Seen anything on the tax reform smorgasbord you fancy? How about cuts in the top two rates of income tax? How about abolition of conveyancing duty? Or maybe an end to stamp duty on insurance policies?
Seen anything on the tax reform smorgasbord you fancy? How about cuts in the top two rates of income tax? How about abolition of conveyancing duty? Or maybe an end to stamp duty on insurance policies?
For business people there's a special range of goodies on display: a cut in the company tax rate to 25 per cent, special tax breaks for mining and construction companies that use Australian steel, abolition of payroll tax. Or maybe cuts in company tax that are limited to small businesses.
Don't see anything that particularly appeals? That's OK, why not concoct your own, custom-built concession? It's a bit late, but why not email it in as a submission to the tax forum? Be sure to say it will do wonders for the economy - which is why you're proposing it, naturally. I'm sure it will get as much consideration as all the other submissions.
Sorry, but the tax forum reminds me of nothing so much as a bunch of kiddies lining up to sit on Santa's knee and whisper into his ear what they'd like for Christmas. Dream on, kids. The harsh truth is that neither the federal nor the state governments are in any position to simply cut this tax or that. They're all struggling to get their budgets back to surplus.
So one of the ground rules Wayne Swan laid down was that all proposals for tax reform had to be ''revenue neutral'' - if you cut one tax you have to increase another by the same amount. You'd like to pay less income tax? No probs - we'll just increase the rate of the GST to cover it. Or maybe we could increase the rate and remove the exemptions for food, education and health care. That would make the GST a far more robust revenue-raiser.
Increase GST revenue far enough and we could also afford to abolish the payroll tax business keeps whingeing about. As for conveyancing duty, the ideal way to finance its abolition would be to broaden annual land tax to cover owner-occupied homes. Someone has suggested local government could be paid a fee to collect it along with council rates.
Kind of takes the fun out of tax reform, doesn't it?
Of course, were governments to get serious about reform there are a lot of other worthy but nasty things they could do. Bite the bullet and get rid of negative gearing, for instance. Stop family trusts being such a tax lurk. Crack down on the abuse of work-related deductions (especially by doctors and lawyers jetting off to conferences at exotic resorts).
Then there's superannuation. It's always been taxed heavily in favour of high income-earners, but Peter Costello's decision to make all private pension income tax-free to people 60 and over was the ultimate in favouring wrinklies over workers.
I should tell you the latest fashion among tax-reform aficionados is for income (particularly high incomes) and capital (particularly companies and capital gains) to be taxed more lightly, with consumption and real estate taxed more heavily.
This is because financial capital and high income earners are more mobile internationally - more capable of moving to countries where they're taxed more lightly - whereas wage-slaves and consumers are far less mobile and real estate is utterly immobile.
So, in an era of growing tax competition between countries, you tax those who can't escape more heavily and those who can escape less heavily. That this means the well-off pay less tax while the middle class and the workers pay more is purely coincidental, I assure you.
If you're detecting a touch of cynicism in my reaction to all this, you're not wrong. Economists, business people and professional lobbyists would happily meet in Parliament House once a month to preach to each other about the need for tax reform.
But if ever there was a country that runs a mile at the hint of tax reform, we're it. Most of the rest of the developed world introduced a GST in the 1960s and '70s, but we trembled on the brink for 25 years before taking the plunge in 2000.
The way tax reform works in Australia is that whenever governments are persuaded to introduce some major reform, the opposition automatically opposes it and starts a hugely successful scare campaign, urged on by every adversely affected interest group, the shock jocks and any other media outlets looking for cheap cheers.
Meanwhile, the people who'd benefit from the reform - even those who pressed the government to take it on - fall silent or, like the Business Council, get cold feet and run around saying the time is not yet ripe. All the academic urgers peel off the moment the government introduces a less-than-pure element to its scheme.
The obvious truth is Julia Gillard would need her head examined to take on more tax reform at present. Her plate is already over-full. You'd never know it from all the chat this week, but we're already engaged in two vitally important tax reforms: the carbon tax and the mining tax. The first is complicated but minor in its effect on household budgets the second is a no-brainer.
Yet Tony Abbott has been hugely successful in his dishonest scaremongering against both taxes. He is campaigning against all tax reform, promising to reverse both measures and pretending taxes only ever need to be cut. Are the Liberal-leaning reform advocates doing anything to set him straight? Hell no - that's Julia's lookout. And the polls say the man with the neanderthal views on tax reform will be swept into office at the first opportunity.
When it comes to tax reform, Australians are utterly lily-livered.
Ross Gittins is economics editor.
Frequently Asked Questions about this Article…
What tax reform proposals are being discussed in Australia right now?
A range of ideas is on the table, from cuts to the top two income-tax rates and a company tax cut to 25%, to abolition of conveyancing (stamp) duty and payroll tax. Other suggestions include ending stamp duty on insurance, special tax breaks for mining and construction that use Australian steel, limits on company-tax cuts to small business, and broader changes such as raising GST to pay for other cuts.
What does 'revenue neutral' mean and how does it shape tax reform in Australia?
Revenue neutral means any tax cut must be offset by revenue increases elsewhere. As the article explains, under rules set out by Wayne Swan, if you reduce income tax you’d need to raise funds by, for example, increasing the GST or removing GST exemptions to make the package balance.
Could increasing the GST pay for income tax cuts?
Yes — one common financing option is to raise GST revenue to cover income-tax cuts. The article notes options such as lifting the GST rate or removing GST exemptions for food, education and health care to make GST a more robust revenue-raiser.
If conveyancing duty (stamp duty) were abolished, how might governments replace that revenue?
A suggested way to fund abolition of conveyancing duty is to broaden annual land tax to include owner-occupied homes. The article also mentions the idea of local government being paid to collect that tax alongside council rates.
How could proposed tax reforms affect property investors and negative gearing?
The article points out that a serious reform option would be to eliminate negative gearing — a measure that would directly affect property investors. It also flags potential changes to family trusts and tighter rules on work‑related deductions, all of which could change the after‑tax returns for some investors.
What does the article say about superannuation tax and who benefits?
The piece argues superannuation tax settings have historically favoured higher earners. It highlights Peter Costello’s move to make private pension income tax‑free for people aged 60 and over as an example of a policy that benefits retirees more than younger workers.
Why is major tax reform politically difficult in Australia?
The article explains several reasons: federal and state budgets are under pressure so simple cuts are hard to afford; reform must often be revenue neutral; opposition parties and interest groups frequently mount successful scare campaigns; and key politicians (the author suggests Julia Gillard) already have full agendas, making big new reform unlikely.
As an everyday investor, what tax changes should I watch for during these debates?
Keep an eye on proposals that could affect your investments and cash flow: changes to negative gearing, capital gains and company tax (including talk of a 25% company tax), GST increases or narrowing of exemptions, land‑tax changes if stamp duty is removed, and ongoing reforms such as the carbon and mining taxes. These moves can influence asset prices, after‑tax returns and the broader economic outlook.
Call 1300 880 160
Start a chat
Schedule a call
