I have good news and bad news about your superannuation

When the government wants to cut back the massive tax concessions the rich receive on their superannuation, the media is full of it for weeks. Ask the rich to pay a bit more and there’s hell to pay. But I bet no one’s bothered to tell you of something that’s about to affect the super of every worker in the country.

Why no mention? Because there’s no shootfight. It’s only when people are boxing it out that the media take an interest. And it seems like it’s good news, not bad. Apparently, there are winners, but no losers. Is that possible? Of course not.

The workers think someone else is paying, but that someone else – the bosses – know they’re not. So, no fight, no story.

What is this thing no one thinks we need to be told about? It’s that from the first day of next month, your employer’s compulsory contribution to your super will be increased by 0.5 percentage points to 12 per cent of your wage.

For the past 12 years, the government has been steadily increasing the contribution rate from 9 per cent to 12 per cent, where it will stay. Surely that’s good news? Well, maybe.

On its face, the government is forcing employers to make a greater contribution to the retirement savings of their workers. But if that’s all there is to it, why haven’t businesses been bitching about it unceasingly, warning that it was discouraging them from employing more people and killing the economy? Because business knows it’s not paying the impost.

In theory, there are three things that could follow: the business bears the cost in the form of lower profits, or it passes the cost on to its customers via higher prices, or it passes the cost back to its employees via pay rises which are that much lower than they otherwise would have been.

(Actually, there’s a fourth possibility: a bit each of two or three of the possibilities.)

Economists have long believed that the cost is passed back to the workers. And empirical studies have confirmed this. A study by one of the great experts in this area, the Grattan Institute’s Brendan Coates, has found that, on average, about 80 per cent of the cost is passed back to employees over the following couple of years. (Which raises an interesting point. Few if any commentators – including me – have thought to point out that some part of the cost-of-living pain working families have felt in the post-COVID period is explained by the government indirectly requiring them to increase their saving for retirement, thus leaving them with less to spend.)

Between July 2021 and today, employees’ super contribution has been increased by 2 per cent of their pre-tax wage. In three weeks’ time, that will increase to 2.5 per cent. Of course, you’ll get that money back, with interest, but not until you retire.

For years, many people have worried that they aren’t saving enough to live comfortably in retirement. And for years, the banks and fund managers that make their living looking after your super fund savings – which they do by taking a seemingly tiny percentage of your accumulated savings each year – have given people an exaggerated impression of the size of the lump sum they’ll need to have on retirement to be comfortable, in the hope that people will add their own contributions to their employer’s contributions, thus adding to the fund managers’ fees.

The worriers should remember this: Compulsory employer contribution started in 1992, at 3 per cent of wages. This was gradually increased to 9 per cent in 2002. As we’ve seen, between 2013 and next month, it will have gradually increased to 12 per cent.

Get it? For older people, the more of their working years that have been in this century, the less cause they have to worry about not having enough. And for younger people, the more of their likely total of 45 years working that are ahead of them, the more the risk of not having enough should be the furthest thing from their minds.

Remember that the less you have in super, the more help you’ll get from the age pension. But the more super you have, the less eligible you’ll be for a part pension. It oughtn’t to be too long before it’s rare for people to retire on a full pension, and common for people to have so much super their eligibility for a pension is wiped out.

The big qualification to all that, however, is whether you own your home. Life can be a lot tougher for those retirees dependent on renting in the private market. Pensioners who rent get some assistance from the government – and more than they used to – but it can still be a struggle.

Remember, too, that it’s easy for a person still working to overestimate how much they’ll need to live comfortably in retirement. They’ll be paying far less, if any, income tax. They won’t be putting money into their super. They won’t have dependent kids.

They’ll go on a few overseas trips – and then they’ll decide they can’t be bothered going on another. The older you get, the less you want to run around doing expensive things. Coates’ research confirms that many retirees end up saving rather than spending all their retirement income.

