IQ2 Debate Sydney City Recital Hall
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Some of you who read my column may be wondering what on earth I’m doing on the side opposing this motion that, by 2020, only the rich will be at home in Australia. Don’t I care about inequality? Well, yes I do. Do I believe everything in the garden is rosy? No I don’t. I do believe the gap between high and low incomes is too wide and I’d be happy to see governments do more to redistribute income from high income-earners like me to lower income-earners like you. (No, I suspect few of you are low income-earners.)
So why am I opposing this motion? Because it’s too extreme; it’s way too pessimistic and it goes over the top. Think about it: by 2020, only the rich will be at home in Australia. Let me ask you: do you feel at home in Australia right now, or do you feel like an outcast? Are you rich? No, you’re not. But what this motion asserts is that, within just 12 years or less, you’ll be dispossessed. If you own your home now, within 12 years you’ll have lost it. If you’ve got any superannuation, it won’t have grown in the next 12 years, it will have disappeared. If you’re middle-class, educated and reasonably comfortable now, within 12 years you’ll have lost it all. You’ll by like a new migrant who isn’t sure he jumped the right way; who doesn’t feel at home in Australia.
Another question: what proportion of the population would you consider to be rich? The top 50 per cent? 20 per cent? 10 per cent? What about the top 2 per cent? To be in the top 2 per cent of taxpayers you have to be earning more than $180,000 a year. So let’s say the top 2 per cent. This motion is saying that, within 12 years, the remaining 98 per cent will be stuffed. Now, I don’t pretend to know what will happen in the next 12 years, but the other side is certain they know: you are going to be completely buggered.
I don’t believe that for a minute, and that’s why I’m opposing this motion. It takes a sensible argument - the gap between rich and poor is too wide - and goes way over the top, predicting death and destruction for everyone in the middle.
Let me make three points. First, don’t believe everything you read in the paper. (Except the Herald, of course.) By their intense focus on the amazing salaries of a relative handful of chief executives and rich businessmen they’ve left us with a quite exaggerated impression of how well everybody earning more than we are is doing. What happens to the incomes of about 2000 men (and the odd woman) may be big news, but it tells us little about what’s happening to the remaining 21 million of us.
Second, it’s naïve to assume, as our opponents do, that things just keep moving in the same direction forever. If they’ve been getting worse, they can only keep getting worse. History shows that’s not true. The economy moves in cycles - house prices move in cycles, home loan affordability moves in cycles, interest rate go up and then come down. I believe in the pendulum theory of history, under which things keep moving in one direction until there’s a reaction, and they start swinging back in the opposite direction, only eventually to go too far in that direction. The proposition that gap between rich and poor can only widen in the next 12 years reveals an ignorance of the way the world works.
Third, what will all the low and middle-income voters be doing while they’re being dispossessed by the top 2 per cent? Democracy protects us from such extremes because the rich will never have more votes than the bottom and the middle, and governments that want to stay in power must attract the votes of the non-rich. The notion that elected governments do nothing but pander to the rich and powerful is defies common sense.
Talk to forum on Evidence-Based Regulatory Reform
Monash University Law Chambers, December 6, 2010
Some of the most important ideas are deceptively simple. Who, for instance, could dispute that the practice of medicine, the making of government policy or the reform of government regulation should be ‘evidence-based’? I have a mate who’s an academic neurologist and when we’re at our holiday homes and getting our daily exercise toiling up and down a mountain he often tells me about the advent of evidence-based medicine. I was surprised to learn that many of the cures prescribed by doctors often aren’t chosen on the basis of hard, scientific evidence, but rather on the doctor’s habits, on what he was taught at med school, on the doctor’s impression of what other doctors do, on years of casual observation as to what works and what doesn’t, on what might minimise the doctor’s ‘medico-legal’ risk, on what the doctor remembers reading in a medical journal, or even what the doctor was told recently by a visiting drug company rep. In place of this, the medical profession is slowly and painstakingly assessing what it knows from high-quality empirical studies about the efficacy of particular treatments, with treatments and tests graded, starting with the ‘gold standard’ and working down. Doctors who follow these guidelines can expect to avoid much criticism should things go amiss. The role of professional judgment is reduced, but the effectiveness of treatment is greatly enhanced.
Now, who among us could doubt that making medicine more ‘evidence-based’ is a great step forward? I was pondering the idea of writing a radical column advocating that economists and econocrats follow the doctors’ example and make their policy recommendations more evidence-based - less reliance on theory, more on empirics - when I was amazed to see the chairman of the Productivity Commission had given a long speech advocating ‘evidence-based policy-making’. The boss of the most notoriously theoretically pure economic institution is preaching sermons about the need to take more notice of the actual evidence? And I have no doubt that, in his own mind, his commitment to taking more notice of evidence was completely genuine.
The point I want to make is that, while no one could disagree with the proposition that everything we do ought to be more evidence-based - perhaps even choosing our spouse - in practice it ain’t that simple. What I regard as evidence may not be what you regard as evidence. And the conclusions I draw from the evidence may not be those you draw from the same evidence. It may transpire that your response to the evidence was sound and mine wasn’t. But both of us will be able to claim our decisions were evidence-based. So making evidence-based decisions may improve the quality of those decisions on average, but it offers no guarantee that decisions are correct. And even the expectation that paying more attention to evidence will generally improve the quality of decisions should itself be subject to evaluation once we have more evidence about the effectiveness of evidence-based decision-making.
‘Evidence’ is a word with a wonderful air of certainty and assurance. Who could doubt the evidence? Who could argue with the evidence? Yet we know from watching telly that this is just what barristers are paid to do: argue about different interpretations of the evidence. And far more lowly paid juries have the last word on what the evidence proves. We need to think more clearly about what evidence is. I think it’s just facts. In the case of economic questions it’s often statistical facts - the statistical composition of some population; the movement in some variable over time. Maybe the movement in two variables over time, the degree of correlation between them and whether we can be sure that one caused the other, or whether both are caused by some third variable.
