Income Equality

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Outgoing secretary of the Prime Minister’s Department Martin Parkinson has condemned “entrenched disadvantage” in Australia, in his valedictory address on leaving the public service.
Parkinson also warned it was imperative that Australia did not allow “the kind of retreat from openness and vilification of differences” that had happened in some other countries.
During his long career Parkinson headed the climate change department (now defunct) and treasury (from which he was sacked by Tony Abbott), as well as the prime minister’s department, where he will now be succeeded by Phil Gaetjens, formerly Scott Morrison’s chief of staff and most recently head of treasury.
In his Monday address Parkinson said Australia had not had “the rising income inequality at the top end” of the United States and much of western Europe, “although wealth has become more unequally distributed off the back of rising house prices”.
But this was a “low bar”, he said.
“Our history has bequeathed a degree of entrenched disadvantage that should be seen as a disgrace in any country, but particularly one as developed as Australia,” he said.
More than half of those in the bottom decile in 2000 were still in the lowest 20% 15 years later, he said.
Ideally, people should only be at the bottom of the income distribution spectrum temporarily due to life events, not whole families and communities sentenced to it for generations.
If you want a single thing to blame for the disadvantage we see in Australia, particularly in our remote areas, look no further than an understandable lack of hope. With those kind of odds, anything else would be irrational.
A key to evening people’s chances was to have the best education system that could be achieved and a culture valuing learning, Parkinson said.
He said Australia would need to use all its advantages to sustain its prosperity and security in the future. These included its multicultural society, a merit-based culture and a market-based approach.
There are really only two choices for this country. We can take pride in our diversity and use it as an advantage when interacting with the world, or we can hunker down behind borders and slowly gnaw at each other.
Parkinson said that “to their credit, our parliamentary leaders have maintained a remarkable commitment to an open economy and social cohesion, despite immense pressures the other way”.
On the international front, Parkinson said many regional and global institutions, including the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, the G20 and APEC, were struggling.
It’s particularly hard for the WTO to enforce trade rules when the largest countries are openly flouting them.
The United States largely built this order in its own image, under-writing it with security guarantees. We benefit immensely from this order and must help support it wherever we can.
Parkinson reflected on his disappointment at his dismissal as treasury secretary. “I received the ‘wooden spoon’ as head of the treasury in 2013 – a job I enjoyed and in which I aspired to follow the nation-building work done by predecessors such as Chris Higgins, Ted Evans and Ken Henry.
"It was a drawn out departure, and I couldn’t even look forward to sitting on the couch to watch a care free game on the weekend as the Essendon Bombers also had a terrible season.”The Conversation

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/michelle-grattan-20316" target="_blank">Michelle Grattan</a>, Professorial Fellow, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-canberra-865" target="_blank">University of Canberra</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/martin-parkinson-declares-entrenched-disadvantage-in-australia-a-disgrace-122410" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

Martin Parkinson declares 'entrenched disadvantage' in Australia a disgrace: Michelle Grattan