The more pertinent question is whether some young person who spends all or most of their working years getting annual contributions of 12 per cent will retire with far more than they need to live comfortably – whether they’ll end up living like kings (if they have the energy).

So here’s the bad news: once you accept that workers actually pay for their employer contributions by receiving smaller pay rises over their working years, will they be forced to exchange a lower living standard while they’re working for more money than they want to spend in retirement?

Read more >>

If bulldusting about productivity was productive, we'd all be rich

It seems the longer we wait for a sign that productivity has stopped flatlining, the more and the sillier the nonsense we have to listen to, brought to us by a media that likes to stand around in the playground shouting “Fight! Fight! Fight!″⁣.

The combatants are led by Canberra’s second-biggest industry, the business lobbyists, unceasing in their rent-seeking on behalf of their employer customers back in the real world. Their job is to portray all the problems businesses encounter as caused by the government, which must therefore lift its game and start shelling out.

In your naivety, you may have imagined that if a business isn’t managing to improve its productivity, that would be a sign its managers weren’t doing their job. But, as the lobbyists have succeeded in persuading all of us, such thinking is quite perverse.

Apparently, productivity is something produced on the cabinet-room table, and those lazy pollies haven’t been churning out enough of it. How? By deciding to cut businesses’ taxes. Isn’t that obvious? Bit weak on economics, are you?

Unfortunately, those economists who could contribute some simple sense to the debate stay silent. The Chris Richardsons and Saul Eslakes have bigger fish to fry, apparently.

The latest in the lobbyists’ efforts to blame anyone but business for poor productivity was their professed alarm at the Fair Work Commission’s decision last week to increase award wages, covering the bottom 20 per cent of workers, by 3.5 per cent, a shocking 1.1 percentage points above the annual rise in the consumer price index of 2.4 per cent.

According to one employer group, this was “well beyond what current economic conditions can safely sustain”. According to another, the increase would hit shops, restaurants, cafes, hospitality and accommodation the worst.

Innes Willox, chief executive mouth for the Australian Industry Group and a leading purveyor of productivity incomprehension, claimed that “by giving insufficient attention to the well-established link between real wages and productivity, this decision will further suppress private sector investment and employment generation at a time our economy can least afford it”.

The least understanding of neoclassical economics shows this thinking is the wrong way round. It’s when the cost of labour gets too high that businesses have greater incentive to invest in labour-saving equipment.

At present, we’re told, business investment spending as a proportion of national income is the lowest it’s been in at least 40 years. If so, it’s a sign that labour costs are too low, not too high.

The other reason firms are motivated to invest in expanding their production capacity is if business is booming. But this is where business risks shooting itself in the foot. Whereas keeping the lid on wages may seem profit-increasing for the individual firm, when all of them do it at the same time, it’s profit-reducing.

Why? Because the economy is circular. Because wages are by far the greatest source of household income. So the more successful employers are in holding down their wage costs, the less their customers have to spend on whatever businesses are selling. If economic growth is weak – as it is – the first place to look for a reason is the strength of wages growth.

Fortunately, however, while sensible economists leave the running to the false prophets of the business lobby, my second favourite website, The Conversation, has given a voice to Professor John Buchanan, of the University of Sydney, an expert on the topic who isn’t afraid to speak truth to business bulldust.

“In Australia, it has long been accepted that – all things being equal – wages should move with both prices and productivity,” he says. “Adjusting them for inflation ensures their real value is maintained. Adjusting them for productivity [improvement] means employees share in rising prosperity associated with society becoming more productive over time.”

In recent times, however, all things ain’t been equal. Depending on how it’s measured, the rate of inflation peaked at 7.8 per cent (using the CPI, which excludes mortgage interest rates) or 9.6 per cent (using the living cost index for employed households, which does include them).

So the Fair Work Commission has cut the real wages of people on award wages by about 4.5 per cent – something the lobby groups somehow forgot to mention. That’s what honest dealers these guys are. If there’s a way to fiddle the figures, they’ll find it.

