SAUL ESLAKE

Economist

SAUL ESLAKE

‘Welcome to my website …
I’m an independent economist, speaker, company director
and Vice-Chancellor’s Fellow at the University of Tasmania’

Reflections on the 2016-17 Federal Budget


Economic Policies, Publications | 5th May 2016

Saul Eslake | The Conversation | 5th May 2016

This is a longer version of Saul Eslake’s take on the budget, on why negative gearing is still the elephant in the room for the government.Scott Morrison is very keen for his first budget to be viewed as “not just another budget” – to the point of saying so not once, but twice, in the first three lines of his budget speech. Rather, it’s a “plan” – a word he used 29 times in his speech. This is 28 times more than either Joe Hockey or Wayne Swan did in their respective first budget speeches. By contrast, “jobs and growth” only got a run 16 times in the budget speech (plus another 8 mentions in Budget Paper No 1).

But while the Treasurer’s “plan” does contain some bold and worthy initiatives – it is also in some ways a surprisingly unambitious document, especially for a government which came to office pledging to “stop the debt” and fix the “budget emergency”. This year’s Budget Paper No 2, in which all the different policy decisions taken in the lead-up to the budget are listed and costed, ran to only 172 pages, the smallest number since 1998-99.

More seriously, perhaps, the net impact of all the policy decisions taken since December last year on the budget bottom line amounts to just A$1.5bn over the four years to 2019-20. This is the smallest such figure in five years, and equivalent to just 0.02% of GDP over the forward estimates period. And more than all of that amount is contained in “decisions taken but not yet announced” in 2019-20, according to a line item on page 61 of Budget Paper No 2.

And because this relatively small amount of net savings is more than offset by another $11bn of adverse “parameter variations” – chief among them the impact of slower wages growth on personal income tax collections – the combined budget deficit over the next four years will be $6bn more than envisaged six months ago. It will be $40bn more than projected in last year’s budget, and almost $84bn more than foreshadowed in the 2014-15 budget (see Chart 1).

Successive estimates of the ‘underlying’ cash balance’


Chart 1: Australian Government, Budget Paper No 1, Budget Strategy and Outlook and Mid-Year Economic & Fiscal Outlook 2013-14 through 2016-17

Chart 1: Australian Government, Budget Paper No 1, Budget Strategy and Outlook and Mid-Year Economic & Fiscal Outlook 2013-14 through 2016-17
As a result, the government’s net debt is now expected to peak at 19.2% of GDP in 2017-18 – more than a percentage point above the previous peak in the last year of the Keating government, and almost 8 percentage points above the peak erroneously forecast for 2014-15 in Wayne Swan’s last budget, which the Coalition characterised as putting Australia in a fiscal position not far from that of Greece (see Chart 2).

Successive estimates of net debt


Chart 2: Australian Government, Budget Paper No 1, Budget Strategy and Outlook and Mid-Year Economic & Fiscal Outlook 2013-14 through 2016-17.

Chart 2: Australian Government, Budget Paper No 1, Budget Strategy and Outlook and Mid-Year Economic & Fiscal Outlook 2013-14 through 2016-17.
The longer-term projections still envisage the budget returning to surplus in the 2020-21 financial year – although the surpluses beyond that point fall well short of the government’s stated long-term objective of 1% of GDP. And it would appear that more than half of those surpluses are attributable to the inclusion, from 2020-21 onwards, of the net earnings of the Future Fund, something which was slipped quietly into the long-term projections in last year’s budget.

These projections rest on economic assumptions which, though not at all implausible, nonetheless appear to have more downside risk to them than upside. In particular, it assumes real GDP growth will average 3% pa from 2017-18 through 2022-23, and that Australia’s terms of trade stop falling after 2019-20.

The government has clearly been conscious of the need to ensure the measures contained in this budget can be portrayed as being “fair”. Certainly the changes to superannuation, including reducing the generosity of the taxation treatment of superannuation contributions, pass that test. And so do the “integrity measures” directed at ensuring multinational companies operating in Australia pay an appropriate amount of tax on the profits generated by their activities in Australia.

And although some will no doubt continue to portray it as “unfair”, I have no quarrel with the government’s decision to allow the 2 percentage point temporary deficit repair levy on taxpayers in the top income tax bracket to expire, as scheduled, at the end of the 2016-17 financial year.