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Open and shut. Most Australians would be worse off over their lifetimes if compulsory super contributions were lifted.   
Compulsory superannuation was <a href="http://www.keating.org.au/shop/item/the-story-of-modern-superannuation-31-october-2007" target="_blank">sold</a> to Australians on the basis that it would make us better off.
But as the government prepares for an <a href="https://www.afr.com/news/policy/tax/retirement-incomes-face-review-20190524-p51qsi" target="_blank">independent inquiry</a> into retirement incomes, <a href="https://blog.grattan.edu.au/" target="_blank">new Grattan Institute research</a> finds that increasing compulsory contributions from 9.5% of wages to 12%, as has been legislated, would leave many Australian workers poorer over their entire lifetimes.
They would sacrifice a significantly increased share of their lifetime wage in exchange for little or no increase in their retirement income.
The typical worker would lose about A$30,000 over her or his lifetime.
More compulsory super means lower wages
Superannuation delivers higher incomes in retirement at the expense of lower incomes while working.
Yet the superannuation lobby usually presents <a href="https://www.afr.com/personal-finance/superannuation-and-smsfs/australians-don-t-want-a-dickensian-retirement-20190530-p51sq5" target="_blank">only one side of the pact</a>, urging an increase in compulsory super to get the higher retirement incomes while ignoring the income that workers have to forgo to get them.
Compulsory super contributions are paid by employers. But <a href="https://blog.grattan.edu.au/2019/04/do-superannuation-increases-come-out-of-workers-wages/" target="_blank">they appear</a> to come out of funds the employers would otherwise have spent on wages.
This means increases in compulsory super come at the expense of wage increases – something that was acknowledged when compulsory super was set up (indeed, it was <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/saturdayextra/unfair-super/3231046">part of the reason it was set up</a>) and has been <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/saturdayextra/unfair-super/3231046">acknowledged</a> by advocates of higher contributions, including the former opposition leader Bill Shorten).
Grattan Institute calculations suggest that lifting compulsory super to 12% by 2025 will take up to <a href="https://theconversation.com/20-billion-per-year-thats-how-much-higher-superannuation-could-take-from-wages-116353" target="_blank">A$20 billion a year</a> from workers’ pockets. For most, the trade-off isn’t worth it.
The reality is that most Australians can already look forward to a <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-we-should-worry-less-about-retirement-and-leave-super-at-9-5-106237" target="_blank">better living standard in retirement</a> than they had while working – even if they <a href="https://insidestory.org.au/the-reassuring-truth-about-retirement-incomes/" target="_blank">interrupt their careers</a> to care for children. Workers with interrupted employment histories lose super in retirement, but get larger part-pensions.
The poorest Australians get a clear pay rise when they retire: the age pension is worth more than their after-tax income while working.
Other Grattan Institute research finds retirees are <a href="https://grattan.edu.au/report/money-in-retirement/" target="_blank">more comfortable financially</a> than any other group of Australians and are much less likely to suffer financial stress than working-age Australians.
It needn’t lead to better retirement
So what about Middle Australia?
Despite the “<a href="https://www.smh.com.au/money/investing/save-early-and-often-to-harness-the-power-of-compound-interest-20180201-h0rvwq" target="_blank">magic</a>” of compound returns, just about all of the extra income from a higher super balance at retirement would be offset by lower pension payments, due to the pension assets test.
It is always possible the pension rules will change, but it isn’t usually regarded as wise to assess proposals on the basis of changes that haven’t happened and aren’t being suggested.
Pension payments themselves would also be lower under a 12% superannuation regime. They are <a href="https://www.dss.gov.au/our-responsibilities/seniors/benefits-payments/pension-rates" target="_blank">benchmarked to wages</a>, which would be lower if employers have to put more into super.
The graph below shows that the big winners from higher compulsory super would be the wealthiest 20% of Australian earners, who would benefit from extra super tax breaks and would be unlikely to receive the age pension anyway.
Higher compulsory super redistributes income from the middle to the top. Middle earners would be no better off.
<hr>
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/283240/original/file-20190709-44472-ai5pg0.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/283240/original/file-20190709-44472-ai5pg0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
Over a lifetime, it could be a net loss
As higher compulsory super would leave Middle Australians no better off in retirement, but poorer while working, it follows that it would make them poorer over their entire lives.
How much poorer? We calculate that, after adjusting for inflation, the typical (median) 30-year-old Australian worker earning A$58,000 today would lose about 2.5% of wages each year and get less than a 1% boost to retirement income.
As a result, that person’s lifetime income would be almost 1% lower – about A$30,000 lower.
A post published on the <a href="https://blog.grattan.edu.au/?p=901&amp;preview=true" target="_blank">Grattan Blog</a> today gives more detail on the method we used to calculate the impact of higher compulsory super on lifetime incomes.
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/283187/original/file-20190709-51273-1u9ttt7.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/283187/original/file-20190709-51273-1u9ttt7.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
And it would cost the budget
Higher compulsory super might be justified if it saved the budget money on the pension – because those savings could be used to compensate middle-income earners via lower taxes or more services.
But in fact, higher super would cost the budget.
Our modelling shows that lifting compulsory super to 12% of wages would cost taxpayers an extra <a href="https://grattan.edu.au/report/money-in-retirement/" target="_blank">A$2 billion to A$2.5 billion</a> per year in super tax breaks, <a href="https://grattan.edu.au/report/super-tax-targeting/" target="_blank">overwhelmingly</a> directed at high-income earners.
Those extra super tax breaks would <a href="https://treasury.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-03/super_charter_report.pdf" target="_blank">dwarf</a> any budget savings on the age pension until about 2060 – by which time there would be 80 years of budget costs from compulsory super to pay back before the whole exercise saved the government money.
Here’s the bottom line, worth keeping in mind in the lead-up to the independent inquiry: it’s hard to think of a policy less in the interests of working Australians than more compulsory super.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/120002/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;">
Brendan Coates, Program Director, Household Finances, Grattan Institute
Owain Emslie, Associate, Grattan Institute
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/super-shock-more-compulsory-super-would-make-middle-australia-poorer-not-richer-120002" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