The supposed real increase of 1.1 per cent in award wages is actually just a reduction in their real fall to about 3.4 per cent. So much for the impossible impost that will send many small businesses to the wall.

The commission has always been into swings and roundabouts. Cut real wages now to get inflation down, then, when things are back to normal, start getting real wages back to where they should be. So we can expect more so-called real increases – each of them no doubt dealing death and destruction to the economy.

Speaking of fiddling the figures, the commission points out a little-recognised inaccuracy in the conventional way of measuring real wages. It says that, if you take into account that prices rise continuously but wages rise only once a year, award wage workers’ overall loss of earnings since July 2021 has been 14.4 per cent.

What the lobbyist witch doctors have been doing is concealing the truth that the best explanation for our weak productivity performance is that employers have been seeking to increase their profits by holding down wage costs, rather than by investing in labour-saving technology.

Read more >>

Someone's doing the heavy lifting, and it's not the government

By MILLIE MUROI, Economics Writer

In the goldmine of numbers unearthed this week, we learned a lot of things. Among them: that gold diggers (not those ones) stepped up while the government stepped back.

Treasurer Jim Chalmers celebrated, declaring like a proud dad that he had deflated the fiscal floaties on our economy. The private sector is now “doing the heavy lifting” he said: in other words, private businesses and households are now swimming rather than sinking.

Now, the gold producers are a bit of a special case. While uncertainty – driven by the volatility in the world at the moment – hurts most businesses, those dishing out gold (or digging it up) tend to do well. Why? Because when people get scared, they gravitate towards gold, driving up its value

Our economic growth – in real gross domestic product (GDP) – came in more sluggish than expected by many economists, at 0.2 per cent. And while the “national accounts” for the March quarter seem to mark a turning point in some ways, they don’t factor in the wrecking ball (also known as Donald Trump) which largely swung into action in April.

Nonetheless, there are some nuggets of hope to sift out from the figures.

First, the government is no longer the star player on the economic pitch. Over the past two years, public spending on everything from infrastructure to electricity bill relief has kept the economy from grinding backwards (sometimes going forward by as little as 0.1 per cent).

That’s not the case any more – or at least, our politicians aren’t propping up the economy to the same degree they have been.

The federal government still spent a bit more in the three months to March than it did in the previous three months. But the growth in its spending was slower, as its outlays on social benefits programs such as Medicare and the National Disability Insurance Scheme dropped.

State governments, meanwhile, actually reduced spending in the first three months of the year, with most winding back energy bill relief as cost of living pressures have eased.

Some of the pullback in spending growth – especially nationally – is probably thanks to the budget’s “automatic stabilisers”: government payments such as unemployment benefits which naturally fall as the economy improves (and rise when the economy is in the doldrums and people are losing their jobs).

But the flat government day-to-day spending and fall in government investment spending (partly due to the completion of projects such as Sydney’s metro) certainly seem to suggest they’ve become happier to sit on the bench and let private businesses and households make more of the runs. This fall in public demand ended up subtracting the most from overall quarterly growth since 2017.

The overall picture is also a bit murky after quarterly growth in the economy slowed to the lowest rate since March last year. And GDP per person – generally a better measure of our living standards than total national GDP – slipped 0.2 per cent in the March quarter.

While it’s welcome news that private businesses and households seem to be regaining some of their gusto, neither were close to shooting the lights out.

Household spending is one of the most hotly anticipated pieces of the puzzle because Australian households' spending accounts for more than half of the country’s GDP. That means what consumers choose to do has an outsized effect on our economy.

Turns out we went more gangbusters on holiday sales last year than economists were expecting, but then decided (perhaps as our New Year’s resolutions) to rein in our spending.

