Mr Abbott embraces big government

Wed, 14 May 2014  |  

Mr Hockey's first budget allows me to update my 'size of government' comparison, which I first published on 1 May 2014. It is reproduced in full, below.

For the sake of simplicity, the size of government is calculated by adding revenue and spending as a share of GDP, to see what sort of footprint any particular government has in the economy.

It is early days for the Abbott government, to be sure, but the budget shows that the size of his government will be 49.1 per cent of GDP, calculated on the period from 2014-15 to 2017-18.

This is a smidge below the Howard government (49.2 per cent) and the Hawke / Keating government (49.6 per cent), but is significantly larger than the Rudd/Gillard government (47.4 per cent).

In other words, the Abbott government looks like reverting a high spending / high tax government and unwinding the smaller footprint left by the previous government. The revenue from Medicare copayments, the petrol excise rise, the income tax hike, the levy on big business add to the tax take, but the fact they are recycled to at least part fund the paid parental leave scheme, roads, a medical research centre all add to government spending.

Unless something changes in the years ahead, the Abbott government looks like being a big government.

I'll leave it to readers to judge whether it is a good or a bad thing.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Article from 1 May 2014

One of the lame brain fact free and unchallenged assertions doing the rounds recently and one which forms the basis of the Commission of Audit report, is that the spending cuts and other policy changes needed are because the government is getting too big.

While it is open to debate on how best to measure the 'size of government', one way is to look at the sum of Commonwealth revenue and spending as a share of GDP. This means that the more the government raises in tax and then recycles into the economy via spending, the bigger the footprint of government on the economy, and vice versa.

Makes sense?

A quick look at the size of government, on this measure, reveals some startling facts. I repeat facts based on data in Mr Hockey's Mid Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook document.
Under the Rudd and Gillard governments, the average size of government was 47.4% of GDP.

The Howard government size of government was 49.2% of GDP.

What do you know! The Labor government was 1.8% of GDP smaller than the Coalition under Howard. That's $30 billion per annum in today's dollar terms.

The Hawke / Keating government accounted for 49.6% of GDP on average per year.

Under the Fraser government, the size of government was 47.2% of GDP.

All of which means the size of government has been shrinking in recent years and is back to the level of the 1970s. Is that still too big? I doubt it. It is where the revenue is raised and where that precious money is spent that matters. And this is where the political cauldren boils over on the carbon price, mining tax, paid parental leave and the whole hotch potch of measures in every budget.

Does anyone else have a better way of measuring "size of government'? Let me know.

comments powered by Disqus

THE LATEST FROM THE KOUK

Why Australians have lost $300 Billion this year

Mon, 22 Oct 2018

This article first appeared on the Yahoo 7 website at this link: https://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/3665708-004156966.html 

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

Why Australians have lost $300 Billion this year

The total wealth of Australians has dropped by close to $300 billion since the start of 2018.

How much of that is yours?

The fall in house prices and now the slump in the stock market is undermining the wealth of Australian householders.

This is an important trend given the solid link between the change in wealth and household spending. Numerous studies show that when wealth increases, growth in household spending is faster than it would otherwise be. It appears that householders view their extra wealth in a manner that sees them lower their other savings or use that wealth as collateral for additional borrowing fund extra consumption. They may even ‘cash in’ their extra wealth and use those gains to fund additional spending.

When they observe falling wealth, experience weak wages growth and realise their savings rates are perilously low, they will adjust their spending – down.

Labor almost home, not quite hosed

Mon, 22 Oct 2018

The extraordinary vote in the Wentworth by election, with the 18 or 19 per cent swing against the Liberal Party, presents further evidence that the Morrison government is set to lose the next general election.

There is nothing particularly new in this with the major nation-wide polls showing the Liberal Party a hefty 6 to 10 points behind Labor.

The election is unlikely to be held before May 2019, which is a long 7 months away. A lot can happen in that time but for the Liberal Party to get competitive, but for this to happen there needs to be a run of extraordinary developments.

In the aftermath of the Wentworth by election, the betting markets saw Labor’s odds shorten.

While the odds vary from betting agency to betting agency, the best available odds at the time of writing was $1.25 for Labor and $4.00 for the Coalition.

If, as most now seem to suggest, Labor is ‘across the line’, $1.25 is a great 25 per cent, tax free return for 7 months ‘investment’. Yet, punters are not quite so sure and seem to be holding off the big bets just in case something out of the ordinary happens.

While some segments of the economy look quite good, at least on face value – note the unemployment rate and GDP – others that probably matter more to voters – husong, share prices, wages and other high-frewquency cost of living issues are all looking rather parlous. And none of these are likely to change soon.

There is an old saying for punters – odds on, look on. But $1.25 for Labor seem great value.