More compulsory super would make middle Australia poorer, not richer: Grattan Institute

<html><body>
With affordable houses <a href="https://theconversation.com/get-used-to-your-commute-data-confirms-houses-near-jobs-are-too-expensive-77867" target="_blank" style="font-size: 12.16px;">increasingly out of reach</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-is-wage-growth-at-record-lows-66552" target="_blank" style="font-size: 12.16px;">wage growth slow</a> and <a href="https://thenewdaily.com.au/money/finance-news/2017/07/03/australia-debt-new-records/" target="_blank" style="font-size: 12.16px;">household debt high</a>, Australians are certainly feeling poor. But how do they compare to their neighbours? New Census data confirms there’s a lot of variability in income.
The Census breaks the country up into 349 geographic regions (named in quote marks below), some of which cover more than one major town and some of which group related suburbs within cities. We examined 331 of these regions, excluding those containing fewer than 1,000 households.
The data show there are high levels of income inequality within these regions. A simple way to measure this is to look at the ratio of income between those who are well off (the top 20% within a region) and of those who are relatively disadvantaged (the bottom 20%) in the Census data. In Australia the weekly household income for the top 20% (A$1,579 per week) is 3.5 times the income of the bottom 20% (A$457).
<hr>
<iframe style="border: none;" src="https://cdn.theconversation.com/infographics/111/f2b689c1ab84b5613696b7ec6810186798244fac/site/index.html" frameborder="0" width="100%" height="400"></iframe>
<hr>
The “Melbourne City” region has the most unequal incomes in Australia, where the top 20% have an income that is 8.3 times as high as those in the bottom 20%. “Adelaide City” (ratio of 5.5) and the “Sydney Inner City” (4.8) also have quite high levels of inequality.
Two of the poorest regions in the Northern Territory also have very high inequality. These are the vast region that encircles Darwin, called “Daly, Tiwi, West Arnhem” (ratio of 5.2) and the “East Arnhem” region (5.3).
However, there are regions with varying income levels, that also had relatively low inequality ratios. The region of “Molonglo”, in South Canberra (ratio of 2.2), “West Pilbara” in Western Australia (2.4) and “Kempsey, Nambucca” on New South Wales’ north coast (2.5) all have low levels of inequality.
For our analysis, we used equivalised household income. Equivalisation is a technique in which members of a household receive different weightings, based on the amount of additional resources they need.
The Australian Bureau of Statistics assumes that the first adult in a household has a weighting of 1, each additional adult a weighting of 0.5, and each child a weighting of 0.3. Total household income is then divided by the sum of the weightings for a representative income.
<h2>Incomes across Australia</h2>
For the whole of Australia, the equivalised median household income (the income in the middle of the distribution) is A$878 per week. The region with the lowest median income was “Daly, Tiwi, West Arnhem” in the Northern Territory, at A$510 per week.
<hr>
<iframe style="border: none;" src="https://cdn.theconversation.com/infographics/109/19cd8878d4e989ae653c8c1338ef8552106a1e10/site/index.html" frameborder="0" width="100%" height="400"></iframe>
<hr>
However, several regional areas like “Maryborough, Pyrenees” (northwest of Ballarat in Victoria), “Kempsey, Nambucca” (NSW), “Maryborough” (between Bundaberg and the Sunshine Coast in Queensland), “Inverell, Tenterfield” (in NSW’s Northern Tablelands) and “South East Coast” in Tasmania all had median incomes of A$575 per week or less.
At the other end of the distribution, households in leafy suburbs of North Sydney – “Mosman” (NSW) had a median income of A$1,767 per week. Areas like “South Canberra” (ACT), “Manly” (in Sydney’s east) and the mining-dominated “West Pilbara” (WA) all had median incomes of A$1,674 or more per week.
We also looked at the extremes of the distribution. We define high income as those households with an income of A$1,500 or more per week. This equates to about 22% of the population. We defined low-income households as having an income of less than A$400 per week (about 14% of households).
Around 40% of households in the “Daly, Tiwi, West Arnhem” region were classified as being in poverty compared to around 6% in “North Sydney, Mosman” region. Conversely, around 60% of households in this region were classified as having high income, compared with only 6% of households in “Kempsey, Nambucca”.
