Tax Reform

EXPERT INSIGHT

Make no mistake, this is a big spending budget.

The policy approach was appropriate highlighted by worthy social programs. However, a better balance between short term tax initiatives and genuine tax reform would have been a more effective approach.

New stimulus initiatives, headlined by the surprise extension to the instant asset write-offs for businesses, are worth 4.1 per cent of GDP over four years &ndash; about eight times the pace of the pre-election budget in 2019.

For perspective, the government&rsquo;s stimulus spending in last year&rsquo;s budget following the biggest economic shock since the 1930s was a little higher at 5.5 per cent of GDP, but not materially so.

The disruption from COVID and this associated stimulus response is forecast to see net debt lift from 19.2% of GDP in 2018/19 to 34.2% in 2021/22 and 40.9% in 2024/25.

Despite this sharp increase in debt the cost of servicing the debt is forecast to hold at a modest 0.7% of GDP due to the low interest rate environment.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=3233 project_image_fid=160016]

An early use of policies to reduce debt would have been at the expense of allowing the economy to operate at its potential.

As with other countries debt ratios are unlikely to return to pre COVID levels.

Any return to sustained full employment would see significant budget repair although the public sector is still likely to cycle around much higher debt ratios than we saw before the advent of COVID.

Despite employment levels now being above pre-COVID-19 levels and GDP expected to boom this year, the government is clearly going all in to &ldquo;secure the recovery&rdquo; and drive the unemployment rate down faster.

This drive for growth strategy, along with appropriate commitments to additional services, sees fiscal and monetary policy firmly working together to reach full employment.

The government defines full employment as 4.5 per cent, although that level is not forecast to be reached until mid-2024. Westpac &ndash; and I believe the Reserve Bank &ndash; sees it as 4 per cent or even a little lower.

BILL EVANS&nbsp;is the Chief Economist at Westpac

The policy approach was appropriate highlighted by worthy social programs, however, a better balance between short term tax initiatives and genuine tax reform would have been a more effective approach

bevans-rYk9SxEa4r

Federal Budget 2021: Genuine tax reform stuck in the too-hard basket: Bill Evans

<html><body>
We would all love a dollar every time the words “tax reform” have been mentioned over the past decade with countless inquiries and white papers presented where no reform ever eventuated.
So it was most interesting to see Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and freshly appointed Treasurer Scott Morrison flagging tax reform, income tax cuts and housing affordability again, much like that broken record of their many predecessors.
Yes the Australian economy has its fair share of problems much like the rest of the developed countries across the planet where the common problem is that they are their own worst enemies. The last major tax reform in Australia was the introduction of the GST back in 2000 where 15 years on the taxes and duties that were promised to be removed still remain in place. So it should come as no surprise that the NSW Premier Mike Baird is leading the debate on the GST being increased to 15 per cent.
Back in February 2015 I wrote about abolishing payroll tax to kick start the economy, so high on Malcolm Turnbull’s to – do list should be the abolition of payroll tax on the basis that each business then injects into their business over the next financial year the amount previously paid in payroll tax.
At last month’s Australian Financial Review Tax Reform Summit Malcolm Turnbull effectively put superannuation tax, negative gearing and capital gains tax concessions back on the discussion table. Respected economist Saul Eslake referred to Australia’s tax system as being a “giant Swiss cheese” riddled with holes that allow the wealthy to pay less tax through minimisation strategies. Based on those observations we can expect an intense debate in coming months where previous governments chose to side – step these issues as they were too contentious. We also need to bear in mind that we are approximately twelve months out from a federal election – so how will such a debate go down with voters?
Current Australian Bureau of Statistics projections have the Australian population growing at approximately 4 million people per decade, which places Australia with the fastest rate of population growth in the developed world. Sydney and Melbourne can expect an additional 100,000 new arrivals annually for the next 40 years which in itself requires massive planning although this may further explain the recent Federal portfolio announcement creating the Cities and Built Environment portfolio.
So now Australia’s tax reform discussion has begun in earnest although given the sheer magnitude that explains why this debate has been deferred for decades. Prior to the next Federal Election we can expect to be inundated with discussion groups and scare campaigns although nothing will really happen (if we do get tax reform) until the 2019 Federal Election given such reforms take years to plan then execute.
In the meantime if we are looking for clues we should note with interest that Scott Morrison has just appointed Phil Gaetjens as his chief of staff which should not be too much of a challenge as he was Peter Costello’s chief of staff from 1997 to 2007. Yes one of the key architects for the GST introduction 15 years ago so it really doesn’t require much joining of the dots to see what picture will appear on the canvas.
Although this time around if there is to be any reform the Australian voters will demand that the states and territories commit to honoring their word when it comes to removing taxes and duties in lieu of increasing the GST to 15 per cent. Somehow many are of the opinion that the states and territories will never agree to take payroll tax and stamp duties from their respective cash registers.
‘ The tax reform debate really needs to start at Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting and wouldn’t you love to be a fly on the wall when the Prime Minister and Treasurer outline their bold tax reform agendas.
In NSW we are witnessing the amalgamation of councils because the state government is not happy with them, believing amalgamation will lead to more developments (land tax and stamp duties) – which it certainly will. So with Australia’s biggest ever tax reform finally now plated up on the table they might as well look at the three – tier – governments too.
Make that two as the council amalgamations have already been decided – just not announced.
<h5>MOSMAN – 2088</h5>
• Number of houses on the market this time last year – 61
• Number of houses on the market last week – 51
• Number of houses on the market this week – 48
• Number of apartments on the market this time last year – 41
• Number of apartments on the market last week – 52
• Number of apartments on the market this week – 60
<h5>CREMORNE – 2090</h5>
• Number of houses on the market this time last year – 8
• Number of houses on the market last week – 5
• Number of houses on the market this week – 7
• Number of apartments on the market this time last year – 19
• Number of apartments on the market last week – 21
• Number of apartments on the market this week – 23
<h5>NEUTRAL BAY – 2089</h5>
• Number of houses on the market this time last year – 5
• Number of houses on the market last week – 7
•Number of houses on the market this week – 9
• Number of apartments on the market this time last year– 43
• Number of apartments on the market last week – 28
• Number of apartments on the market this week – 21
ROBERT SIMEON is a director of <a href="https://www.rwm.com.au/" target="_blank" title="RWM" rel="nofollow">Richardson Wrench Mosman and Neutral Bay</a> and has been selling residential real estate in Sydney since 1985.  He has also been writing real estate blog <a href="https://www.rwm.com.au/news/" target="_blank" title="Virtual Realty News" rel="nofollow">Virtual Realty News</a> since 2000. 
</body></html>