But the world abounds with facts, far more than we can assimilate. Some facts (and some statistics) are relevant to the question at hand and some are irrelevant. How do we decide which facts are pertinent and which aren’t? We apply our judgment. The judgment of a professional has been schooled by her professional education; she’s been trained to think along certain lines, her thinking is guided by a ‘model’. A model - which can just as easily be called a theory - is an attempt to understand a complex reality by simplifying that reality: excluding all those factors considered to be of little importance so as to focus on those factors believed to be most important in explaining how things work. All models pick and choose between the facts, all professions rely on models, and each profession’s model tends to be quite different from the others, so that, for example, a lawyer and an economist can draw quite different conclusions from the same set of facts, the same evidence. How successful each profession’s model is at explaining and predicting the way the world works depends on whether it has avoided excluding from its model factors that end up being important in explaining behaviour. In practice, all professions suffer from what I call ‘model blindness’ - a tendency to underrate factors that aren’t in their model, but turn out to be important explanators. I doubt if more emphasis on evidence will overcome the endemic problem of model blindness.
Let me make a quite different point. One reason policy-makers don’t make more use of evidence is that the evidence - particularly statistical evidence - doesn’t exist. And often it doesn’t exist because evidence is expensive to collect. So any genuine push to make decision-making more evidence-based would involve spending a lot more taxpayers’ money on collecting evidence. And collecting more evidence would annoy lots of people. Much valuable potential evidence is possessed by government agencies, but they’re often quite resistant to requests to make it available, lest they provide outsiders with a stick to beat them. Other evidence has to be collected by government agencies from business, but business greatly resents having to fill in forms for the government. It’s likely that, in the mind of business, a fair bit of the push for ‘evidence-based regulatory reform’ involves getting rid of ‘red tape’ otherwise known as evidence.
But I’m supposed to be talking about regulating for sustainability, so let me take a case study and consider the extent to which evidence could throw light on the regulatory decisions to be made. Most of us are agreed that we need to greatly reduce our emissions of greenhouse gases in the next few decades. Economists are agreed that the least-cost way to achieve this is not by prohibiting certain undesirable behaviour or by subsidising certain desirable behaviour, but by ‘putting a price on carbon’. Is this judgment evidence-based? Probably not. It’s such a new area that there isn’t a lot of evidence available, and what evidence there is would be mixed. No, this conclusion comes straight from the economists’ conventional model, which assumes that prices are always the main influence over people’s economic behaviour and that changing prices is always the least-cost way to achieve policy objectives.
But as you probably realise, there are two different ways we could put a price on carbon. We could take the cap-and-trade, emissions trading scheme approach of the Rudd government’s carbon pollution reduction scheme, and limit the quantity of carbon dioxide permitted to be emitted, thus forcing up the price of emissions. Or we could impose a tax on emissions, thus increasing their price and thereby encouraging businesses and households to reduce the quantity of their emissions. As you can see, the two approaches are essentially mirror-image and, in theory, either way should achieve the same result. From about the time the Rudd government committed itself to the trading-scheme approach, the balance of opinion among economists swung in favour of the carbon tax approach. And now with the abandonment of the Rudd scheme, but the recommitment to putting a price on carbon, the nation is facing the choice.
Was the swing in economists’ opinion in favour of a tax evidence-based? I doubt it. Could it have been? Not really; as I say, there isn’t a lot of evidence available. It does seem clear the European Union’s trading scheme has not worked well - but it’s easy to say we can see what the Europeans did wrong and will make sure we avoid making the same mistakes. So on what basis do economists divide between supporting a trading scheme and supporting a carbon tax? Because the model says they’re essentially equivalent, I think it boils down to differing judgments about their political and administrative feasibility.
We should gather more evidence and take more notice of the evidence we have, but don’t imagine this will greatly reduce the role of subjective judgment in the way governments regulate the economy.
Talk to Watermark’s CEO lunch, Sydney
November 10, 2010
The immediate outlook for our economy is for strengthening growth. Our economy’s trend or ‘potential’ rate of growth is about 3.25 per cent a year, but the Reserve Bank is forecasting growth of 3.5 per cent this calendar year, rising to 3.75 per cent next year and 4 per cent in 2012. At present most of the growth is coming from the high prices we’re receiving for our exports of coal and iron ore. Australia’s terms of trade are the best they’ve been at least since Federation, excluding the two-quarter spike in wool prices during the Korean war. Those high prices are likely to fall back somewhat over the next year or two, but by then the stimulus to growth is likely to be coming from an unprecedented program of investment in mining and natural gas production capacity.
If you find it hard to believe the economy is travelling so well it’s probably because some parts of the economy aren’t doing all that well. Retailing is doing it tough because, though households have growing incomes, they’re saving a higher proportion of that income and tending to pay down their debts rather than add to them. This position probably won’t last long, but the longer it does the better. Why would I say that? Because the looming massive boom in business investment - mainly mining investment - will be more than enough to keep the economy growing strongly, and if we add a consumption boom on the top of that the Reserve Bank will have no choice but to limit inflation pressure by pushing interest rates up even further than it would already have had to.
If you’re still not convinced the economy is travelling so well at present you have to explain why the labour market is so strong. Employment grew by almost 340,000 over the year to September - up more than 3 per cent - and unemployment is down to 5.1 per cent. Even in what many regard as the basket-case economy of NSW, employment has grown by 2.5 per cent and the unemployment rate is down to 5.2 per cent.
That last comparison leads me to the next point I want to make: don’t overdo the two-speed economy stuff. It is true the resources boom is concentrated in Queensland and Western Australia, but the links between the state economies are strong and income flows very readily across state borders. The federal government’s taxing and spending helps to bring that about, as does the way the Grants Commission divides up the GST revenue between the states. But the states also trade with each other so money that’s earned in one state often gets spent in another. Another point to note is that Queensland’s economy isn’t travelling all that well at present, mainly because its tourist industry has been hard hit by the high dollar.
