In a very-welcome move, Bill Shorten (above) is talking about Action on Inequality (specifically progressive tax reform) ; Labor Activists need to support this move, while at the same time appraising the associated Policies, and engaging in such a debate as to ensure the Policies match the Rhetoric.
Dr Tristan Ewins
Apparently Federal Labor under Bill Shorten is considering significant reform
of Australia’s tax system to bring in potentially billions in new annual
revenue, and to address the scourges of disadvantage, inequality and poverty.
Labor had already long since
committed to reform on capital gains tax concessions and negative gearing ;
with some modest changes on superannuation tax concessions as well.
But according to ‘Age’
journalist, Peter Martin, additional possible options now being canvassed
include: (‘The Age’ 22/7, p 17)
·
cracking down on the
abuse of family trusts by the rich, bringing in maybe over $3.5 billion a year
·
and “ending the
diesel fuel rebate” for miners and farmers ; again bringing in perhaps over $4
billion
These would be very-welcome
announcements should they eventuate. Though to aspire to an extended social
wage and welfare state Labor really needs to be considering ‘in the ballpark’
of 5% of GDP in progressive new annual spending – arrived at over several
terms.
And a figure of increasing
Federal Government expenditure by 2% of GDP may be appropriate and realistic under
a first term Labor government. (ie: increase
progressive tax and associated expenditure by around $32 billion in a $1.6
trillion economy)
We will consider other
possibilities to reach that vicinity later in this article.
The Herald-Sun has responded
to this recent positioning on distributive justice by Shorten , proclaiming that: “Bill Shorten has ratched up
his class warfare rhetoric”. For the Herald-Sun instead Labor must cut
“wasteful spending” and not target
“so-called” “rich and big business”. Here inequality is to be considered not a
reality. Rather according to the Herald-Sun it is Shorten who is “dividing us” into a “Have and Have-Not
nation”. (Herald-Sun, 22/7, p 12,
38) There is talk of rewarding and not
punishing “aspiration” ; and a rising cost of living is blamed on renewable
energy. (as opposed, for instance, to
abuse of market power and inferior cost structures in the wake of
privatisation)
But ‘the Australian’ (22/7, pp 1, 8) talks itself into a corner while unwittingly
providing ammunition to refute the Herald-Sun’s suggestion that ‘inequality is
a mirage’ conjured up by Shorten , and is not real.
It quotes labour market
economist Professor Robert Wilkins to the effect that inequality has not been
“ever rising” since the Global Financial Crisis. (2008) But then has to concede that the portion of
national income going to the top 1 per cent has approximately doubled since the
1970s to over 8 per cent. Wilkins also
interestingly concedes that inequality is “high by modern standards”.
Wilkins also concedes that we do have wage stagnation. And when you add a
rising cost of living the reason inequality is becoming a far more urgent and
resonant issue is clear.
Further ; ‘The Australian’
observes that Shorten and Bowen are drawing on pre-tax figures on inequality
; But if anything taxes have long been
becoming lower, more broad-based, and less progressive ; at the same time as we
have observed a growth in the application of the ‘user pays principle’ for
everything from education to water.
Briefly, arguments about
‘the size of government’ also flounder in the face of statistics. Whereas Australia
enjoyed a general tax rate of 26 per cent of GDP and expenditure levels of 35
per cent of GDP in 2014, the figures for
Finland were at 43 per cent of GDP and 55 per cent of GDP respectively. Meanwhile Germany enjoyed a total tax take of
37 per cent of GDP, and expenditure levels of 45 per cent of GDP.
So Australia is lagging
behind some of the most successful economies in the world in this respect.
Despite Ideological claims to the contrary from the Business Council of
Australia (‘The Australian’, 22/7/17) and elsewhere, the reality is that ‘bigger
government’ can be good for the economy, and even ‘good for business’.
While Labor has recently
only been courageous enough to target the very rich with admittedly very-modest
reforms, ACOSS observed in a 2015 report that inequality was marked in our
supposedly-egalitarian nation.
Drawing on ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics)
research, ACOSS depicted the average income and wealth according to five
“quintiles” ; “a
statistical value representing 20% of the population, of which the first
quintile represents the lowest fifth of the population, 1-20%; the second
quintile represents the second fifth, 21-40% and so on”.
Here the bottom 20% of Australian households enjoyed a total averaged income of
under $34,000/year ; while the quintile immediately above enjoyed a total averaged
income of only $67,113. The middle or
third quintile amounted to $97,570 ; the
fourth to $134,127 ; and the final and wealthiest layer $232,175.
Household wealth was
similarly measured ; and here the bottom 20% enjoyed average total household
wealth of $31,100, but the top 20% enjoyed average wealth of $2,212,200.
This gives us some idea of
the extent of income and wealth inequality.
Though these statistics may also admittedly be influenced in the context
of ‘asset rich, income poor’ households ; those who may own a family home for
instance, but who may fall into one of the bottom two quintiles for income.
Also the top 20% wealth and
income quintiles may be affected by the weighting of the extremely
wealthy. Again: after all, research
quoted by Robert Wilkins in ‘The Australian’ (22/7/17) has it that the top 1 per cent alone account
for over 8 per cent of total wealth in Australia.
Labor needs a nuanced approach: assisting the income poor and the asset poor ;
while redistributing from those who are income and asset rich. Deflating the housing bubble and making home
ownership a real prospect for families again is crucial. Labor’s Negative
Gearing reforms are essential here. Expanding
public housing is necessary to assist low income families and vulnerable
individuals as well: while also boosting supply ; with a ‘flow on effect’ to
affordability for everyone.