There is no long-term good that can accrue to Australia by persisting with the English-speaking world’s second highest top marginal personal income tax rate. Especially given the rate cuts in at the second lowest top marginal income tax threshold in the English-speaking world. And when there are so many avenues open to people in that top tax bracket to avoid paying it on some, or all, of their income. There are much more effective ways of extracting more tax revenue from high-income households – if governments want to do that – than imposing punitive top marginal rates.

Why favour small business over big?

The government sees its program of annual reductions in the tax rate paid by companies, with the eventual reunification of the tax rate for “small” and “large” as the core element in its “plan” for “jobs and growth”.

There is now a large – though by no means uncontested – body of evidence to support the contention that reductions in company tax rates can support faster rates of GDP growth and higher wages (by stimulating higher levels of investment and hence higher levels of labour productivity).

But there is very little evidence supporting the favouring of small businesses over large in this regard. The significant preference which both this budget and its predecessor have extended to small businesses appears to owe much more to a desire to bow before small business than to any unambiguous economic rationale.

It is almost an article of faith among the Liberal and National parties that small businesses are the “engine room of the economy”. The Treasurer in his budget speech asserted that “small and medium businesses are driving jobs growth in Australia and must continue to do so”.

While it’s true that small businesses – defined in ABS statistics as those employing fewer than 20 employees – accounted for 44% of total employment in 2013-14, they have accounted for only 18% of the increase in employment over the most recent five years for which data are available in this form (ie from 2008-09 through 2013-14). By contrast, firms with more than 200 employees – which the ABS defines as “large” – have accounted for 52% of the increase in total employment over the past five years, despite accounting for less than 32% of total employment. Likewise, ABS statistics show that large businesses are more likely to engage in “innovative activities” than small ones, especially ones with four or fewer employees.

In other words, if the government wanted to cut company taxes in a way that was most likely to result in increased job creation or higher levels of innovation (assuming that cutting company taxes would have that effect), it should have cut company taxes for large companies ahead of small ones. But that would have been exceedingly difficult, politically, in the current climate.

It’s also worth noting in passing that a significant proportion of the budgetary cost of cutting the company tax rate – especially for smaller companies – will be “clawed back” through a commensurate reduction in franking credits.

‘If you want to pay less tax, get yourself a negatively-geared property investment’

The new youth jobs program seems much more effectively directed towards creating jobs than the myriad tax breaks for small businesses. This is a welcome reversal of the punitive approach to long-term unemployed young people taken in the 2014-15 budget.

The other key element of the government’s ten year enterprise tax plan is the increase in the tax threshold for the second-top marginal rate from $80,000 to $87,000, effective from July 1 this year. The government says this will prevent “average full time wage earners … from moving into the second highest tax bracket”.

As it does when talking about who does and who doesn’t benefit from negative gearing, the government here fails to distinguish between “gross” and “taxable” incomes. Average weekly total earnings for full-time adults are indeed now over $80,000 per annum. But that is a gross figure. People on those incomes claim deductions for work-related expenses, charitable donations, medical expenses and – as the government and the property industry constantly remind us – for interest on negatively-geared property investments.

Average taxable income in 2013-14 – the latest year for which figures are available – was $57,552. If that has increased since then at the same rate as average weekly total full-time adult earnings, then it would now be about $59,500 – a long way below $80,000.

The budget seems to be saying to people with taxable incomes of less than $80,000 – if you want to pay less tax, get yourself a negatively-geared property investment.

Negative gearing still the elephant in the room

The budget is also arguably saying the same thing to people with taxable incomes of over $250,000, people who have already contributed $500,000 to superannuation over the course of their lifetimes, or people who already have at least $1.6 million in their superannuation accounts. The message is if you put any more into superannuation, we are going to tax you more, but if you put it into a negatively-geared property investment, we won’t touch you, because (in the words of the Treasurer’s budget Speech), “that would increase the tax burden on Australians just trying to invest and provide a future for their families”.

Of course, we are not talking about a large number of people here: and the ones we are talking about are extremely well-off. We are actually also talking about people who are much more likely to have a negatively geared property investment (or indeed, more than one), than people with taxable incomes of less than $80,000 per annum.

The budget’s proposed changes to superannuation arrangements make sense. But I can’t see why people – even wealthy people – who are “just trying to invest” through superannuation should be singled out for less generous tax treatment, while people who are doing exactly the same thing through negatively geared property (or other) investments remain unscathed.

The Treasurer reportedly toyed with the idea of limiting “excesses and abuses” of negative gearing, with caps on claims. This would have more or less exactly paralleled what the budget seeks to do with regard to superannuation.

The decision not to go down that path was reportedly “a political – and not an economic – move”.