But the main thing I want to say is this: although the major developed economies are likely to experience very weak growth over the rest of the decade, we look like having a decade-long mining investment boom. It’s possible, of course, that the Chinese economy could fall over and leave us in the lurch, but I don’t think it’s very likely. I’ll worry about that if it happens. So, on the face of it, we look like having a great time while most of our rich mates do it tough. But here’s the trick: for a lot of people - a lot of industries - the great boom of the 2010s isn’t likely to be much fun. Why not? Because we’re re-entering the resources boom with the economy already close to full capacity, which means the Reserve will be eternally worried about inflation and will never have its hand far from the interest rate lever. Economists regard full employment as an unemployment rate of about 4.75 per cent. If it goes much lower than that you get growing shortages of skilled labour and upward pressure on wages, which flows through to the prices of goods and services. Just last week the Reserve made the first 0.25 percentage-point move from a neutral stance of monetary policy to a restrictive stance. It has a long way further to go as it seeks to keep inflation within it 2 to 3 per cent target range over the rest of the decade.
The high interest rates are likely to be accompanied by a high exchange rate. It will be high not so much because interest rates are high as because export prices are high, because money is pouring into Australia to finance the mining investment boom and because the prospects for our economy will be so much more attractive than for the other developed economies.
This high exchange rate means our non-mining export and import-competing industries - farming, manufacturing, tourism and education - are likely to be continuously under the gun. Life’s going to be very tough for them for a protracted period. There won’t be a lot governments can do to ease the pressure on them, and there won’t be a lot their econocrats want them to do. There is some scope for big increases in the budget surplus to limit the upward pressure on interest rates, but this is easily exaggerated. From an economist’s perspective, the pressure the high exchange rate imposes on the non-mining tradeables industries isn’t a bad thing, it’s a good thing. It’s part of the way a floating exchange rate helps to limit inflation during a protracted resources boom. With the economy already at full employment, the problem is finding the additional labour and capital needed by the expanding resources sector. But the high exchange rate causes the non-mining tradeables industries to contract, thus releasing resources to flow to the resources sector. Immigration is another source of skilled labour, of course.
The other way to think of it is that we’re likely to be entering a protracted period of a perpetually tight labour market. Combine the long boom with the ageing of the population and employers will really know they’re alive. It will be a period where they’re always on the lookout for more skilled staff, where they’re trying to accommodate baby boomers rather than have them retire and trying to encourage staff loyalty. Those with more sense will be focusing on training and internal promotion rather than poaching the staff of other firms.
Turning to the political outlook, the dust is settling after the extraordinary events of this year and a few things are becoming clearer. First point is to abandon any expectation that the minority Gillard government could fall at any moment. The independents whose votes would be needed to bring about the government’s defeat have as great a motive for not doing that as the government has for wanting to survive. In any case, we’ve had plenty of experience of minority governments at the state level and we know they tend to be long-lasting. Similarly, I wouldn’t assume that, just because the Libs came so close to winning this time, they’re dead set to win the next election whenever it’s held. If Gillard survives for the best part of three years it’s anyone’s guess as to the relative standing of the two parties at that time. Gillard may have found respect and affection in the heart of the electorate by then - she’ll certainly be trying to - or Abbott may have revealed the more erratic and manic side of his character that led so many people to write him off. Three years of unrelenting opposition to everything - punch, punch, punch - could wear very thin with an electorate that gets terribly tired of seeing politicians perpetually arguing with each other. Or Abbott may grow in stature in the job, as may Gillard. The big question is whether Gillard has a learning curve. I think Rudd had no such learning curve, but there’s little doubt this Labor government has a lot to learn about governing. Labor has proved to be remarkably amateurish, even in the matter of political spin. It thought the game was about spin; it turned out to be about communicating to the electorate your vision, determination, diligence and competence.
In contrast to Rudd - and notwithstanding pink batts and the BER - Gillard is a highly competent administrator, she listens, consults and carries people with her - her own side, the bureaucrats and even the interest groups. She’s a highly experienced and skilful negotiator. What she’s not is a person of great conviction and charisma. With the retirement of Lindsay Tanner, this government is down to just one economic rationalist, Craig Emerson - that is, just one person with a deep understanding of how markets work and a commitment to making them work well. The rest of the government just pretends to be rational reformers because they feel that, politically, they have no choice. Labor has an inferiority complex in the area of budgeting, and is very conscious of the fact that it continues in office with the consent of business - particularly big business; it is constantly seeking the approval of business and is wary of doing anything that might seriously annoy business.
Many people have been expecting this minority government to be a weak government: a government that doesn’t have much direction and doesn’t get much done because it can’t get the numbers on anything. Maybe a government that’s obliged to do stupid, wasteful things to keep in with the motley collection of independents on whose support it depends. We haven’t seen much sign of this yet - perhaps it’s too early - and I’m not sure this will end up being a major issue. From my perspective, this is likely to be a weak government more because it doesn’t believe in anything much and its lack of conviction robs it of the courage to do anything very unpopular.
In a speech she gave last night, Gillard spelt out her core beliefs - the things that drive her politically: hard work, education, respect. Hard work means being self-reliant. Education as the main way people get a chance to better themselves. Respect - some people aren’t better than others because of their title, occupation or background.
She also spelt out her government’s vision for Australia: a strong economy, and opportunity for all. More jobs, more opportunity, better life chances. For all, not some.
Finally, she left us with a clear idea of her agenda: a price on carbon, a decision on water and getting the budget back into surplus by 2012-13. No doubt you could add pressing on with the NBN, bedding down the mining tax, finding a regional solution to asylum seekers and a few other things - but an old agenda (no addition of major new items) and a modest agenda, one with about as much challenge as she feels able to cope with.
Clancy Auditorium, UNSW
Thursday, November 4, 2010
My strongest reason for opposing continuing high levels of net migration is my scepticism about the airy assurances from economists and others that continued population growth is compatible with an ecologically sustainable Australia. Economists offer these assurances not because they’ve thought deeply about Australia’s ecological carrying capacity - it’s not a subject they know much about - but because they’re used to thinking about the economy in isolation from the environment and because they have a suspiciously convenient faith in the ability of technological advance to solve environmental problems and faith in the ability of increases in man-made capital to substitute for the depletion of non-renewable resources, the over-exploitation of renewable resources, the degradation of waterways and soil, the destruction of species and the damage to ecosystem services (such as carbon sinks).