robertsimeon-hRNTwJyXkQ

Times change, sadly politicians haven’t: Robert Simeon

<html><body>
When I keep thinking about the possible ramifications with Bill Shorten’s tax reform announcements I shake my head with utter disbelief – this is just plain dumb policy. Since the mining boom collapsed property has been a major shining light for the Australian economy.
By announcing that from July 1, 2017 negative gearing will only apply to new properties, the argument that 93 per cent of negative gearing goes to existing properties is a flawed one. Many suburbs see very few new developments each year so it’s those existing properties that add equilibrium to keeping rents competitive.
It should also be noted that it was not mentioned that with the new properties that there would be no adjustments to the previous Labor policy in 2008 that permits 100 per cent of off – the – plan purchases to foreign owners. What we are seeing today is new developments being offered off shore and many properties never hit the local market with many of these properties being land banked. It should also be legislated that all off – the – plan foreign purchases must be rented out with all properties that are currently land banked to be issued with a divestment order unless they are rented out.
What I believe will happen with negative gearing is that we will see a cap put on the number of properties that are allowed to be claimed as well as a limit to annual tax deductions that can be claimed. In the meantime one could expect property investors to be front and centre in the markets prior to the upcoming Budget announcements.
It is becoming pretty obvious that it will be some time before the Australian budget gets itself back in the black – more particularly now that an increase to the GST has been formally pooh – poohed.
Instead of looking at increasing taxes maybe the federal Government would be better suited to looking at what it can do with its massive property portfolio to pay down more debt. The Australian Government is the largest property landlord in Australia with property holdings across the country.
HMAS Penguin for example which occupies some prime Middle Harbour front land is just one of thousands of examples of land that could be put to much better economic use. Now before you start yelling and screaming all I am saying is that the federal Government should be taking a closer look at its property portfolio with a view to possibly cashing – in. The NSW Government has been active over the past few years selling off Housing Commission properties that has eventuated in quadrupling budget expectations on the likely market values.
Australia’s population hit 24,000,000 this week so it makes plenty of sense to start a conversation on how our cities are going to cope with this rapid expansion. Public golf courses will come under huge pressure to remain with their respective land values going through the roof. Although before we see those being developed the federal Government has thousands and thousands of hectares of vacant land sitting idle.
No doubt some will say it’s time to put Australia’s land resources to better and more practical use and many will say it should remain as it is. One would have to admit that it would be an interesting debate. The Australian population clock now adds one extra person to our population every one minute and 31 seconds. On top of that we also have record net overseas migration. Our population growth is now higher than that of Indonesia.
The reality is that we need to start developing more land, so that conversation should start with Australia’s biggest landlord.
No time like the present to start this long overdue conversation.
<h5>MOSMAN – 2088</h5>
• Number of houses on the market this time last year – 79
• Number of houses on the market last week – 53
• Number of houses on the market this week – 59
• Number of apartments on the market this time last year – 52
• Number of apartments on the market last week – 46 • Number of apartments on the market this week – 44
<h5>CREMORNE – 2090</h5>
• Number of houses on the market this time last year – 8
• Number of houses on the market last week – 17
• Number of houses on the market this week – 18
• Number of apartments on the market this time last year – 19
• Number of apartments on the market last week – 17
• Number of apartments on the market this week – 22
<h5>NEUTRAL BAY – 2089</h5>
• Number of houses on the market this time last year – 5
• Number of houses on the market last week – 9
•Number of houses on the market this week – 7
• Number of apartments on the market this time last year– 38
• Number of apartments on the market last week – 27
*Number of apartments on the market this week – 28
 
 ROBERT SIMEON is a director of <a href="https://www.rwm.com.au/" target="_blank" title="RWM" rel="nofollow">Richardson Wrench Mosman and Neutral Bay</a> and has been selling residential real estate in Sydney since 1985.  He has also been writing real estate blog <a href="https://www.rwm.com.au/news/" target="_blank" title="Virtual Realty News" rel="nofollow">Virtual Realty News</a> since 2000. 
</body></html>