We still splurged on big events including going to see artists such as Billie Eilish. And a warmer-than-expected summer (as well as the pullback in energy bill relief) meant that – whether we liked it or not – we had to splash more cash on keeping ourselves cool. That all contributed to household spending climbing 0.4 per cent.

But when it came to spending that isn’t strictly necessary, our purse strings tightened a bit, suggesting we’re still treading cautiously.

Partly thanks to Donald Trump’s unpredictability spooking us, we decided to squirrel away a bigger chunk of our income – even though we were generally earning more – in the March quarter. In fact, the saving ratio (which measures the proportion of our disposable income we stow away for a rainy day) climbed from 3.9 per cent to 5.2 per cent: the highest it’s been since 2022.

Another factor feeding into that higher saving ratio was Ex-Tropical Cyclone Alfred in Queensland which led to the government (and insurance companies) paying out to those affected – who in turn, ended up stashing a good portion of it away.

Investment by the private sector took the podium when it came to the part of GDP with the strongest growth, rising 0.7 per cent in the March quarter. That was largely thanks to a stronger appetite for investment in dwellings, including building houses and making renovations, perhaps helped along by the first cut to interest rates in nearly four years.

Businesses were also eager to sink money into manufacturing projects and more digging – not just for gold but for other minerals, too – contributing to the growth in private investment.

Net trade – exports minus imports – meanwhile, weighed down our overall growth, wiping 0.1 percentage point from the March quarter. While both imports and exports fell, the drop in exports was bigger. Production and shipments of coal and liquefied natural gas were disrupted by severe weather which, together with subdued growth in the number of international students and less spending per student, drove down Australia’s exports.

The implications of all this data for the Reserve Bank – and thus for all of us – is not immediately clear. The national accounts are always a delayed set of data (a good deal can change in the following three months), and there are signs of both continued weakness and of renewed strength in the economy.

The step back in public spending will probably make it easier for the Reserve Bank to drive forward with another rate cut next month – especially given it was close to slashing rates by 50 basis points at the last meeting, price pressures seem to have faded into the background, and growth is crawling along at snail’s pace.

With unemployment laying low, the inflation dragon tamed, and the private sector stepping up, there are glimmers of hope that Chalmers and the RBA have struck gold in our economic management. Now it’s about safeguarding the spoils by pulling up productivity and getting economic growth well off the ground.

Read more >>

In one awful decision, Albanese reveals his do-nothing plan

It didn’t take long for us to discover what a triumphantly re-elected Labor government would be like. Would Anthony Albanese stick to the plan he outlined soon after the 2022 election of avoiding controversy during his first term so he could consolidate Labor’s hold on power, then get on with the big reforms in term two? Or would he decide that his policy of giving no offence to powerful interest groups had been so rapturously received by the voters, he’d stick with it in his new term?

Well, now we know. The re-elected government’s first big decision is to extend the life of Woodside Energy’s North West Shelf gas processing plant on the Burrup peninsula in Western Australia for a further 40 years from 2030.

What was it you guys said about your sacred commitment to achieve net zero emissions by 2050? You remember, the commitment that showed you were fair dinkum about combating climate change whereas the Coalition, with its plan to switch to nuclear energy, wasn’t?

So you’re happy for one of the world’s biggest liquified natural gas projects still to be pumping out greenhouse gases in 2070, 20 years after it’s all meant to be over?

Some estimate that the plant will send 4.4 billion tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere, but that’s OK because nearly all the gas will be exported. We won’t be burning it, our customers will. (Though we don’t quite know how we’ll ensure their emissions worsen their climate but not ours.)

To be fair, had the government failed to extend the project’s licence, Woodside would have been ropeable and the West Australian branch of the Labor Party – which I sometimes suspect is a wholly owned subsidiary of the mining industry, or maybe the mining unions – might have seceded.

But that’s the point. If you want to govern Australia effectively – if you aim to fix our many problems – you have to be prepared to stand up to powerful interest groups. It’s now clear Albanese isn’t prepared to stand up, but still wants to enjoy the spoils of office.