But since I’m no expert on ecology either, I’ll stick to something I know a bit about. It’s to warn non-economists that the contribution of immigration to increased material prosperity isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. There’s no doubt that net migration causes the economy to grow - to be bigger because it has more people in it. Businesses want a bigger economy because it gives them more people to sell to and profit from. From their self-interested perspective, that’s quite rational. But for economists and politicians it’s not good enough to assume that bigger is better, to believe in growth for the sake of growth. No, according to their narrow, materialist perspective, growth is only a good thing if it makes us better off, if it raises our material standard of living, if it increases real income per person.
Now here’s the thing: although economists don’t like to talk about it - don’t like to think about it - plenty of studies have shown that immigration does little or nothing to raise real income per person. What little gain there is goes to the immigrants themselves, not the pre-existing population that invited them in. This conventional but little-trumpeted finding is confirmed by the most recent study, undertaken by the Productivity Commission in 2006.
So why is it that adding extra workers tends not to raise the average standard of living? Well, it’s well understood by economists: it’s because all those extra people require additional spending on capital - ‘capital broadening’ as economists call it - if the average amount of capital per person isn’t to fall. The extra people need to be supported by additional capital in their private lives - more housing - additional capital equipment in the firms where they work, and additional public infrastructure: more roads, more public transport, schools, hospitals, power and water. Thus the economic benefit of having more workers is essentially cancelled out by the cost of providing the extra capital that needs to go with them and their families (most of which has to be borrowed from foreigners).
The fashion among economists at present is to ignore this glaring drawback and focus on more seemingly appealing arguments, such as that high immigration will reduce our problem with ageing (true but exaggerated) and Professor Peter McDonald’s argument that politicians don’t determine the size of our immigration, the needs of the economy do. There’s some truth to this, but then economists point to the resources boom and the massive increase in construction activity it involves and conclude we must open the immigration flood gates to avoid skilled-labour shortages and wage inflation. Actually, we only surrender our control over immigration to the economy when we proceed from the assumption that economic growth is pretty much the only thing that matters and that the role of the natural environment can be left out of the model.
Talk to Festival of Dangerous Ideas, Sydney Opera House
October 3, 2010
Our economy, and pretty much every economy, has been growing for at least the past 200 years. Almost every year the quantity of goods and services being produced has increased. Production has grown faster than the population has grown, meaning that, on average, people’s annual consumption has increased. Our material standard of living has risen by a percent or two every year; we’ve become more affluent.
Almost every economist, business person and politician believes this is the way things should be and must continue to be forever. All those groups are convinced this is what the public wants: ever-increasing affluence. They think any politician who failed to promise economic growth would be pilloried; any government that failed to deliver it would be thrown out. Even the Greens avoid publicly expressing any doubt about the desirability of continuous growth. It’s just too hot. So deep-seated is this belief that it constitutes a bedrock assumption underlying the whole economic debate. Most of my participation in that debate - most of what I write in the Herald - implicitly accepts this conventional wisdom.
But the longer I’ve continued as an economics writer, the more I’ve read and thought about it, the more I’ve come to doubt the conventional wisdom. My rejection of the case for economic growth is spelt out in my new book, The Happy Economist. I have three reasons for breaking with this almost-compulsory belief.
The first is that, contrary to everything economists, business people and politicians assume, our increasing material standard of living over time hasn’t made us any happier. In many countries, annual surveys of the public’s satisfaction with life have stayed essentially unchanged over the decades despite ever-increasing real incomes. It’s true that, at any point in time, people with higher incomes tend to be happier - a little happier - than people with lower incomes. But as everyone’s income rises over time, average happiness is unchanged. Psychologists offer two main explanations for this paradox. One is that we quickly get used to pay rises and promotions and the extra stuff they allow us to buy; we soon take them for granted as our expectations adjust. The other is that what we like is an increase in our relative income, because the income and the flashy stuff it buys give us greater social status. It allows us to engage in conspicuous consumption, demonstrating to the world that we’re not only keeping up with the Joneses but getting ahead of them. That cynical and sexist old American journalist H. L. Menken said that to be wealthy is to have an income that’s at least a hundred dollars a year more than the income of your wife's sister's husband. But no amount of economic growth can make all of us feel socially superior to everyone else. It’s a status race that some people can win only at the expense of those who lose. So it’s socially wasteful.
My second reason for breaking with the belief that the pursuit of unending economic growth is desirable is that the things we do to encourage growth by increasing the economy’s efficiency often generate social costs, many of which go unnoticed. They go unnoticed partly because they’re subjective and hard to measure, but also because, being things that fall outside the economic model - the economic way of looking at things, which has a deep influence on the habitual lines of thought of politicians and business people - we’ve never put much effort into measuring them.
One of the clear lessons of the ‘science of happiness’ confirms something we all know: how much of the satisfaction we derive from life comes from our relationships. Relationships with our spouse and our children, our parents and siblings, our wider relatives, workmates, neighbours and friends. But despite their central importance to our wellbeing, our relationships simply don’t figure in the economists’ model. Which means economists frequently urge on our politicians ‘reforms’ they are sure will add to our affluence, without a moment’s thought about what effect these may have on our relationships and the social dimension of our lives.
A prime example is the effort in recent years to lift the nation’s productivity by deregulating shopping hours and getting rid of penalty payments, which has hastened the demise of the weekend, when most adults and school children weren’t working and so were able to enjoy each other’s company. Only when the economics-types went to the extreme of Work Choices did many people see clearly the social costs that would accompany the economic benefits - the greater affluence - it might have brought about.
My third reason for rejecting the belief that the pursuit of unending economic growth is desirable - or even possible - is the one that would have sprung first to the mind of many of you: the sheer impossibility of exponential growth in the economy - growth at a reasonably steady percentage rate - continuing indefinitely within a finite natural environment. The basic economic model, which hasn’t changed much since the second half of the 19th century, is a model of market transactions: the factors of production - land, labour and capital - change hands for a price and are used to produce goods and services which also change hands for a price. So it’s the model of a market and the only things in the model are things that have a price. Anything that isn’t bought and sold at a price - including clean air, clean water, photosynthesis, native species, natural sinks for carbon dioxide - is external to the model and thus tends to be ignored. So the ‘ecosystem services’ that are utterly essential to the functioning of the economy - indeed, to the survival of humanity - have historically been treated by economists as ‘free goods’ - goods in such abundant supply they don’t carry a price and so can safely be ignored. The natural environment is outside the market, so we can forget it.