Property is the gift that keeps on giving: Robert Simeon

<html><body>
Get ready Australia. The Prime Minister announced this week his road map for tax reforms that he proposes to take to the next election.
No need to guess what the centrepiece will be – look no further than a 5% increase to the GST. This will be very hard to achieve given when the GST was introduced in 2000 the states and territories immediately reneged on their agreement to abolish duty taxes, so we can rightly expect that they will never renege again.
The problem facing Malcolm Turnbull is that the states and territories want more money and the federal government can’t fund this through their tax receipts. For years I have argued that (in the case of NSW for example) the state government is the biggest dead weight on the NSW economy.
Stamp duties, insurance duties, pay roll tax... the list goes on. For well over the past decade we have read tax paper after tax paper recommending the removal of these taxes although (until now) this has been ignored by federal politicians.
A report released this week by the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling identified that the current 10% GST consumes 13.4% of disposable income for those in the bottom fifth of households, so a further rise in the GST would see this figure jump to 20%. Households in the top 20% would experience a much softer impact where this currently sits at 5.9% and after an increase the new figure would come in at around 8.8%.
For obvious reasons this analysis is going to make the sales pitch for an increase in GST all the much harder when Australians go to the polls around this time next year. Banking economist Saul Eslake announced this week that “Australia’s home ownership rate is actually the lowest it’s been since 1954.” So to fix this, negative gearing will come under much greater scrutiny as established home prices continue to rise. Let’s face it – Australia’s entire tax system is a mess, broken and in urgent need of major surgery.
The Turnbull government will need to also look at the benefits of allowing 100% of new developments to be sold off shore – up until December 2008, the previous restriction was 50%. Two of the big ticket items in the “rivers of gold” are Stamp Duty on residential housing and payroll tax – where we are now seeing clear evidence of what impact these duty/taxes are having on the economy.
If you look at the Mosman house market in 2011/12/13 there were on a weekly basis 75 occasions where there were more than 100 houses on the market. In 2014 the 100 barrier was broken on 14 occasions and in 2015 the market is yet to break 100 where we can all but guarantee Mosman will not break 100 in 2015.
NSW is currently drowning in wage stagnation which highlights why voters will be hard pressed to approve a 5 per cent increase to the GST. Pay roll tax for decades has been referred to as the most insidious tax – so by abolishing pay roll tax employers can then pay their respective staff more which then improves wage stagnation.
No doubt there will be many other opinions as to what is required to finally correct Australia’s taxing imbalances. We can rest assured that over the next twelve months we will be thrown many fascinating and troublesome alternatives for deliberation.
The Turnbull government should also be looking at the overall effect of simply removing the middle – tier of government given the duplication of departments that exist in both state and territories and Canberra. Maybe the time has arrived to simply remove the state and territory governments and thus broaden the responsibilities of the local governments.
Maybe the NSW government has identified that it’s vulnerable so it is moving quickly to amalgamate the councils and then alleviate any such scrutiny?
Whatever happens the next twelve months will unveil debates that we Australians have never before witnessed given the magnitude of this long overdue assignment.
Australia’s Prime Minister is more than capable of handling the task ahead – the people aren’t the problem it’s the politicians who have created this. The time has arrived to set an example once and for all – Australia’s road map for tax reforms has finally been given a new engine and a set of wheels.
Just don’t crash it PM.
<h5>MOSMAN – 2088</h5>
• Number of houses on the market this time last year – 105
• Number of houses on the market last week – 64
• Number of houses on the market this week – 75
• Number of apartments on the market this time last year – 76
• Number of apartments on the market last week – 63
• Number of apartments on the market this week – 60
<h5>CREMORNE – 2090</h5>
• Number of houses on the market this time last year – 17
• Number of houses on the market last week – 14
• Number of houses on the market this week – 12
• Number of apartments on the market this time last year – 41
• Number of apartments on the market last week – 16
• Number of apartments on the market this week – 17
<h5>NEUTRAL BAY – 2089</h5>
• Number of houses on the market this time last year – 10
• Number of houses on the market last week – 8
•Number of houses on the market this week – 6
• Number of apartments on the market this time last year– 42
• Number of apartments on the market last week – 31
*Number of apartments on the market this week – 30
 ROBERT SIMEON is a director of <a href="https://www.rwm.com.au/" target="_blank" title="RWM" rel="nofollow">Richardson Wrench Mosman and Neutral Bay</a> and has been selling residential real estate in Sydney since 1985.  He has also been writing real estate blog <a href="https://www.rwm.com.au/news/" target="_blank" title="Virtual Realty News" rel="nofollow">Virtual Realty News</a> since 2000. 
</body></html>