But it has, and will have, economic consequences.

Combined with the Reserve Bank’s latest cut in official interest rates, the budget’s decisions and non-decisions with regard to income tax cuts, superannuation and negative gearing are likely to encourage more Australians to borrow more money in order to invest in the property market. As if Australia didn’t already have one of the developed world’s highest ratios of household debt to GDP or personal income, and amongst the developed world’s most expensive residential real estate. And as if we might not be near the bottom of the interest rate cycle and the peak of the property price cycle.

Is it really consistent with building a “stronger, more diverse, new economy” – as Scott Morrison’s budget speech proclaims – to encourage still more Australians to bet, with borrowed money, that property prices will continue to rise at a faster rate than their incomes?

By the standards of previous pre-election budgets, this was a sober, responsible effort on the part of the government. The government has rightly sought to focus support for superannuation on its stated purpose, and to ensure that multinational companies pay a more appropriate amount of tax.

But the government is unnecessarily, and perhaps dangerously, blinded by its allegiances to its belief in the inherent nobility of small businesses, and to the property industry. Both have prevented it from delivering a better budget.

I also write from time to time for The Conversation, which is a collaborative venture between journalists/editors and academics to (as their Editor-in-Chief puts it) provide “cutting edge ideas and people who know what they are talking about”. You can find all of my Conversation articles here; some of them are also reproduced under topic headings on this site.

WEEKLY CHART PACK


Each weekend since mid-April 2020 I’ve been preparing, updating and distributing a weekly Coronavirus Impact Chart Pack to people in Australia and overseas. Running to over 100 pages it includes:

  • charts tracking the spread of Covid-19, globally and in Australia, and government responses to it;
  • the impact on the global economy and major individual economies such as China, Japan, other Asian economies, the US and Europe;
  • financial and commodities markets;
  • multiple aspects of the Australian economy, including state-level comparisons, and the policy responses of the Australian and state or territory governments, and the Reserve Bank of Australia; and
  • similar, though smaller coverage of the New Zealand economy.

The Coronavirus Impact Chart Pack will be updated every Saturday afternoon, Australian time, for as long as it remains topical. It will be accessible to subscribers of the Premium Access package.

If and when Covid-19 ceases to be front and centre of attention (as it is now) – whenever that might be – I will continue to prepare a Weekly Chart Pack, but with a focus on whatever replaces the virus as the issue du jour.

ECONOMIC IMPACT OF THE CORONAVIRUS PANDEMIC
23rd October 2021


CORONAVIRUS IMPACT CHART PACK 2021-10-23

"I see a lot of chart packs in my line of work, but yours is about the best I have seen. It is amazingly comprehensive, covering far more of the world than any individual is entitled to cover, the charts are clear and easy to understand and they drill down into each topic in a very satisfying way. So well done, Saul."

Alan Kohler, ABC finance presenter, founder of Eureka Report


"A timely and comprehensive summary from one of Australia's best economists."

Adam Creighton, Economics Editor for The Australian


“I continue to find your thinking invaluable - this year to my ritual weekend reading of the economist I have happily added ‘Saul’s latest’.”

Rufus Black, former Managing Partner of McKinsey’s, and currently Vice-Chancellor of the University of Tasmania


“Your chart pack is amazing - and thanks for offering to add me to the mailing list, that would be great to be included. Everything you could want to know is there - and the way the data are organised and presented to tell the stories makes it so easy to follow.”

Prof Jeff Borland, Truby Williams Professor of Economics, The University of Melbourne, Website


“An excellent summary. Although I take a great interest in what’s happening with COVID-19 day by day In Australia and Internationally, I always find your weekly summary a very interesting review of the past week.”

retired former Chief Executive Officer of a District Hospital Service in New South Wales


WEEKLY CHART PACK

EVENTS

Saul Eslake online presentation


“You are the best economic thinker in the country hands down”

Sheryle Bagwell, recently retired Senior Business Correspondent (and sometime Executive Producer),
ABC Radio National Breakfast


"I see a lot of chart packs in my line of work, but yours is about the best I have seen. It is amazingly comprehensive, covering far more of the world than any individual is entitled to cover, the charts are clear and easy to understand and they drill down into each topic in a very satisfying way.
So well done, Saul."

Alan Kohler, ABC finance presenter, founder of Eureka Report


“I continue to find your thinking invaluable - this year to my ritual weekend reading of the economist I have happily added ‘Saul’s latest’.”