Now, it’s important to note that, 100 or 150 years ago, this was a reasonable approximation of the truth. Human activity - most of which is economic activity - obviously caused damage to the local environment, but so limited was that activity relative to the vastness of the natural world that it was reasonable to assume it was having no significant effect on the overall ecosystem. If so, it was reasonable to ignore the natural environment.
Two things have happened since then. One is advances in the natural sciences, which have allowed us to understand the harmful effects of economic activity on the ecosystem that often aren’t visible to the naked eye. The other is the massive growth in economic activity, as a result of the success of capitalism and the technological advance it fosters and exploits. In the past 200 years, the world’s population has increased by a factor of more than six, thanks to advances in public health and medical science. In the same period, the average material standard of living of all the people in the world has also increased by a factor of six, thanks to capitalism and technological advance. Multiply the two together and you see the amount of economic activity - as measured by GDP - has increased 45-fold in the past 200 years since the start of the Industrial Revolution.
And all this in a natural environment that’s grown no bigger. So whereas it was possible say economic activity was too small to have much impact on the global ecosystem, it’s not credible to say it today. We get back to the earlier question of whether economic activity can continue growing exponentially in an ecosystem of fixed size. Clearly it can’t. And this raises a vital question: are we reaching the limits to growth? When ecologists first suggested this in the 1970s, economists laughed at them. But in the time since then the evidence has been stacking up on the scientists’ side. It’s now apparent, for instance, that we’re rapidly approaching the limits to growth in one dimension: greenhouse gas emissions arising from the burning of fossil fuels and the destruction of forests. There could be no clearer example of how economic activity is starting to do great damage to the ecosystem, some of which may soon be irreversible. But there are other areas where the damage we’re doing to the environment is mounting up: all the problems we’re having with water, rivers, farming methods and soil quality; the irreversible decline in fish stocks and the difficulties associated with fish farming; the declining reserves of certain non-renewable resources, and the destruction of species.
My fear that we’re approaching the limits to growth more generally than just in the case of greenhouse gas emissions is greatly increased by the rapid economic development of the two most populous countries in the world, China and India, which between them account for almost 40 per cent of the world’s population. We’re well aware of how hugely resource-intensive is the lifestyle of the 15 or 20 per cent of the world’s population in the developed countries. But now these two big countries have been growing at rapid rates for the past two or three decades. China’s GDP has been doubling every seven years; India’s every eight or nine years. Should this growth continue for another 20 or 30 years, the material standard of living of another 40 per cent of the globe’s population would be approaching that of ours. Question is: do we have enough natural resources available to make this possible? And could the global ecosystem survive such an immense call on its services?
Problem is: we’re in no position to urge the Asians to abandon their efforts to become as materially affluent as we have long been. It wouldn’t be moral for us to try and it wouldn’t have any effect if we did. There are two dimensions to the problem: the continuing growth in the world’s population and the continuing growth in the world’s average material living standards. I believe the only way to try to reconcile the poor countries’ material aspirations with the ecological limits to growth is for the developing countries to focus particularly on limiting their population growth and for developed countries such as Australia to focus on limiting our economic growth. (The rich countries don’t need to worry about population growth because our fertility rates are already below the replacement level of 2.1 babies per female.)
We rich countries need to move to a ‘steady-state’ economy, where there is no growth in our use (‘throughput’) of natural resources, even though there is no restriction on efforts to use all resources (natural, labour and man-made capital resources) with greater economy - that is, on productivity improvement. With a fertility rate below the replacement rate and limited net immigration, this should not involve a significant decline in our present material standard of living.
How would this absence of growth in the use of natural resources be achieved? By the much wider application of cap-and-trade schemes such as the emissions trading scheme proposed for greenhouse gas emissions. This would have the effect of raising the prices of natural resources and everything made from them, but provided the permits for firms to put natural resources into the production chain were auctioned rather than given away, the rise in prices would be equalled by an increase in government revenue. That is, the scheme would be equivalent to, in Tony Abbott’s immortal phrase, ‘a great big new tax on everything’. But the proceeds from the natural resource tax could be used to make equivalent cuts in other taxes, particularly income and consumption taxes. In other words, the tax system would be realigned, so that we increased the tax on environmental ‘bads’ while reducing the tax on environmental ‘goods’, without much change in the level of taxation overall. In the process, we’d be changing relative prices in the economy, discouraging activities that involved heavy use of natural resources while encouraging activities involving little use of natural resources.
At present, developed economies are oriented towards economising on the use of the most expensive (and most heavily taxed) resource, labour, but in the new regime labour would be a lot cheaper and the most expensive resources would be natural resources. So all of capitalism’s economising, productivity-seeking efforts would be redirected towards reducing the use of natural resources. The recycling of natural resources would become more economic, as would the repair rather than replacement of durable consumer goods. We’d still have a market-based, efficiency-oriented economy, but we’d impose a different set of constraints on it. It would be an economy that strove for improved quality, not increased quantity.
My guess is that a lot of people like the sound of an economy that does less damage to the environment, and aren’t particularly perturbed by the thought that their level of consumption wouldn’t keep increasing year after year, but wonder whether a capitalist economy that stopped growing would implode. If we stopped consuming more each year wouldn’t that lead to mass unemployment? They seem to think of the economy as being like riding a bike: if you stop going forward you fall off. Certainly, there are plenty of economists and business people who’d be happy to leave you with that impression.
The strongest argument in favour of economic growth is that we need a bigger economy to generate the extra jobs needed to gainfully employ an ever-growing workforce. But if ever there was a time when we were freed from that imperative it’s now. Like the other developed economies - and China - we’re entering a period where the ageing of the population means, if anything, the demand for labour will exceed its supply. What’s happening in Australia right now is that more than half the growth in our population and labour force is coming from immigration. In other words, our problem at present is the reverse of the one people worry about: to maintain our rate of economic growth we’re having to import workers from other countries. So if we give up our desire for growth in our use of natural resources, we can cut our rate of net migration and have little trouble finding jobs for everyone who wants to work. Should unemployment persist, however, the answer would be to take the gains from increases in workers’ productivity not as real wage rises (to permit higher consumption) but as a shorter working week.