But that’s not the end of the story. In
short Labor needs to redistribute from a broad enough economic base to fund
redistribution via the tax mix, tax-transfer system, social wage and welfare
state. That must mean redistribution
from the upper middle class as well as the outrageously wealthy.
Yet tax may need to rise for
the ‘middle income’ layers as well.
The rationale for this is as
follows.
Tax comprises not merely a
burden as if taxpayers received nothing in return. It is also the means of funding collective
consumption and social insurance. Despite complaints from the banks, the recently-implemented Federal tax upon
them was a way of paying for an effective ‘government guarantee’ – a form of
‘economic insurance’ which originated with the Rudd Labor Government during the
Global Financial Crisis of 2008. (GFC)
Morally-speaking, the ‘middle
income layers’ should also show some solidarity with those who are struggling.
That’s part of the picture. But by
‘collectively consuming’ infrastructure, services and social insurance they
also ensure they get a much better deal for their tax dollar than they
would as atomised private consumers. Consider communications, transport, water,
energy infrastructure, health and education infrastructure - and the costs of
the associated services. And taxes also must be levied so citizens are
‘covered’ in the case of accident, illness, disability, job loss and so on.
Also there is a growing crisis of what some would call ‘corporate
welfare’. Ostensibly in order to be
‘competitive’ in attracting capital we have seen an increasing phenomena of tax
payers, workers, citizens – effectively subsidising business. Governments ‘look
the other way’ on tax evasion, tax havens, abuse of trusts and so on. Or ‘talk the talk’ while taking only token
action. (Labor could do with some
introspection here as well)
Corporate Taxation falls
lower and lower to ‘remain competitive’. A ‘race to the bottom’. The ultimate consequence of this is that
business is no longer paying its fair share for the services and infrastructure
it benefits from. That means workers and
other tax payers have to ‘pick up the
tab’.
But as well as being unfair, ironically this ‘comes back around’ to harm
certain businesses as well. Workers and
taxpayers therefore have less disposable income , which means less scope for discretionary consumption. This is why
some businesses are beginning to worry about falling wages. Though others
remain narrowly self-interested – looking only at their own sectional
interests, and for instance supporting attacks on penalty rates.
The other possibility is that crucial services and infrastructure will just be
neglected. But much of that infrastructure
and services is a ‘drawcard’ for investment as well. For instance an educated workforce. ‘Social
disintegration’ can also mean added costs in the form of crime, ill health and
so on. This is without even considering
the question from the viewpoint of striving for ‘The Good Society’ and not just
‘economic goals in abstract’.
There are other
possibilities for tax reform, also, not examined by Martin’s article. Those
could be crucial in lifting Australia closer to the examples set by successful
economies such as Germany and Finland. We will consider a number of those:
·
further (and
genuinely substantial) cuts to superannuation concessions for the unambiguously
well-off (the upper middle class and higher); with the potential to save tens
of billions a year with that one measure alone
·
Fix the Company Tax rate at 30 per cent and
take serious action on corporate tax evasion, use of tax havens etc.
·
Gradually wind back
Dividend Imputation (tax credits ostensibly to stop ‘double taxation’ – the
rationale of which has weakened with falling Company Tax rates); That would have the potential to save $5
billion a year from reducing Dividend Imputation to a 75% rate alone in a first
term Labor Government ; and much more over time depending on the reaction
·
Seriously restructure
the PAYE income tax mix for progressivity ; including indexation of the bottom
two or three brackets thereafter – to prevent future unfair bracket creep ;
·
Raise and restructure
the Medicare Levy into a more-progressive multi-tier tax; and index to prevent
unfair bracket creep ; Also cover Aged Care costs within the Medicare Levy –
and raise enough revenue to eliminate unfair user pays costs for lower income,
middle income and working class families , while improving services, and hence
improving quality of life and happiness for residents , and those remaining at
home.
·
Introduce a
progressively-scaled ‘infrastructure levy’ to provide for all manner of
infrastructure (transport, communications, energy, water etc) ; and to stem the
trend towards privatisation – which is worsening cost structures and arguably
fuelling nepotism.
·
Introduce a modest
inheritance tax on inheritances valued over $2 million ; again indexed for
progressivity ; perhaps excluding the family home
·
Introduce a ‘Buffett
rule’ – or ‘minimum income tax’ affecting the wealthy
Importantly, though, Labor’s
consideration of increasing the top income tax rate by 2 per cent is not
substantial enough to make serious inroads into the deficit , provide for
social wage and welfare expansion , or to render indexation of the income tax
mix sustainable thereafter. Compared
with other taxes, income tax has great progressive and redistributive potential
; and its significant reform must be prioritised to achieve the best outcomes.
It’s encouraging that Labor
is considering serious reform of the tax system for fairness. We need such reform to promote distributive
justice, and provide the means for social wage and social security
expansion. But Labor activists need to
hold their politicians to a high standard as well. There is a history of rhetoric on these
issues, combined with a failure to match that rhetoric with the necessary action in the 'end analysis'. Not every measure considered here will be
implemented by a first term Shorten government.
But extension of progressive tax and associated social expenditure by 2
per cent of GDP, or $32 billion in a $1.6 Trillion economy, is a very good
place to start.