Australia’s greatest ever sales pitch? Robert Simeon

<html><body>
Big taxation reforms are rare.
The stamp duty bracket creep changes announced this week by the NSW State Government were heralded as the biggest overhaul to stamp duty in three decades.
That was true because for 32 years our state treasurers have simply taken billions in stamp duty, securing around $1 out of every $5 the state government receives as revenue.
I recall writing the median stamp duty would rise to $1500 after Premier Barry Unsworth's 1986 budget, as the Labor government increased stamp duty on properties sold for more than $300,000 and $1 million to the new rates of 4.5% and 5.5% respectively.
The typical Sydney buyer now pays $42,000 duty for their acquisition.
NSW residents currently pay almost $7 billion annually in taxes to shift home - some $134 million in St Leonards, $88 million in Waterloo; Kellyville buyers paid $119 million, some $109 million paid in Mosman; Riverstone $94 million and $86 million in Parramatta.
The tax reform will cost the state budget about $185 million in the three years after the changes slowly take effect from July 1 next year.
The announcement by NSW Treasurer Dominic Perrottet that the rate of increase in stamp duty will be reduced was a headline opportunity rather than leadership, being a very small step towards greater reform, rather than seriously addressing the cost of housing.
The government noted the changes will cut the average amount of stamp duty per property transaction by around $500 by 2021, but the savings will rise over time, presumably especially when inflation gets into a gallop again.
Stamp duty is levied on residential property purchases using price brackets and rates that rise from 1.25% under $30,000 to 5.02% over $3 million. The brackets have remained largely unchanged since 1986 despite the increase in Sydney property prices since then from $80,000 to its current near $1 million median dwelling price.
Stamp duty has become a tax regime that holds up housing turnover and impedes employment mobility. 
It is especially an issue as the tax discourages the ageing population nearing retirement from leaving large family homes occupied by only one or two people.
The announcement was noteworthy as NSW will be the first state to index stamp duty brackets to the CPI. 
It is a small signal recognising that reform is needed.
An audit, by former NSW treasury secretary Michael Lambert, described stamp duty as the most inefficient of NSW state taxes.
It recommended a ‘stamp duty replacement tax’ be phased in to replace all property transfer duties.
The proposed replacement tax would be based on land values rather than market values of properties and would be payable annually instead of when properties change hands. 
Treasurer Perrottet is open to further reform but emphasises any change would require the co-operation of the Commonwealth government and all the other states, given issues involving GST funds distribution.
The ACT government is phasing out stamp duty and replacing this with a land tax. 
The Australian Capital Territory has Australia’s most efficient tax base – every dollar of revenue raised costs the economy just 21.9 cents.
New South Wales has the least efficient – every dollar of revenue raised costs the economy 29.7 cents.
It's time for the Federal Treasurer and Prime Minister to take up the issue at Council of Australian Governments and bang heads, just as Peter Costello and John Howard did with the GST some two decades ago.
This article first appeared in The Daily Telegraph. 
</body></html>

jchancellor-FAypfDUnLy

NSW's stamp duty changes a good step, but further reform needed

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Getting aged care right is difficult. It involves staff training, qualifications and ratios, the entry of for-profit providers and ensuring access in regional areas – many of the issues highlighted in this year’s two-part Four Corners special.
A key challenge, from which must of the rest will flow, is increased funding.
Medicare – an Australian success story – provides one model.
Even the Medicare name works magic. The Medicare levy has been appropriated and boosted in order to brand and part-fund the National Disability Insurance Scheme.
We could do a Medicare
Medicare takes its features from both the public and the private sector. It is framed as an insurance levy, but unlike most insurance levies, it is linked to income. This means it reflects ability to pay rather than the likelihood of getting sick. As a result, it is affordable for everyone.
There have been many proposals to do something similar with aged care.
To date policymakers have instead opted for another common Australian funding model – combining user payments with a safety net of public funding for those without means or facing high costs.
The Productivity Commission has consistently plumped for this model over a more universal funding system, although there is little evidence that user fees are effective as a funding source.
So why not introduce an aged care levy on income?
But would that be right for aged care?
Oddly, the main argument against an income-based levy revolves around equity. Older people are income-poor but asset-rich. An income levy would set them back little even though they have been the primary beneficiaries of the enormous increase in house prices.
It would be paid instead by younger workers who are often facing insecure work, stagnant wages and expensive housing.
It’s a reasonable objection, and it drives much of the Productivity Commission’s thinking. The commission has focused instead on helping older people draw down their housing wealth to fund aged care payments.
But this too has problems. It can discourage preventive forms of care and it requires vulnerable people entering care to make complex financial decisions.
Tapping superannuation might be better
A third way, suggested by aged care expert Anna Howe, is to use superannuation.
After all, super is supposed to fund our post-work life, and aged care is a big part of that.
Despite more than $2.5 trillion being amassed in super, it does a poor job of providing either income security or security of care for older people. These responsibilities continue to fall on government.
Income within super is taxed unfairly
Super is also taxed very differently to other income. The rest of the income tax system is progressive, so those with higher incomes pay higher rates of tax. Income within super funds faces a flat tax.
For most people that matters little, but it creates enormous gains for those on very high incomes, which are made even bigger when they direct what extra income they can to super.
The flat tax on super earnings costs the budget A$23.25 billion per year. The Treasury says that’s set to climb to A$28.95 billion in 2020-21, a growth rate that dwarfs the projected growth in the cost of the pension.
Efforts to curb the cost to the budget of super tax concessions have largely focused on limiting how much extra cash we put into it.
But most of the cost comes from the income earned by money already in super.
Taxing it better could fund aged care
A Medicare-style insurance levy applied to the income earned by money within super would in principle be no different to the insurance premiums already taken from super accounts.
And it wouldn’t be paid by the young while they are young. Given that younger workers can’t access super until retirement, it would effectively be a levy on their future super wealth.
And because older people have larger super accounts than younger people earning more income to be taxed, the levy would fall far more heavily on baby boomers than younger generations.
And address gender equity
This approach would also address another important justice question – gender equity. Men have much more super than women.
That partly reflects the gender pay gap, but also the unpaid work gap, in which women typically spend more of their working lives than men out of paid work caring for family members.
Ironically, it is women who then rely more heavily on paid care in older age, largely because they outlive their partners. Women provide men’s care for free, but then pay for their own.
A levy on (mainly) men’s super would help even the books.
But the details would matter
A fair way to do it would be to apply the levy to super fund income only when it climbed to a threshold of (say) A$5,000 a year. That way it would protect small accounts while helping close the tax loophole enjoyed by those on the highest incomes.
All of us have an interest in properly funded aged care. More properly taxing super fund income would be one way to do it.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/103767/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;">
Ben Spies-Butcher, Senior Lecturer in Economy and Society, Department of Sociology, Macquarie University
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/two-birds-with-one-stone-how-better-taxing-super-could-fund-aged-care-103767" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