<h2>How segregated are we within regions and cities?</h2>
While government policy is often delivered at the regional level, people live their lives at the local or neighbourhood level. However, the relatively disadvantaged and the upper-middle class are often segregated within these regions.
<a href="https://www.brookings.edu/book/dream-hoarders/" target="_blank">Richard Reeves of the Brookings Institute argues</a> the segregation of the upper-middle class in Australia means this group “hoards” the benefits in the region they live in. Among the location advantages he lists are: access to the best schools, opportunities to network with the wealthy and powerful and the ability to disproportionately accrue capital gains on housing assets. To avoid this kind of “opportunity hoarding”, the rich and poor would need to be evenly spread within a region.
A simple way to look at this is through a “dissimilarity index”. In essence, this measures the evenness with which two groups are spread across a larger area. It ranges from zero to one, with higher values indicating a more uneven distribution and zero indicating complete mixing.
Looking at the distribution of the high income. Across Australia, the dissimilarity index has a value of 0.27. This means that around 27% of high-income households would have to move neighbourhoods to make the distribution completely even.
This varies quite substantially by region. “Far North” (encompassing Cape York in QLD) has a dissimilarity index of 0.42. “Auburn” (in western suburbs of Sydney, NSW) and “Playford” (on Adelaide’s northern fringe) also have quite large values.
Our richest regions tend to have the most even distribution of the wealthy, with “North Sydney, Mosman”, “Molonglo” and “Manly” having values of 0.06 or less.
“East Arnhem” has a very high level of concentration of low income individuals by neighbourhood, with a dissimilarity index of 0.70. The next two highest regions (“Katherine” and “Alice Springs”) are also in the Northern Territory, with index values of 0.53 and 0.55 respectively.
We can also compare the measures we used, to find out how they relate to each other. The following figure shows that the richest regions tend to be those with the highest level of income inequality.
However, as inequality goes up, there tends to be a greater concentration of low income households by neighbourhood (there’s also less of a concentration of high income households).
<h2>Have and have nots</h2>
It’s true that the level of income mobility is <a href="https://www.cese.nsw.gov.au/publications-filter/income-mobility-in-australia" target="_blank">higher in Australia</a> than it is in the US. However, Australia also has prominent examples of economic policies that disproportionately benefit the upper-middle class, such as the capital gains tax discount and superannuation tax incentives.
Australia also has a geographically concentrated income distribution, with the rich living in neighbourhoods with other rich people. The poor are also more likely to live in close proximity to people who share their disadvantage.
If Richard Reeves is right, and the spatial segregation of high and low income households reinforces inequality across the generations, then policies that encourage the mixing of different social classes in the same neighbourhood and region should be a way forward.
<hr>
This article was put together with research assistance from Hubert Wu, Australian National University and Harvard University.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/nicholas-biddle-10171" target="_blank">Nicholas Biddle</a>, Associate Professor, ANU College of Arts and Social Sciences, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/australian-national-university-877" target="_blank">Australian National University</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/francis-markham-14836" target="_blank">Francis Markham</a>, Research Fellow, College of Arts and Social Sciences, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/australian-national-university-877" target="_blank">Australian National University</a>
This article was originally published on <a href="https://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-income-inequality-looks-like-across-australia-80069" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Income Equality

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Income Equality

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News