The conventional view among economists, business people and politicians is that economic growth must continue. I believe, on the contrary, that growth in our use of natural resources must stop; that this could be achieved without great technical difficulty, that it wouldn’t involve any loss of human happiness and could lead to improvements in social relationships. The only question is how much further damage to the global ecosystem must occur before we come to accept the need for change. When we do come to accept it, however, it’s to the economists that we’ll turn to work out how it can be done.
Talk to Victorian Commercial Teachers Association
September 13, 2010
The survival of the Gillard government with the support of the various independents has breathed new life into the debate about tax reform and the recommendations of the Henry tax review. Ms Gillard has agreed with the two country independents to hold a tax summit before July next year to discuss the economic and social effects of the reforms proposed by the review. The Labor government’s survival also allows it to press on with its intention to enact the revised minerals resource rent tax and the package of measures it will pay for. All of the four members of the House whose votes the government needs have indicated their support for the mining tax in some form, as have the Greens, who will have the balance of power in the Senate after June next year. About $6 billion of the $10 billion regional assistance package negotiated with the independents will be funded from the proceeds of the mining tax, via the Regional Infrastructure Fund.
The Henry tax review
The tax package was produced as the government’s response to the Henry review panel’s comprehensive review of the Australian tax and transfer system, federal and state. It’s the first comprehensive review since the Asprey report of 1975. Just as the Asprey report set the direction for tax reform over the following 25 years, so Ken Henry’s goal was to lay down a blueprint to guide further reform over coming decades, whether by this government or its successors. Henry set out proposals to:
• concentrate federal and state revenue-raising on four broad-based taxes: personal income, business income, rents on natural resources and land, and private consumption. Other taxes should be retained only where they serve social purposes or internalise negative externalities (eg gambling, tobacco and alcohol taxes, petrol taxes, pollution taxes). State taxes on insurance, conveyancing and other stamp duties and payroll tax should be replaced by a comprehensive 1 pc land tax and a ’broad-based cash flow tax’ (a simplified GST-type tax). (The objection to payroll tax is not that it’s a tax on labour - so is the GST - but that its high threshold means only larger businesses are taxed.)
• change the mix of taxation to reduce reliance on taxing mobile resources (eg business income) and increase reliance on taxing immobile resources (eg land and resources, and consumption). The company tax rate should be reduced from 30 pc to 25 pc. State royalty charges on minerals should be replaced by a resource rent tax levied at 40 pc.
• introduce a new two-step income tax scale with a tax-free threshold of $25,000 (but with the low-income tax offset and other offsets abolished), a 35 pc rate to $180,000 (but the 1.5 pc Medicare levy abolished) and (the present) 45 pc rate above that.
• regularise the widely disparate rates of tax on income from savings by allowing a 40 pc discount on income from interest, rent and capital gains, but also on deductions for interest expense of rental properties.
• improve the targeting of cash transfer payments.
• reform the taxation of superannuation by abolishing the 15 pc tax on contributions. People’s contributions should be taxed at their marginal rate, but they should receive a tax offset designed to ensure low income earners pay no net tax on contributions, middle income earners pay no more than 15 pc and only high income earners pay more than 15 pc. This would greatly improve the present inequitable distribution of the super tax concession. The tax on fund earnings should be halved to 7.5 pc. These two measures would lead eventually to greater super payouts, particularly for low and middle earners, making a rise in the compulsory contribution rate unnecessary.
• improve the taxing of roads by introducing congestion pricing that varies by time of day, using the proceeds to replace the tax element of motor vehicle registrations and possibly fuel taxes. Heavy vehicles should pay changes reflecting the damage they do to roads.
• reduce the complexity of the tax system, including by using an optional standard deduction for work-related expenses to simplify the completion of tax returns and save on tax agents’ fees.
Contents of the original tax package
A week before the 2010 budget was announced, the Rudd government unveiled the tax reform package that was its response to the Henry review and also the centrepiece of its budget. The package consisted of one big new tax, originally called the resource super-profits tax, which would cover the cost of various tax cuts and increased tax concessions. The mining tax effectively replaced the states’ various royalty charges for the use of minerals owned by the Crown. Although the states would continue to charge these royalties, miners would have their payments refunded by the feds. The resource tax was originally expected to raise a net $12 billion in its first two years of operation.
Proceeds from the resource tax would finance a range of tax reductions:
• Company tax rate phased down from 30 pc to 28 pc
• Small business to receive company tax rate cut earlier than other companies, plus instant write-off of new fixed assets worth less than $5000
• The present tax deduction for resource exploration costs to be turned into a ‘refundable tax offset’ at the prevailing company tax rate, making it more valuable to explorers and much more expensive to the government
• The concessional treatment of superannuation made more concessional in several ways, including: the 15 pc contributions tax for people earning up to $37,000 a year is effectively eliminated and the higher cap on contributions by people over 50 will be continued permanently for those with inadequate super. The package would also cover the cost to revenue of the decision to slowly phase up the compulsory contribution rate for employees from 9 pc to 12 pc between 2013 and 2019. (The cost to revenue arises because wages that formerly would have been taxed at the employee’s marginal rate will now be taxed at the 15 pc rate of the contributions tax. The legal incidence of the increased contributions falls on the employer, but economists believe it is shifted to the employee by means of wage rises that are lower than otherwise.)
• Tax on interest income to be subject to a 50 pc discount (similar to the tax on capital gains) up to a limit of $1000 interest income.
• As a step towards simplifying tax returns, rather than itemising their work-related expenses (and tax agent’s fees), people may opt to claim a standard deduction of $500, to be raised to $1000.
As well as these tax measures, the government announced that part of the proceeds from the resource tax will be contributed to a ‘regional infrastructure fund’ and distributed to the states, particularly the resource-rich states, to finance resource-related infrastructure.
Timing: the resource tax isn’t due to begin for more than two years - July 2012 - and so all the other parts of the package are begun or phased in from that date.
The original package as tax reform
The Rudd government’s response to the Henry tax review was surprisingly limited. Of the review’s 138 recommendations, the government accepted and acted upon just a couple, explicitly rejected 19 politically controversial proposals and failed to comment on the rest. In other words, it cherry-picked the report, selecting just a few things it thought would bring short-term electoral benefit.