How better taxing super could fund aged care: Ben Spies-Butcher

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Might government benefits, and government employment, be a self sustaining machine – one in which those who benefit from government payments deliver the votes needed to ensure they continue?
It’s a proposition seriously put forward by researchers at the Centre for Independent Studies in a new paper entitled <a href="http://www.cis.org.au/publications/policy-papers/voting-for-a-living-a-shift-in-australian-%20politics-from-selling-policies-to-buying-votes/" target="_blank">Voting for a living: A shift in Australian politics from selling policies to buying votes?</a>
The paper argues “there are now so many beneficiaries of government largesse that they may constitute a political force strong enough to bias policy outcomes”.
It also says “when the number of public sector employees is added, there is a clear majority of voters benefiting more from government than they contribute.”
The authors reckon they’re on to something.
They use <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/6537.0" target="_blank">Australian Bureau of Statistics data</a> to conclude that “the emergence of a large segment of the population that may in a sense ‘vote for a living’ could help explain much that has gone awry with public policy”.
Amplifying their argument in a column in the <a href="https://www.afr.com/opinion/columnists/when-buying-votes-replaces-selling-policies-%2020180912-h15aan" target="_blank">Australian Financial Review</a>, they ask whether the government’s decision to abandon raising the pension age was “an example of what may happen in a democracy when an increasing majority of its voters receive net benefits from government […] while only a diminishing minority is left to pick up the net tax burden?”
A new idea it is not
The argument has been around for a while.
In August 2016, <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/drive/australias-new-divide,-the-taxed-and-%20taxed-not/7786370" target="_blank">then treasurer Scott Morrison</a> told us “more Australians are likely today to be net beneficiaries of the government than contributors – never paying more tax than they receive in government payments”.
He spoke of “a new divide”, between the taxed, and the taxed-nots.
The Heritage Foundation in the United States has argued there is a divide for a decade or more. And the argument goes back further, to the first half of the 19th Century and the American politician and political theorist <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.jstor.org/stable/40751557?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents">John C, Calhoun</a>.
But it is based on a misunderstanding.
In every system, everywhere, there’s zero net tax
The ABS stats do indeed show that close to half of the population <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/6537.0" target="_blank">receives more in cash benefits than it pays in income tax</a>.
If benefits in kind such as education and health care are included, and also indirect taxes such as the goods and services tax, the proportion climbs to 70-80%, at any point in time.
But it isn’t the same 70-80%, and it is unconnected to the size of government and the progressivity of the tax system.
To clear up some myths and misconceptions, the Tax and Transfer Policy Institute at the Crawford School at the ANU published <a href="https://taxpolicy.crawford.anu.edu.au/files/uploads/taxstudies_crawford_anu_edu_au/2016-%2011/zero_net_taxpayers_whiteford_nov_complete.pdf" target="_blank">a detailed policy brief</a> on the idea of “taxed-nots” in 2016.
Strikingly, it showed that a country’s share of “taxed-nots” was unrelated to its level of direct taxes and social security spending.
Australia’s 50% share of “taxed-nots” was similar to the share in the United States, and in New Zealand, and in Sweden – countries each of which have very different tax and spending systems.
The tax take has little to do with it
Korea and Denmark both had low shares of “taxed-nots”, at under 40%, but Denmark’s spending and tax was seven to eight times Korea’s.
The reason the share of “taxed-nots” has almost nothing to do with the level of spending or tax is that (as long as the budget is roughly balanced), by definition, the population on average has to pay zero net tax.
It makes no difference whether tax revenue is 46% of GDP as it is in Denmark or 26% of GDP as it is in Korea.
It is also not relevant how progressive the tax and social spending systems (that take less from low earners and give more to low earners) actually are.
Imagine a country in which everyone paid a flat poll tax, and the only spending was on goods with shared benefits, such as defence and public order.
In such a completely non-redistributive system, 100% of the population would be zero net taxpayers.
Zero net tax is hard to avoid
Far from being unusual or unsustainable, a situation in which a majority of taxpayers pay no net tax is close to unavoidable.
And the taxed and taxed-nots change places.
In Australia (as in all other high income countries) about 90% of households aged 65 or over receive more in public spending than they pay in tax. Most of them paid more tax than they received in public spending when they were younger.
The recent <a href="https://www.pc.gov.au/research/completed/rising-%20inequality" target="_blank">Productivity Commission inequality report</a> found more than one third of Australians spent at least one year in the richest 10% of the population between 2001 and 2016.
More than half of those who were in the richest 20% in 2001 where in the bottom half by 2016.
Today’s taxpayer is tomorrow’s taxed-not
Almost nobody stayed in the same income group for his or her entire working life.
Economic status changes when people finish study and get jobs, get promoted, lose jobs, raise families, marry, become sick, and become disabled or retire.
The concept of the “taxed-nots” or “net benefit recipients” sounds scientific, but isn’t a meaningful guide to anything very much.
This doesn’t mean we can’t work to improve our tax and spending systems.
But it does suggest if we want to improve them we need to be clear about how they work.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/103910/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;">
Peter Whiteford, Professor, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University
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/relax-the-divide-between-the-taxed-and-the-taxed-nots-isnt-new-and-doesnt-buy-elections-103910" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

