Election Facts: Which side taxes the most?

Election Facts: Which side taxes the most?

Sat, 16 Apr 2016 | Stephen Koukoulas

It’s time to bring some facts into the tax debate. With the budget a couple of weeks away, the government seems hell bent on framing the budget around “lower taxes” and suggest that the Labor Party is all about “higher taxes”.

There is a problem with this claim – it is wrong. False. Incorrect. Erroneous.

If the budget on 3 May is to cut taxes back to the level under the low point in the previous government, that is 20.0 per cent of GDP in 2010-11, it will have to reduce the tax take forecast in MYEFO for 2018-19 to a massive 3.1 per cent of GDP or around $50 billion per year in today’s dollar terms!

I will walk from Parliament House in Canberra to Parliament House in Sydney if the Budget cuts the tax take to this level, ie 20.0% of GDP, carrying a satchel of 2016-17 budget papers on my back.

And the claim opens another fabrication on tax: Which side, over history, has the record on the highest and lowest tax to GDP ratios.

Hold on to your hats, because the facts are frankly, amazing.

Here are the Top 10 years of tax to GDP ratios since 1980-81and the government in power at the time:

2004-05 24.3% Liberal
2000-01 24.2% Liberal
2005-06 24.2% Liberal
2002-03 24.0% Liberal
2003-04 24.0% Liberal
2006-07 23.7% Liberal
2007-08 23.7% Liberal
1986-87 23.3% Labor
1987-88 23.2% Labor
2001-02 23.2% Liberal

(Note: The Turnbull government gets an award for the next highest with the projected tax to GDP ratio of 23.1% in 2018-19).

Even more extraordinary are the facts of the 10 lowest tax to GDP ratios since 1980-81. All 10 are under Labor governments. All 10.

Here they are:

1992-93 20.0% Labor
1993-94 20.0% Labor
2010-11 20.0% Labor
2009-10 20.2% Labor
1991-92 20.7% Labor
2011-12 20.9% Labor
1983-84 21.0% Labor
1994-95 21.2% Labor
2012-13 21.5% Labor
2013-14 21.5% Labor

And the source for these numbers are the MYEFO released by Treasurer Morrison and Finance Minister Cormann in December 2015: https://www.budget.gov.au/2015-16/content/myefo/html/index.htm

More in this category: « What surging commodity prices mean for the Aussie economy Election Facts: Government debt »

comments powered by Disqus

THE LATEST FROM THE KOUK

“Bitterly disappointing”: We are seeing a once in a generation policy failure

Thu, 12 Sep 2019

This article first appeared on the Yahoo Finance website at this link: https://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/rba-interest-rates-government-can-stimulate-economy-but-wont-210050650.html

---------------------------------------

“Bitterly disappointing”: We are seeing a once in a generation policy failure

Imagine having the power to promote economic growth, lower the unemployment rate and set in train the conditions to boost real wages growth and inflation?

It would be immensely satisfying to change policies to improve the living standards and quality of life for every day, hard-working Australians and their families.

Wouldn’t it?

Next imagine a harsh reality where economic growth is weak and slowing, the unemployment rate is rising and wages growth and inflation well below a satisfactory level, and you choose not to wield the power reverse these uncomfortable circumstances?

Doing nothing, unwilling to pump some much needed cash into the economy because of a political dogma wedded to a notion that budget surpluses are good and that holding interest rates unnecessarily high so you might dampen demand for houses – which is seen as a problem - and household debt overwhelms your power to make things better.

Be the first to comment!

The RBA admits it stuffed things up – sort of

Mon, 22 Jul 2019

This article first appeared on the Yahoo website at this link: https://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/did-the-rb-as-monetary-policy-put-our-economy-at-risk-033940907.html

---------------------------------------------

The RBA admits it stuffed things up – sort of

The Reserve Bank of Australia needs to be congratulated for publishing research which implicitly confirms that it made a mistake when setting monetary policy in the period mid-2017 to early 2019.

Not that the research explicitly says that, but the RBA Discussion Paper, Cost-benefit Analysis of Leaning Against the Wind, written by Trent Saunders and Peter Tulip, makes the powerful conclusion that by keeping monetary policy tighter in order to “lean against” the risk of a financial crisis, there was a cost to the economy that is three to eight times larger than the benefit of minimising the risk of such a crisis eventuating.

The costs to the economy includes lower GDP growth and higher unemployment, that lasts for at least for several years.

A few terms first.

According to the Saunders/Tulip research, “leaning against the wind”, a term widely used in central banking, is “the policy of setting interest rates higher than a narrow interpretation of a central bank’s macroeconomic objectives would warrant due to concerns about financial instability”. In the RBA’s case, the “narrow interpretation” of the RBA’s objectives are the 2 to 3 per cent inflation target and full employment.

In the context of the period since 2017 and despite the RBA consistently undershooting its inflation target and with labour underutilisation significantly above the level consistent with full employment, the RBA steadfastly refused to ease monetary policy (cut official interest rates) because it considered higher interest rate settings were appropriate to “lean against” house price growth and elevated levels of household debt.

Be the first to comment!