The report contained many politically difficult recommendations but one that was particularly attractive: a proposal to introduce a whole new source of revenue by using a federal resource rent tax to replace the states’ mineral royalty charges. Here the government had some highly respected economists urging it to introduce a lucrative new tax on an unpopular, mainly foreign-owned industry and assuring it the tax would do nothing to discourage mining or hurt the economy.
It could use the new tax to pay for various politically attractive ‘reforms’, to be introduced after it was re-elected. The resource rent tax it announced was in line with Henry’s recommendations, except for a spin-doctor-inspired name change to the ‘resource super-profits tax’. The tax was opposed by the Opposition and bitterly resisted by the mining companies, which won a fair bit of sympathy from wider business community. This resistance caused many voters to wonder whether the tax would be bad for the economy, but almost all the criticisms were unjustified. Precisely so as to ensure the tax didn’t do the bad things it was accused of, it was hugely complex, meaning that many of its critics simply didn’t understand how it would work.
When you look at the other supposed reforms, however, you find they bear little resemblance to the Henry report’s recommendations:
• It did propose a cut in the company tax rate, but to 25 pc not 28 pc.
• It did propose the instant write-off of assets, but for those costing less than $10,000 not $5000.
• On superannuation, the report proposed that the cost of increasing the concession on contributions by lower income earners be covered by reducing the concession to higher income earners. The government did the nice bit but not the nasty bit. The government did nothing about halving the tax on fund earnings as recommended. The report specifically avoided recommending an increase in the rate of compulsory contributions, but we got on anyway.
• The report recommended a thorough overhaul of the tax on savings, with the 50 pc discount on capital gains cut to 40 pc and the 40 pc discount extended to interest income and the interest expense deductions on rental property. The government introduced a 50 pc discount for interest income, but with a cap of $1000 in interest income. It made no changes to the capital gains discount or to negative gearing.
• The introduction of a standard deduction for work-related expenses was in line with the report’s proposals (though it may have been more generous that the report had in mind) and the report said nothing about introducing a new infrastructure fund.
The package as amended by Julia Gillard
The original resource tax drew considerable opposition from the mining industry, which reduced the Rudd government’s standing in the opinion polls and contributed to Kevin Rudd’s removal by his party and replacement by his deputy, Julia Gillard. Within a week of her taking the top job - and just two months after its announcement - the resource super profits tax was extensively modified after negotiations with the three biggest mining companies and renamed the minerals resource rent tax. The coverage of the tax was reduced to just those firms mining coal and iron ore. Even those firms are excluded if their liability would be less than $50 million a year. The rate of the tax was reduced from 40 pc to a nominal 30 pc, but an effective 22.5 pc. The guaranteed rebate of 40 pc of losses was replaced with a higher cut-in point for the rent tax: the long-term government bond rate plus 7 percentage points. Whereas under the original arrangement all firms were given an automatic rebate of the state royalty payments, under the revised arrangement they will merely receive a deduction against their liability for the resource rent tax, meaning if they pay no rent tax they receive no relief from royalty payments. Various other changes were made and the existing 40 pc petroleum resource rent tax was extended to cover all offshore and onshore oil, gas and coal-seam gas projects.
The government originally expected to raise a net $12 billion over the first two year of the super profits tax but, as Mr Swan revealed when announcing the revised tax, later realised it would have raised ‘about double’ this amount (mainly because Treasury had greatly underestimated the expected production volumes of the three big mining companies). This explains why, despite the near-halving of the rate of the tax and other concessions, the proceeds from the tax are expected to fall by only $1.5 billion to $10.5 billion. This loss of revenue was covered by abandoning the plan to turn the tax deduction for exploration costs into a refundable rebate and by limiting the cut in the rate of company tax to 1 percentage point, not 2.
The economic rationale for the new resource rent tax
The present state government royalties - which aren’t so much taxes as charges for the use of mineral resources belonging to the community - are quite inefficient because they are based either on quantity (a price per tonne) or on a certain percentage of the market price. This means they take no account of the cost of mining the mineral, which varies from site to site and may increase as the exploitation of a particular site moves from the easily extracted to the hard-to-extract. Thus the present royalties can have the effect of making a prospective site uneconomic and discouraging the full exploitation of a site. This inflexibility limits the ability of state governments to raise the rate of the royalty when world commodity prices are high. (They may also be inhibited by perceived competition between the states or unduly close relations with the mining companies.)
The beauty of the new tax (and the existing petroleum resource rent tax) is that, because they are based on taking a share of super-normal profits, they don’t discourage the exploitation of marginal sites, nor encourage the under-exploitation of existing sites. They are highly flexible, taking higher royalties when world commodity prices are high, but automatically reducing the take when world prices fall. There will be times when world prices fall to the point where some sites are paying no royalty-equivalent (the resource tax) and there will be some sites with high production costs that never have to pay royalties.
Super-normal profits are profits received in excess of those needed to keep the capital employed within the business rather than leaving in search of more profitable opportunities. So super-normal profit represents ‘economic rent’ - any amount you receive in excess of the amount needed to keep you doing what you’re doing, your opportunity cost. Accountants and economists calculate profit differently. Accountants take revenue, subtract operating costs and regard the remainder as profit. But economists also subtract normal profit - the minimum acceptable rate of return on the capital invested in the business - which they regard as an additional cost, the cost of capital. The appropriate rate of return must be ‘risk-adjusted’ ie the higher the risk of the business operating at a loss, the higher the rate of return above the risk-free rate of return, usually taken to be the long-term government bond rate.
(This is what’s so silly about the mistaken claim that the original resource tax regarded any profit in excess of the bond rate as super profit. The risk was taken into account not by adding a margin to the bond rate [as occurs with the petroleum resource rent tax] but directly, by having the government, in effect, bear 40 pc of the cost of the project, including losses.)
Most taxes on an economic activity have the effect of discouraging that activity. This is clear in the case of the existing royalty charges. But resource rent taxes are carefully designed to have minimal effect on the taxed activity. Because the return on capital remains above its opportunity cost, activity should not be discouraged, meaning there should not be any adverse effect on employment or economic growth. Indeed, because of the more favourable treatment of marginal projects, there should be more employment and growth.