The divide between the taxed and the ‘taxed-nots’ isn’t new and doesn’t buy elections

<html><body>
A large proportion of any cut in personal income tax - especially if the cuts were skewed towards lower and middle-income households with a higher propensity to spend - would likely provide a greater direct stimulus to the Australian economy than an equivalent cut in company tax.
Cutting personal income taxes seems likely to provide much more of a boost to the Australian economy than cutting company income tax. <a href="https://treasury.gov.au/publication/analysis-of-the-long-term-effects-of-a-company-tax-cut/" target="_blank">As the government’s own published modelling</a> shows, the benefits of its proposed cuts to the company income tax rate are small relative to their cost.
<h2>Do we need income tax cuts to provide relief from financial hardship?</h2>
<blockquote>
The treasurer and I have been working on how we can provide more tax relief for hard-working middle income Australian families.
</blockquote>
- Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull
Over the last five years, <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/5206.0Main+Features1Dec%202017?OpenDocument" target="_blank">household spending has grown</a> by just 2.6% per annum in real terms, on average - of which more than half has been the result of population growth - compared with an average of 3.6% per annum over the preceding 12 years. Even with that lower growth rate in their spending, households have reduced their saving rate, from around 7% of disposable income five years ago to around 2.5% in 2017. That’s the lowest saving rate since before the financial crisis.
The key reason for this “squeeze” on household spending and saving is of course the ongoing weakness in the growth rate of household disposable income. Over the past five years, real per capita household disposable income has grown at an average annual rate of just 0.4%, compared with an average of 2.6% per annum over the preceding 12 years.
One reason for this is that Australian households have been paying an increasing proportion of their income in taxes. In the years prior to the onset of the financial crisis, almost every budget included personal income tax cuts in some form or other.
By contrast, there have been no changes to Australia’s <a href="https://www.ato.gov.au/Rates/Individual-income-tax-rates/" target="_blank">personal income tax scale</a> since 2008 - apart from the increase in the tax-free threshold (paid for by an increase in the bottom rate) in 2012, the temporary surcharge on top-rate taxpayers which applied between 2014-15 and 2016-17, and the increase in the threshold for the second-top rate (from A$80,000 to A$87,000) which took effect in the 2016-17 financial year.
As a result, in 2017, Australian households in aggregate paid 19.5% of their taxable incomes in income and other direct taxes - the highest proportion since 2005, and continuing a steady rise since 2011.
Households are also spending almost two and a quarter percentage points more of their after-tax disposable incomes on education, health, insurance and other financial services, and utilities than they did five years ago.
Given all this, it’s little wonder that household spending in more “discretionary” areas has been so weak in recent years.
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/okPTL/1/" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" width="100%" height="440"></iframe>
Well-targeted personal income tax cuts could thus help to ameliorate this multi-faceted “squeeze” on household incomes, and provide a direct boost to the economy.
<h2>Do we need income tax cuts to make up for the fact that we haven’t had a pay rise in a while?</h2>
<blockquote>
It’s been a long time since any Australians had a decent pay rise…this is a real pressure on Australians…we can give them some relief when it comes to their personal income tax.
</blockquote>
- Treasurer Scott Morrison
The other major reason for the very slow growth in real household disposable income over the past few years has been the unprecedented slowdown in wages growth. <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/6345.0Main+Features1Dec%202017?OpenDocument">Wages have risen</a> at an average annual rate of just 2.2% over the past five years (only 0.3 of a percentage point above the inflation rate), down from 3.7% per annum over the preceding 12 years.
Although, as RBA Governor Phillip Lowe noted in <a href="http://www.rba.gov.au/speeches/2018/sp-gov-2018-04-11" target="_blank">a speech</a> that “the latest data suggest that the rate of wages growth has now troughed”, he went on to warn that the pickup which the RBA expects “is likely to be only gradual”.
Recent experience in other advanced economies clearly suggests that the unemployment rate needs to be lower for longer than in previous business cycles before wages growth starts to pick up. So even assuming that Governor Lowe is right, it may be one or two years before Australian households can expect any meaningful improvement in their financial position from faster growth in their wages or salaries.
Well targeted personal income tax cuts could help provide at least some offset to this likely continuing stagnation in wages growth over the next year or so.
<h2>What’s the verdict?</h2>
Targeted personal income tax cuts could reduce the squeeze on households and make up for persistent low wages.
Of course, it remains crucial that any cuts in personal income tax be sustainable - that is, that they are not funded by bigger deficits, and do not materially detract from the task of putting the nation’s public finances on a sounder footing. This is so we are better placed to withstand any unforeseen economic shocks.
And it’s important to remember that government spending has moved to what appears to be a permanently higher level as a proportion of GDP since the financial crisis. The government’s underlying cash payments averaged 25% of GDP from 2011-12 through 2017-18, up from 24% from 2001-02 through 2007-08. That also represents a constraint on the scope for tax cuts.
However, the apparently greater improvement in the budget <a href="https://www.finance.gov.au/sites/default/files/feb-mfs-2018.pdf" target="_blank">so far this financial year</a>, compared with what was forecast as recently as last December’s Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook, could give the government a little more latitude for financially sustainable personal income tax cuts in the upcoming budget.
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/94500/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">Perhaps the most sustainable way of providing the “relief” which the treasurer says many Australian households need, would be to abandon the tax cut for companies turning over more than A$50 million a year. The government hasn’t been able to get these through the Senate. These cuts would do far less to boost the Australian economy than well-targeted personal income tax cuts of a similar order of magnitude.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/saul-eslake-665" target="_blank">Saul Eslake</a>, Vice-Chancellor’s Fellow, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-tasmania-888" target="_blank">University of Tasmania</a>
This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/budget-policy-check-does-australia-need-personal-income-tax-cuts-94500" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Does Australia need personal income tax cuts? Saul Eslake

