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 weak economy is turning higher

Mon, 15 Jul 2019

This article first appeared on the Yahoo Finance web site at this link: https://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/just-how-weak-australia-strong-economy-213520159.html 

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

The weak economy is turning higher

In the space of a couple of months, the rhetoric on the economy has gone from strong to weak.

Curiously, both assessments are wrong.

The economy was actually weak during the first half of 2019 and, if the leading indicators are correct, late 2019 and 2020 should see a decent pick up in economic activity.

It is not clear what has caused this error of judgment and the about face from so many commentators and economists, including importantly the Reserve Bank. A level-headed, unbiased look at economic data confirms that in late 2018 and the first half of 2019, the economy was in trouble. There were three straight quarters of falling GDP per capita, house prices were diving at an alarming rate, there was a rise in unemployment, wages growth remained tepid and low inflation persisted.

These are not the dynamics of a “strong” economy.

Only now, in the rear view mirror look at the economy, are these poor indicators gaining favour, leading to generalised economic gloom.

Australia needs ‘fiscal stimulus', but what does that actually mean?

Wed, 10 Jul 2019

This article first appeared on the Yahoo Finance website at this link: https://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/australia-needs-fiscal-stimulus-but-what-does-that-actually-mean-203000918.html 

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

Australia needs ‘fiscal stimulus', but what does that actually mean?

With the economy down in the dumps and the per capita recession now extending to nine months, there is a frenzied call for the government to implement some spending and tax policies to stem the bleeding.

The calls are coming from economists, journalists, the RBA Governor and a bevy of commentators who are demanding a fiscal policy boost from the government to support economic growth. This is all fine and there is a strong case for policy makers to work together to do something to lift the pace of economic expansion.

But there is a problem with the generic “fiscal policy stimulus” demand given that none of the calls have been accompanied by even vague details of what the stimulus means and the areas of spending that should be ramped up or what taxes should be changed.

Sure, there is a suggestion of more spending on ‘infrastructure’ but that is never defined or specified.