The strange thing is, according to our present law, the environment minister’s power to end Woodside’s franchise stems only from the project’s effect on the environment, not on climate change. But this would have been no impediment to rejecting the continuation.

Other acidic pollution from the gas plant at Karratha has done great damage to the Murujuga rock art, and will do more. And this isn’t just any old bunch of Aboriginal carvings.

It is the most extensive collection of etched rock art in the world. More than a million carvings chart up to 50,000 years of continuous history, showing how the animals, sea level and landscape have changed over a far longer period than since the building of the pyramids.

It has images of what we called the Tasmanian tiger in the Australian mainland’s far north-west. It includes what may be the world’s oldest image of a human face. It even has an image of a tall ship.

How much natural gas would it take to persuade the French to let some company screw around with the 20,000-year-old paintings in the Lascaux Cave? What about the Poms letting miners have a go at Stonehenge?

But that’s not the way we value our ancient carvings. They may be important to First Australians, but the rest of us don’t see them as our heritage, valuable beyond price. The miners want them? Oh, fair enough.

Speaking of price, how valuable is that gas off the coast of WA? To Woodside’s foreign partners – BP, Shell and Chevron – hugely so. To us, not so much. The foreign companies pay only a fraction of their earnings in royalties to the WA government.

They pay as little as possible in company tax and next to nothing under the federal petroleum resource rent tax. In principle, it’s a beautiful tax on the companies’ super profits; in practice, they pay chicken feed. The Albanese government moved early in its first term to fix up the tax. Now the fossil fuel giants are being hit with two feathers, not one.

Ah yes, but what about all the jobs being generated? About 330 of them. Oil and gas are capital-intensive. We’re destroying our Lascaux Cave to save 330 jobs?

But apart from this decision’s effect on the climate and our pre-settler heritage, what does it say about how we’ll be governed over the next three years? Albo must think he’s laughing. His policy of doing as little as possible has received a ringing endorsement from the voters. So much so that the Liberals have been decimated, while the minors promising to act a lot faster on climate – the Greens and the teals – slipped back a bit.

But if I were Albanese, I wouldn’t be quite so certain that another three years of doing as little as possible – of never rocking the boat or frightening the horses – will see him easily re-elected in 2028.

In all the Libs’ agonising over what they must do to attract more votes, old hands are advising them not to become Labor Lite. Good advice. Albo has already bagsed that position.

I suspect that if Albanese wants to be the Labor government you have when you’re not having Labor, he’d better expect a fair bit of buyer’s remorse, starting with Labor’s true believers.

Just because Albo looked better than the scary Peter Dutton doesn’t mean voters opted for a do-nothing government.

Labor did well – and the Libs did badly – because it attracted more female and young voters. We know both groups are strong believers in climate action. Next time, they may decide the Greens and teals are the only politicians left to vote for.

If most voters expect their government to do something about their growing problems, Albo may attract a lot more critics than he bargained for. But admittedly, he will be kept busy shaking hands with the victims of droughts and 500-year floods.

Read more >>

Let's stop kidding ourselves. Taxes will have to go up

Before the election, the business press was terribly concerned about the decade of budget deficits and ever-rising public debt the Albanese government had clocked up. Something must be done! After the election, however, when the government pressed on with a move to save up to $3 billion a year by making rich men pay more tax on their superannuation, it was appalled. The sky would fall.

What the two contradictory positions have in common was that both are criticisms of a government few of its business readers would have much sympathy for. But the episode also shows the way voters’ attitudes towards the budget abound in wishful thinking – something the pollies encourage. “You want more, but don’t want to pay for it? Sure, I can do that.”

In Treasury secretary Dr Steven Kennedy’s speech to the Australian Business Economists last week, he showed a graph of the budget’s “structural” deficit stretching all the way out to 2035-36. (The structural component of the budget balance is the bit that’s left after you’ve allowed for the effect on the balance of where we happen to be in the business cycle of boom and bust.)