<html><body>
The consequences of limiting the tax deductibility of negatively geared residential properties would impact any expected tax savings, according to a new report from BIS Shrapnel.
BIS Shrapnel's report, Economic Impact of Limiting the Tax Deductibility of Negatively Geared Residential Investment Properties, said changes to the current negative gearing setup would go well beyond any saving of the income tax concession, to a multitude of unintended consequences.
It added limiting the tax deductibility of negatively geared residential investment properties would have consequences that go well beyond any tax saving to the Federal budget and suggested new home building will shrink by around 4% nationally, or 7,200 dwellings a year and GDP would shrink by around $19 billion per annum on average, or 1 percent of Australia’s $190 trillion annual income.
The report suggested:
•  Rents will rise by up to 10% ($2,600) per annum
•  New home building will shrink by around 4% nationally, or 7,200 dwellings a year
•  GDP would shrink by around $19 billion per annum on average, equating to some 1% of Australia’s $190 billion annual income
•  175,000 fewer jobs would be created over the next 10 years, resulting in the unemployment rate rising from 5.8% to 5.9%
•  Government revenue across a range of taxes would shrink by $1.65 billion per annum
•  70,000 extra households would be pushed into housing rental stress
•  If the government were to compensate these stressed households, it would require an additional subsidy outlay of $650 million per annum.
"Government revenue across a range of taxes would shrink by $1.65 billion per annum... 70,000 extra households would be pushed into housing rental stress," it noted.
"If the government were to compensate these stressed households, it would require an additional subsidy outlay of $650 million per annum. In other words, the impact would go well beyond any saving of the income tax concession, to a multitude of unintended consequences. 
"The Federal government will save $2.1 billion per annum as fewer individuals deduct losses from property, but will incur an income tax loss from lower home building of $1.8 billion. Stamp duty revenue will fall by around $1.1 billion per annum; GST collections will drop by $0.2 billion a year. 
"Altogether, total tax revenue is likely to fall by $1.65 billion per year... at the end of a 10-year horizon the market would find a new normal, but the legacy will be a ‘lost decade’. Rents will sit 2-10% higher depending on the city."
Estimated price of units in 2026
<div class="moveable_w" data-element-id="table_25816751" data-object-id="0c8633ff-c21a-44c3-9f3f-b17f64e66ffd" data-object-type="chart">
<div id="table_25816751" class="moveable chart ig-theme-group-chart">
<div class="igc-chart inner">
<div class="igc-table-container">
<table id="Chart_25816751" class="igc-table igc-table-align-center __visible tablesorter tablesorter-default">
<thead><tr class="tablesorter-headerRow">
<th class="igc-table-header igc-hidden-cell igc-table-fixed-column tablesorter-header tablesorter-headerUnSorted" scope="col" data-column="0">
<div class="tablesorter-header-inner"> </div>
</th>
<th class="igc-table-header tablesorter-header tablesorter-headerUnSorted" scope="col" data-column="1">
<div class="tablesorter-header-inner">Full negative gearing</div>
</th>
<th class="igc-table-header tablesorter-header tablesorter-headerUnSorted" scope="col" data-column="2">
<div class="tablesorter-header-inner">Limited negative gearing</div>
</th>
<th class="igc-table-header tablesorter-header tablesorter-headerUnSorted" scope="col" data-column="3">
<div class="tablesorter-header-inner">Difference</div>
</th>
</tr></thead>
<tbody class="igc-table-body">
<tr>
<th class="igc-table-header igc-table-header-left igc-table-fixed-column">Sydney</th>
<td class="igc-table-cell">873,000</td>
<td class="igc-table-cell">820,000</td>
<td class="igc-table-cell">-6.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th class="igc-table-header igc-table-header-left igc-table-fixed-column">Melbourne</th>
<td class="igc-table-cell">602,000</td>
<td class="igc-table-cell">585,000</td>
<td class="igc-table-cell">-2.9%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th class="igc-table-header igc-table-header-left igc-table-fixed-column">Brisbane</th>
<td class="igc-table-cell">590,000</td>
<td class="igc-table-cell">565,000</td>
<td class="igc-table-cell">-4.2%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th class="igc-table-header igc-table-header-left igc-table-fixed-column">Adelaide</th>
<td class="igc-table-cell">425,000</td>
<td class="igc-table-cell">420,000</td>
<td class="igc-table-cell">-1.2%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th class="igc-table-header igc-table-header-left igc-table-fixed-column">Perth</th>
<td class="igc-table-cell">590,000</td>
<td class="igc-table-cell">580,000</td>
<td class="igc-table-cell">-1.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th class="igc-table-header igc-table-header-left igc-table-fixed-column">Canberra</th>
<td class="igc-table-cell">540,000</td>
<td class="igc-table-cell">535,000</td>
<td class="igc-table-cell">-1.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th class="igc-table-header igc-table-header-left igc-table-fixed-column">Hobart</th>
<td class="igc-table-cell">358,000</td>
<td class="igc-table-cell">350,000</td>
<td class="igc-table-cell">-2.4%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="moveable_w" data-element-id="particle_11401cc9-cac0-4b5a-a43f-5d28d864c4ed" data-object-id="11401cc9-cac0-4b5a-a43f-5d28d864c4ed" data-object-type="particle">
<div id="particle_11401cc9-cac0-4b5a-a43f-5d28d864c4ed" class="moveable particle body-text ig-theme-group-text">
<div class="bodytext">
<div class="innertext" data-placeholder="">Source: BIS Shrapnel</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
 
