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

Will falling house prices trigger the next Aussie recession?

Tue, 17 Jul 2018

This article first appeared on the Yahoo 7 website at this link: https://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/will-falling-house-prices-trigger-next-aussie-recession-000039851.html

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

 Will falling house prices trigger the next Aussie recession?

House prices are falling, auction clearance rates continue to drop and there is a such sharp lift in the number of properties for sale that, for the moment, no one is willing to buy at the given asking price.

Potential house buyers who have held off taking the plunge in the hope of falling prices seem to be staying away, perhaps hoping for further price falls. But also influential factors forcing buyers away is the extra difficulty getting loans approved as banks tighten credit standards, then there are concerns about job security and associated awareness of probable cash flow difficulties given the weakness in wages growth. It is remarkably obvious that house prices will continue to fall and this poses a range of risks to the economy.

Research from a range of analysts, including at the Reserve Bank of Australia, show a direct link between changes in housing wealth and consumer spending. This means that when wealth is increasing on the back of rising house prices, consumer spending is stronger.

This was evident in Sydney and Melbourne, in particular, when house prices in those two cities were booming in the two or three years up to the middle to latter part of 2017. Retail spending was also strong. Looking at the downside, in Perth where house prices have fallen by more than 10 per cent since early 2015, consumer spending has been particularly weak.

Punters point to by-election troubles for Labor

Mon, 16 Jul 2018

 

If the flow of punter’s money is any guide, Labor are in for a very rough time on Sublime-Saturday on 28 July when there are five by-elections around Australia.

In the three seats where the results are not a forgone conclusion, the flow of money on Liberal candidates over the last few days has been very strong.

The Liberal Party are now favourites to win Braddon and Longman and in Mayo, Liberal candidate Georgina Downer has firmed from $4.20 into $2.75.

If the punters are right, Sublime-Saturday would see Labor lose Braddon and Longman and could see Liberal’s sneak back in Mayo.

If so, it would be odds on that Prime Minister Turnbull would go to the polls as soon as possible, not only to take advantage of the by-election fallout, but, from a different angle, go before the housing market and the economy really hit the wall, probably in late 2018 or 2019.

BRADDON

Liberals $1.70 (was $2.25)
Labor $2.05 (was $1.65)

MAYO

Liberals $2.75 (was $4.20)
Centre Alliance $1.35 (was $1.15)

LONGMAN

Liberals $1.50 (was $2.00)
Labor $2.50 (was $1.85)