Mr Hockey's plans for $1.6 trillion of government debt

Sun, 29 Mar 2015  |  

The Abbott government has no intention of ever repaying government debt. None. It has, quite quietly, announced that it plans to keep borrowing so that government debt remains at 13 per cent of GDP right out to at least 2054-55 which means government debt will be $1.6 trillion. Yes $1.6 trillion of government debt.

The decision to keep government debt at this level was buried in the recent Intergenerational Report. The IGR announced that the Abbott government intends to keep borrowing for at least the next 40 years and therefore maintain government debt "at a level equivalent to 13 per cent of GDP... where it will remain over the projection period [to 2054-55]" (See page 83 of the IGR).

Based on the assumption that Australia's GDP will be around $12.5 trillion in 2054-55, at 13 per cent of GDP, the Abbott government is aiming to have government debt at over $1.6 trillion by 2054-55. It currently is around $365 billion. (This is the level of GDP is implied in the IGR based on the assumption of nominal GDP growth of 5.25 per cent per annum.)

Whatever happened to the promise to cut or eliminate government debt?

Mr Abbott and Mr Hockey reckoned the previous Labor government left a "debt time bomb" with its assertion that government debt was on track to "rise to $667 billion". The $1.6 trillion it is now specifically aiming for swamps that. Mr Abbott described debt "skyrocketing towards $667 billion" and the government was "paying out too much dead money on interest alone".

On an interest rate assumption of 5 per cent, the government will be paying $80 billion a year of "dead money" on interest in 2054-55. That will be over $6.5 billion a month, up from around $1 billion a month at the moment.

Treasurer Hockey has said that the trajectory of government debt under Labor was "like someone with a credit card who is out of control". Mr Hockey even claimed, just two years ago, that "We are ready to pay back the debt".

Well that plan to pay off debt is no longer in the mix, it seems.

Coalition members commonly suggest that Australia's fiscal position risks becoming like Greece or other such melodrama. PM Abbott made that claim just last week.

Of course, all of these references are to gross government debt, including those from Mr Abbott and Mr Hockey.

The reason for keeping government debt is something I have written about ad nauseam for years (one example here: https://thekouk.com/blog/why-government-debt-must-grow-forever.html#.VRdBPYv5moM) – government debt is an essential element of financial markets, it provides a so-called risk free yield curve as a benchmark for pricing State government and private sector debt. Government debt is needed to underpin the futures market and to provide a source of capital for the banks as they move towards meeting their Basel III obligations. It is an essential element of any good fiscal management.

The issue here is the hypocrisy of Mr Abbott and Mr Hockey with their deceitful use of government debt to make political points. It will be interesting indeed to see how they deal with questions relating to their new-found appetite for government debt and their plan to increase government debt to $1.6 trillion in 2054-55.

comments powered by Disqus

THE LATEST FROM THE KOUK

House prices: Karratha and Sydney - why the divergence

Wed, 22 Feb 2017

This article first appeared on the Yahoo 7 Finance website at this link: https://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/a-jump-in-demand-to-do-something-about-the-supply-of-houses-034305361.html

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

House prices:  Karratha and Sydney - why the divergence

The thousands of students heading off to university this month to start their economics degrees can do so knowing that the basic laws of the discipline still hold. “Yay” – they might say as they sit down to their first Economics 1001 lecture.

Supply and demand is king.

Shortages, gluts, price booms and crashes reflect the supply and demand dynamics. These are the most basic concepts in the study of economics and they apply to the real world.
These basic economic laws apply to the Australian housing market which is going through extraordinary turmoil with prices booming in some areas and crashing in others.

It is not just housing where economy theory turns into reality. In looking at the market for bananas, widgets, fine art or concert tickets, the interaction of supply and demand will always determine the price of those items. But let’s look at housing and think of the following issues and questions.

Based on detailed data from SQM Research, why is it that since 2012, house prices in Karratha Western Australia have fallen by around 65 per cent, while in the lower North Shore of Sydney, house prices have risen by around 120 per cent?

Balanced budget needs higher tax take, but which taxes should be hiked?

Mon, 20 Feb 2017

This article first appeared on the Guardian website sat this link: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/16/balanced-budget-needs-higher-tax-take-but-which-taxes-should-be-hiked-stephen-koukoulas 

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

Balanced budget needs higher tax take, but which taxes should be hiked?

The treasurer, Scott Morrison, appears to be having something of a Gough Whitlam moment. Not in terms of far-reaching social and economic reform, but rather a realisation that the size of government needs to increase. The electorate is demanding a certain base level of healthcare, education, disability care, roads, defence, infrastructure and all manner of goods and services.

Morrison is talking about the need to raise taxes to ensure these government services are provided while simultaneously moving the budget towards surplus, which is an essential element to avoiding the credit rating downgrade that appears to be just around the corner.

He is explicitly acknowledging that, to keep voters happy with decent services, spending must remain above 25% of GDP and perhaps needs to rise further, towards record highs.

Prior to the Whitlam government in the early 1970s, government spending and revenue was generally at, or a little below, 20% of GDP. With the Whitlam reforms, this rose to about 25%, and apart from the swings in line with the business cycle and policy changes over the past 40 years, it has remained around 25%. It has not reverted to pre-Whitlam levels. Not gone close.