law, economics and the communications sector. Prior to his most recent Ministerial appointment, he was Minister for Urban Infrastructure and Cities. The Department of Social Services delivers services such as Commonwealth Rent Assistance, the on-going National Rental Affordability Scheme (NRAS) and the National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness (NPAH).
The Hon Alan Tudge MP (Liberal Party) is the Minister for Cities, Urban Infrastructure and Population, the ministry that oversees the Smart Cities and City Deals programs which aim to bring all levels of government together to improve the productivity and liveability of Australian cities.
Minister Tudge’s background is in business, including several years with the Boston Consulting Group in Australia, Malaysia and New York, and running his own advisory business.
Senator the Hon Zed Seselja (Liberal Party), Assistant Minister for Treasury and Finance, studied Arts and Law at the Australian National University before joining the Commonwealth Public Service as a Lawyer. Previously, Senator Seselja was elected to the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly in 2004 before resigning to stand for the Senate for the Australian Capital Territory. Senator Seseljia will support the Treasurer in a portfolio that has responsibility for the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation, amongst other programs.
The Hon Sarah Henderson MP (Liberal Party), the Assistant Minister for Social Services, Housing and Disability Services, has an extensive background as a journalist and lawyer, and won a Walkley award for her coverage of the Port Arthur massacre in 1996.
The inclusion of Housing in the Minister’s portfolio is a welcome addition to the Government’s frontbench, AHURI advised.
</body></html>

Who are the new Federal Government ministers who will look after housing and cities?

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/57114/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
The Australian government recently released an ambitious Smart Cities Plan, which suggests that cities should be first and foremost for people:
If our cities are to continue to meet their residents’ needs, it is essential for people to engage and participate in planning and policy decisions that have an impact on their lives.
Such statements are a good starting point – and should probably become central to Australia’s implementation efforts. A lot of knowledge has been collected over the past decade from successful and failed smart cities experiments all over the world; reflecting on them could provide useful information for the Australian government as it launches its national plan.
<h2>What is a smart city?</h2>
But, before embarking on such review, it would help to start from a definition of “smart city”.
The term has been used and abused in recent years, so much so that today it has lost meaning. It is often used to encompass disparate applications: we hear people talk and write about “smart city” when they refer to anything from citizen engagement to Zipcar, from open data to Airbnb, from smart biking to broadband.
Where to start with a definition? It is a truism to say the internet has transformed our lives over the past 20 years. Everything in the way we work, meet, mate and so on is very different today than it was just a few decades ago, thanks to a network of connectivity that now encompasses most people on the planet.
In a similar way, we are today at the beginning of a new technological revolution: the internet is entering physical space – the very space of our cities – and is becoming the Internet of Things; it is opening the door to a new world of applications that, as with the first wave of the internet, can incorporate many domains.
From a more philosophical point of view, one could refer to the great Xerox-Park computer scientist Mark Weiser, and his idea of non-intrusive – or “calm” – technology. Weiser wrote:
Ubiquitous computing names the third wave in computing, just now beginning. First were mainframes, each shared by lots of people. Now we are in the personal computing era, person and machine staring uneasily at each other across the desktop. Next comes ubiquitous computing, or the age of calm technology, when technology recedes into the background of our lives.
<h2>What should governments do?</h2>
In the above technological context, what should governments do? Over the past few years, the first wave of smart city applications followed technological excitement.
For instance, some of Korea’s early experiments such as Songdo City were engineered by the likes of Cisco, with technology deployment assisted by top-down policy directives.
In a similar way, in 2010, Rio de Janeiro launched the Integrated Centre of Command and Control, engineered by IBM. It’s a large control room for the city, which collects real-time information from cameras and myriad sensors suffused in the urban fabric.
Such approaches revealed many shortcomings, most notably the lack of civic engagement. It is as if they thought of the city simply as a “computer in open air”. These approaches led to several backlashes in the research and academic community.
A more interesting lesson can come from the US, where the focus is more on developing a rich Internet of Things innovation ecosystem. There are many initiatives fostering spaces – digital and physical – for people to come together and collaborate on urban and civic innovations.
In the US, the general idea of smart urban space has been central to the current generation of successful start-ups. One of the latest examples is Uber: a smartphone app that lets anyone call a cab or be a driver. The company’s operations are polarising – Uber has been the subject of protests and strikes around the world (mainly in Europe) – yet it was recently valued at a stratospheric US$50 billion.
Beyond Uber, the Nest learning thermostat, the apartment-sharing website Airbnb and the recently announced “home operating system” by Apple, to name a few, attest to the new frontiers of digital information when it inhabits physical space.
Similar approaches now promise to revolutionise most aspects of urban life – from commuting to energy consumption to personal health. As such, they are receiving eager support from venture capital funds.
In such a context, governments could use their funds to develop an organic innovation ecosystem geared toward smart cities, similar to the one that is growing in the US. It is more about bottom-up innovation than top-down schemas.
This must go beyond supporting traditional incubators and aim to produce and nurture the regulatory frameworks that allow innovations to thrive. Considering the legal hurdles that continuously plague applications like Uber or Airbnb, this level of support is sorely needed.
<h2>So, any active smart city role for Canberra?</h2>
That isn’t to say that governments should take a completely hands-off approach to urban development. Governments certainly have an important role to play. This includes supporting academic research and promoting applications in fields that might be less appealing to venture capital – unglamorous but nonetheless crucial domains such as municipal waste or water services.
The public sector can also promote the use of open platforms and standards in such projects, which would speed up adoption in cities worldwide.
Still, the overarching goal should always be to focus on citizens. They are in the best position to determine how to transform their cities and to make decisions that will have – as the Australian Smart Cities Plan puts it – “an impact on their lives”.
Carlo Ratti is director of MIT Senseable City Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology and author for The Conversation. He can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/carlo-ratti-260160" target="_blank">here</a>.
 
</body></html>

Australian Government

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Australian Government

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News