Rufus Black, former Managing Partner of McKinsey’s, and currently Vice-Chancellor of the University of Tasmania


“Your chart pack is amazing - and thanks for offering to add me to the mailing list, that would be great to be included. Everything you could want to know is there - and the way the data are organised and presented to tell the stories makes it so easy to follow.”

Prof Jeff Borland, Truby Williams Professor of Economics, The University of Melbourne, Website


“An excellent summary. Although I take a great interest in what’s happening with COVID-19 day by day In Australia and Internationally, I always find your weekly summary a very interesting review of the past week.”

retired former Chief Executive Officer of a District Hospital Service in New South Wales


“Just want to congratulate you Saul on the unbelievably good set of slides you just presented, possibly the best I have ever seen. You have set the bar very high.”

Dr Joe Flood, Adjunct Fellow, RMIT University, Pandemicia


“Thank you very much for your excellent presentation for the Economic Society today. It is always a great pleasure to hear your eloquent, up-to-date and comprehensive talks.”

Andrew Trembath, economist, Victorian and Australian Government agencies


online events @ saul-eslake.com


NOV

9th

Saul Eslake’s Webinar: China’s economic growth path

6:00 PM AEST Australian Eastern Standard Time
3:00 pm Hong Kong | 2:00 pm Jakarta | 8:00 am CET | 7:00 am London
Cost: $24.99 ~ Includes access to Saul's presentation slides and video

In this webinar Saul will look at the longer-term, structural factors behind the on-going slowdown in China’s economic growth rate, and the more recent changes in the policy and regulatory environment which are likely to re-inforce the impact of those longer-term factors.

Join Saul from anywhere in the world.

Register NOW


Request Speaking Engagement

WHAT'S NEW

Most Recent Articles, Talks and Presentations


Coronavirus Impact Chart Pack 2021-10-23

Chart Pack | 23rd October 2021

‘The Next Big Risk: Insights on the Economic and Financial Outlook
The Australian Economy | 28th October 2021

Inflation in Australia
News, The Australian Economy | 27th October 2021

‘Stagflation’
News, The Australian Economy | 27th October 2021

A few quick thoughts about China
Asian Economies | 19th October 2021

A chat with Alan Kohler
Economic Video, Publications | 19th October 2021

Talk to the annual Australia-Indonesia Business Summit
Asian Economies, Economic Video | 18th October 2021

September employment data show ‘effective’ unemployment rate at 10.6%
News, The Australian Economy | 14th October 2021

Australia’s housing affordability crisis
Australian Society and Politics, Housing, News | 13th October 2021

How serious is the inflation threat
The Global Economy | 7th October 2021

Social Policy in the post-Covid World
Australian Society and Politics, Economic Policies, Housing, News | 4th October 2021

Fiscal Policy and Public Debt
Economic Policies, Economic Video | 2nd October 2021

Video and Presentation Slides: Fiscal Policy and Public Debt
Economic Policies | 29th September 2021

COVID provides real life experiment on house prices
Housing, Recent Media Interview | 28th September 2021

The “corrupt bargain” imposed by the Morrison Government
Australian Society and Politics, Economic Policies, Recent Media Interview, Tasmania | 28th September 2021

Interview with ABC Radio Hobart’s Leon Compton
News, Recent Media Interview, Tasmania | 20th September 2021

Old wine in new bottles: more ‘rent-seeking’ from South Australian manufacturing interests
Economic Policies, Publications, The Australian Economy | 17th September 2021

The ‘corrupt bargain’ underpinning WA’s budget surpluses
Australian Society and Politics, Economic Policies, Taxation | 16th September 2021

Housing Grants: more harm than good
Australian Society and Politics, Economic Policies, Housing, News, Recent Media Interview, The Australian Economy | 15th September 2021

VIDEO

Recent Presentations


The Impact of Covid-19 series

These videos are available to audience of Saul’s presentations as soon as they are uploaded and will be available to public one month after the presentation date.

See more


TESTIMONIALS

What Others Say


“You are one of the best at what you do in the world”
Gail Fosler, Chief Economist, The Conference Board, New York, December 2002

“I have never known an economist to have such a knowledge of world economic facts and to be able to bring to bear so much information in answering a question without notice”
Charles Goode, Chairman, ANZ Bank, July 2009

“Saul Eslake is … a highly regarded independent economist with the highest degree of integrity"
John Durie, Columnist, The Australian, July 2009

“… one of the few people in this world who can have so many oranges up in the air at the same time but still manage to catch them"
Andrew Clark, journalist, Australian Financial Review, November 2008

Read more

LINKS

Useful Links