Estimated unit rent in 2026
<div class="moveable_w" data-element-id="table_25816227" data-object-id="28dd2e96-a8be-4ac3-b9c6-52489593236d" data-object-type="chart">
<div id="table_25816227" class="moveable chart ig-theme-group-chart">
<div class="igc-chart inner">
<div class="igc-table-container">
<table id="Chart_25816227" class="igc-table igc-table-align-center __visible tablesorter tablesorter-default">
<thead><tr class="tablesorter-headerRow">
<th class="igc-table-header igc-hidden-cell igc-table-fixed-column tablesorter-header tablesorter-headerUnSorted" scope="col" data-column="0">
<div class="tablesorter-header-inner"> </div>
</th>
<th class="igc-table-header tablesorter-header tablesorter-headerUnSorted" scope="col" data-column="1">
<div class="tablesorter-header-inner">Full negative gearing</div>
</th>
<th class="igc-table-header tablesorter-header tablesorter-headerUnSorted" scope="col" data-column="2">
<div class="tablesorter-header-inner">Limited negative gearing</div>
</th>
<th class="igc-table-header tablesorter-header tablesorter-headerUnSorted" scope="col" data-column="3">
<div class="tablesorter-header-inner">Difference</div>
</th>
</tr></thead>
<tbody class="igc-table-body">
<tr>
<th class="igc-table-header igc-table-header-left igc-table-fixed-column">Sydney</th>
<td class="igc-table-cell">$695</td>
<td class="igc-table-cell">$735</td>
<td class="igc-table-cell">5.8%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th class="igc-table-header igc-table-header-left igc-table-fixed-column">Melbourne</th>
<td class="igc-table-cell">$470</td>
<td class="igc-table-cell">$515</td>
<td class="igc-table-cell">9.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th class="igc-table-header igc-table-header-left igc-table-fixed-column">Brisbane</th>
<td class="igc-table-cell">$490</td>
<td class="igc-table-cell">$515</td>
<td class="igc-table-cell">5.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th class="igc-table-header igc-table-header-left igc-table-fixed-column">Adelaide</th>
<td class="igc-table-cell">$350</td>
<td class="igc-table-cell">$385</td>
<td class="igc-table-cell">10.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th class="igc-table-header igc-table-header-left igc-table-fixed-column">Perth</th>
<td class="igc-table-cell">$535</td>
<td class="igc-table-cell">$565</td>
<td class="igc-table-cell">5.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th class="igc-table-header igc-table-header-left igc-table-fixed-column">Canberra</th>
<td class="igc-table-cell">$475</td>
<td class="igc-table-cell">$505</td>
<td class="igc-table-cell">6.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th class="igc-table-header igc-table-header-left igc-table-fixed-column">Hobart</th>
<td class="igc-table-cell">$350</td>
<td class="igc-table-cell">$365</td>
<td class="igc-table-cell">4.3%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="moveable_w" data-element-id="particle_2eb94838-97b6-4079-8284-9f18b2bb0664" data-object-id="2eb94838-97b6-4079-8284-9f18b2bb0664" data-object-type="particle">
<div id="particle_2eb94838-97b6-4079-8284-9f18b2bb0664" class="moveable particle body-text ig-theme-group-text">
<div class="bodytext">
<div class="innertext" data-placeholder="">Source: BIS Shrapnel</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body></html>

po-LsXgBTHBmX

Negative gearing reform could lead to lost decade: BIS Shrapnel

<html><body>
Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has sought and been given advice from former Prime Minister John Howard on tax reform.
The former prime minister warned the Coalition to be careful about making any changes to negative gearing.
Mr Howard told Sky News negative gearing had been around "forever" and the Coalition should be careful about making any changes.
"There are a lot of modest-income people who accumulate some money and then negatively gear a property, particularly [those] who don't want to invest in the share market," Mr Howard said.
Mr Turnbull said he had been discussing the issue with Mr Howard.
"Look, it's very important to treat any changes to the tax system very carefully, indeed I had a long chat with John about negative gearing and other aspects of tax only yesterday, in fact — a long chat," he said.
The Prime Minister said Mr Howard had been "a great source of advice".
"The last time the abolition of negative gearing was tried by the Labor Party ... it was quickly reversed because of its negative impact on the housing and in particular the rental market," he said.
"Howard's advice [to] look at these things carefully — absolutely, that's exactly what I'm doing."
Some Coalition backbenchers worry any changes will expose the Government, given the Prime Minister's criticism of Labor's negative gearing plan.
The Government will unveil its tax package in the lead-up to the next budget.
</body></html>

Tax Reform

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Tax Reform

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News