The structural deficit for next financial year is estimated to be 1.5 per cent of gross domestic product. Kennedy noted that spending on the National Disability Insurance Scheme is expected to reach more than our spending on defence. But he reminded us that (thanks mainly to our good friend Mad King Donald) defence spending is likely to grow a lot in coming years.

And that’s just the feds. The combined state and territory budget deficits are likely to be 1.8 per cent of GDP in the financial year just ending – which is 1.5 percentage points higher than their pre-pandemic long-run average, Kennedy said.

So the states have been really going at it, with their combined debt at the end of this month expected to reach 18.9 per cent of GDP, its highest in the 30-plus years they’ve had control over their own finances.

And yet politicians, federal and state, persist in running election campaigns where they promise bigger and better spending on this, that and the other, without any mention of how it will have to be paid for.

Worse, no matter how much they’ve promised, the Liberals always claim that their taxes will be lower than Labor’s, without this having any effect on their spending on “essential services”. (Perhaps this boils down to a promise not to rely on bracket creep – the “secret tax of inflation” – quite as much as Labor does.)

What the pollies never tell us is that, if you want it, it will cost you. But one woman who is game to tell us what the politicians aren’t is Aruna Sathanapally, boss of the Grattan Institute. In a speech a year ago she told the unvarnished truth: our governments are “not raising enough revenue for what we spend”.

No one wants to pay more tax. And the richest of us protest more and fight hardest when asked to cough up a little more. I meet people who tell me we’re already overtaxed.

Nonsense. “We are a relatively low-tax country with high service expectations. Pre-COVID, Australia was eighth-lowest ranked country in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development for tax collections relative to our country’s size, five percentage points lower than the OECD average,” Sathanapally says.

“Yet, Australians expect high-quality healthcare, aged care, and disability care, among many other things. Like other rich nations, government spending has grown as a share of the economy, particularly in recent decades.

“But our tax base is going in the opposite direction: narrowing as the population ages with the growing cost of tax concessions.

“This leaves a structural gap,” Sathanapally says. “You can tackle the structural problem by reducing spending, increasing revenue, and by growing the economy.

“Growing the economy is the easiest solution to sell, but it is the hardest to achieve in practice. Australia, like other advanced economies, is expecting slower economic growth over the next 40 years than we’ve had over the past 40 years. Even if productivity growth exceeds expectations, it is still unlikely to close the structural gap.

“As a relatively low-tax country, we can afford to raise more revenue, but of course there are better and worse ways to do this. Broadening the tax base and reducing tax concessions tend to be much less economically damaging than simply raising the headline rates of tax.

“Australia’s tax mix asks workers and companies to shoulder most of the burden, while offering substantial concessions for wealth. Wealth in housing and superannuation gets particularly generous treatment.”

“Take superannuation tax breaks for example. They cost the budget almost $45 billion a year and are projected to cost more than the age pension by 2036. These tax breaks predominantly benefit the top 20 per cent of income earners, so they do little to actually reduce age pension spending.

“Meanwhile the combination of capital gains tax breaks and negative gearing encourages speculation in the housing market in place of other more productive uses of funds,” she says.

We know how hard politically governments find it to fix these problems, “but frankly, we are sitting on a wretched generational bargain, and it has gone on for long enough.

“Young people today already face the prospect of weaker wage growth, higher hurdles to owning a home [or more likely, a lifetime of renting] and a future shaped increasingly by extreme weather and natural disasters.

“Yet, we ask our young people – our children and grandchildren – to contribute more towards supporting older generations than our older generations ever contributed when they were of working age,” she concluded.

Phew. It’s not often people in public life say things of so frank, so honest, so disinterested good sense that I want to quote them at such length.

Next, why doesn’t the business press write a desk-thumping editorial explaining how Sathanapally got it all so badly wrong.

Read more >>