Would proposed income tax cuts benefit you?

Mon, 25 Jun 2018  |  

This article first appeared on the Yahoo7 Finance website at this link: https://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/proposed-income-tax-cuts-benefit-230812222.html 

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

Would proposed income tax cuts benefit you?

Cuts in income taxes are a hot political issue at the moment, with the government trying to get its seven-year plan for lower income taxes through the Senate.

Whether those tax cuts are affordable in the current era of budget deficits and rising government debt is an important issue. Many economists reckon the budget should be in healthy surplus before the government sprays tax cuts around the community. This seems a sensible take, given the risks unfolding for the economy as house prices fall, wages growth hovers near record lows and the global economy starts to cool. If these issues bite the Australian economy, the return to budget surplus will be pushed back a further few years not least because of tax cuts that should not have been delivered.

There is also the vital issue of whether there are higher priorities for the $144 billion the government is planning to forgo to fund the lower tax scales. This issue is where the political debate is also gaining heat with Labor reckoning the money would be better allocated to health, education and funding the ABC.

There is another issue, which unfortunately gets too little attention, and that is if we are to proceed with income tax cuts over the next few years, who should get them?

This is important given the current economic picture of dismally weak wages growth and rising inequality within the Australian community. It is also important given the growing income and wealth inequality which has seen the financial well-being of low and middle income earners fall relative to high and very high income earners. Suffice to say, to the extent that there will be tax cuts, the discussion needs to ensure that the bulk of the benefit from a lower tax take be directed to low income earners.

There are several reasons for this, not least because it is fair.

Importantly, and in the context of trying to kick start the rate of economic growth, tax cuts to low income earners have a more powerful effect on consumer spending than if the tax cuts are skewed to high income earners. This is because those on lower incomes have a higher propensity to consume (spend) than those on very high incomes.

By way of illustration, this ‘propensity to consume’ means that someone on, say $50,000 a year who gets an extra $500 from lower income taxes is likely to spend almost all of that extra money. The extra take home income will boost consumer spending and with that, the overall rate of growth in the economy will increase.

If, conversely, the $500 a year income tax cut is directed at someone on, say $200,000, there will be less of that extra $500 add to spending and there will be a less powerful impact on bottom line economic growth. This is because high income earners save a larger share of their income as their income rises.

If one of the aims of income tax cuts is to generate additional economic growth which will lift the business sector, lower unemployment and reflate a deflated economy, any income tax cuts should be skewed towards low income earners.
This is good economics and good social policy.
A simple increase in the tax free threshold, for example, and in the income level at which the 19 per cent threshold kicks in would have a more powerful effect on economic growth than tinkering with the tax scales for those earning $90,000 or $180,000 a year.

Alas, this is not the focus of the current tax plan of the government.  Which is why the tax cuts are not only risking the return to budget surplus, but they will do little to boost growth. Worst still, there will add to inequality at a time when more progressive policies are needed.

comments powered by Disqus

THE LATEST FROM THE KOUK

The houe price bet is on! Tony Locantro takes the offer

Fri, 21 Sep 2018

While Martin North from DFA rejected my generous offer to have a wager based on his call for a 40 to 45 per cent fall in house prices, Tony Locantro, an Investment Manager with Alto Capital in Perth has decided to take up the offer on the same terms that I offered Mr North.

Specifically, we are wagering $15,000 to $2,500 that Sydney or Melbourne or national wide house prices will or will not fall by more than 35 per cent from their peak at any stage before and up to the December quarter 2021.

The measure will be based on the Australian Bureau of Statistics Residential Property Price Indexes, Eight Capital Cities, Catalogue No. 6416.0.

This means that if, at any stage the price index for any of Sydney, Melbourne or the aggregate eight capital cities prices is down 35.0 per cent or more, I will give Tony $15,000 cash. Conversely, if by the time the December quarter 2021 data are published and the peak to trough decline is 34.9 per cent or less in Sydney, Melbourne or the eight capital cities, Tony has to give me $2,500.

Who knows, it might be the start of a wonderful friendship. We have added a nice informal touch – when the cash is handed over, the winner will buy a dinner with a nice bottle of red to console the loser.

I will be providing regular updates as the numbers roll out.

Trump boosts US stocks with borrowed government money

Thu, 20 Sep 2018

This article first appeared on the Yahoo 7 Finance website at this link: https://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-boosts-us-stocks-borrowed-government-money-011637215.html 

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

Trump boosts US stocks with BORROWED government money

US stock prices continue to trade at near record highs and a lot of the recent rise has a lot to do with the policies of President Donald Trump.

The surge in the Dow Jones Industrial Average has been phenomenal. Since the November 2016 Presidential election, the Dow Jones is up around 50 per cent despite a few hiccups at the start of 2018 as the US Federal Reserve hiked interest rates and the threats of a US trade war turned into a reality.

The rise in US stocks, whilst impressive, is built on all the wrong things. ‘Wrong’, that is, in terms of sustainability.

As President, Donald Trump has delivered a range of tax cuts that have a total cost to the budget of around US$1.5 trillion. This one-off, impossible to replicate policy like any other policy that dumps cash into the economy has underpinned stronger economic growth and a temporary lift company profits. The tax changes has seen US companies engage in a record level of stock buy-backs which by design, has been a powerful driver behind rising share prices.

The problem with the Trump tax cuts is that every cent of the US$1.5 trillion has been funded with money borrowed by the government.

Such is the destruction to the US budget, that the US Congressional Budget Office is now estimating the US budget deficit to average a staggering 4.8 per cent of GDP in every year in the decade from 2018 to 2028. When Trump became President, the budget deficit had narrowed to just 2.5 per cent of GDP.