Economic theory says a resource rent tax should not add to the prices being charged by the taxed firms because it does nothing to add to their costs (as opposed to the effect on their after-tax profits) and because the firm is already charging as much as the market will bear. In practice, it may not be charging as much as it could. So a better argument is that our mining companies are price-takers on the international market, with Australian producers’ share of the world market not big enough to have much effect on the world price.
The fact that resource rent taxes have been explicitly designed not to do all the bad things the vested interests accuse them of doing explains the strong support for such taxes from economists. The resource rent tax is actually the proud invention of Australian economists, available to be copied by other countries.
The package as short-term macro management
The tax package is roughly revenue neutral over the next four financial years. It can be thought of as detachable - should the mining tax not be passed by the Senate, none of the measures it finances would go ahead, thus leaving the budget little affected.
This means it’s wrong to imagine the resource tax would play a significant part in returning the budget to surplus. The budget is projected to reach (negligible) surplus in 2012-13 for three reasons:
• the effect on the budget’s automatic stabilisers of the economy’s expected return to strong growth
• the always-planned completion of the government’s temporary stimulus measures
• the government’s adherence to its ‘deficit exit strategy’ of allowing the level of tax receipts to recover naturally as the economy improves (ie avoid further tax cuts) and holding the real growth in spending to 2 pc a year until a surplus of 1 pc of GDP has been achieved.
The fact that the government now expects the return to surplus to occur three years’ earlier than it expected in last year’s budget is explained by the much milder recession than it expected and the much stronger forecasts for the next four years. Various factors caused the recession to be so mild, including the V-shaped recovery in China and the rest of developing Asia, and the consequent bounce-back in coal and iron ore prices.
In view of the government’s commitment to limiting the real growth in its spending to 2 pc, it’s worth noting that virtually all the things on which it intends to ‘spend’ the proceeds from the resource tax are tax cuts and tax concessions. That is, the package has been structured so as to add little to the government’s difficultly in meeting its 2 pc target. The qualification to this is the plan to put about $700 million a year into the new state infrastructure fund. My guess is that contributions to the fund have been designed to be the ‘swing instrument’ - that is, to be reduced or even eliminated should collections from the resource tax fall short of projections.
The package as long-term macro management
Because the resource tax is designed to be heavily influenced by the ups and down in world commodity prices, receipts from it are likely to be highly variable over the years. By contrast, the cost to revenue of the tax cuts and concessions it finances is likely to be far less variable. For an accountant-type, as Peter Costello appeared to be, this would be a worry. The tax package will make the budget balance much more cyclical. For an economist, however, this is a virtue: by introducing the resource tax the government has added a new and powerful automatic stabiliser to its budgetary armoury.
Because Australia is such a major producer of mineral commodities, the cycle in world commodity prices is likely to align pretty closely with our business cycle. Whenever we’re in a resources boom, close to full capacity and with the Reserve Bank worried about inflation pressure, the resource tax will take more revenue from the boom sector and send it to the budget. Provided this extra revenue isn’t spent or used to repeatedly cut income tax (as it was in John Howard’s day) it will act as a drag on the economy, reducing inflation pressure and hence the need for higher interest rates. Whenever we’re in a resources bust, the economy has turned down and unemployment is rising, resource tax collections will collapse, the budget will go more quickly and more deeply into deficit and this will be the automatic stabilisers working to help prop up the private sector and put a floor under the downturn.
The tax package can be seen as an attempt to improve the economic managers’ ability to manage the economy during resources booms: to chop the top off them and make them less inflationary, but also to ensure we have more to show from them when they’ve passed. The contributions to the state infrastructure fund are a way of requiring the miners to contribute more towards their own additional infrastructure requirements.
More significantly, the linking of the minerals tax with an increase in compulsory superannuation contributions should ensure at least some of the income from the boom is saved rather than spent. Empirical evidence suggests the introduction of compulsory super has done more to increase national saving than conventional analysis led us to expect. (The practical weakness in the argument is that the super increase is being phased in so slowly - the first tiny increase takes place in July 2013 and the last in July 2019 - the boom could be long past its peak by then.)
Ceteris paribus, an increase in national saving will cause our current account deficit and foreign liabilities to be lower than otherwise - always remembering that the resumed resources boom is expected to cause the CAD to be high for a protracted period. The small cut in company tax may make Australia more attractive as a destination for foreign investment, particularly equity investment. Combined with the higher national saving and potential for interest rates to be less high than otherwise (less weight on monetary policy), it’s possible to see this leading to a lower exchange rate than otherwise.
The economic effects of Julia Gillard’s changes to the mining tax
When the government finally realised its tax would extract about twice as much from the miners as it had expected to, it should simply have halved the rate of the tax from 40 to 20 per cent. This would have left all the efficiency benefits and macro stabilisation benefits of the tax intact. Instead, the government almost halved the effective rate of the tax (from 40 to 22.5 per cent) but also butchered the tax, thus reducing - though not eliminating - its economic benefits.
Originally, the tax involved a complete, up-front rebate of state royalties; now all a firm gets is a deduction against any mining tax it pays. Originally, the tax applied to all minerals; now it applies only to coal and iron ore, with an exemption for those firms owing less than $50 million in mining tax. So whereas originally the whole of the mining industry would have benefited by being released from the state royalty system, now all non-coal and iron ore miners and many small coal and iron ore projects will stay subject to the inefficient, activity-discouraging royalty system. Originally, 40 per cent of losses were guaranteed by the government. Now 7 percentage points have been added to the bond-rate ‘uplift factor’. This arbitrarily leaves some projects better off, but some worse off.
It was always the case that virtually all the new tax was to have been paid by the big three companies; in some years, MORE than all. In other words, excluding the other minerals and the coal and iron-ore tiddlers may actually have saved the government revenue. Many projects would have been permanently relieved from paying royalties while only sometimes having to pay resource rent tax. If so, those other firms are worse off under the changes. They would remain subject to all the drawbacks of the state royalty system. And fewer mining projects are likely to be started because their potential promoters will find the prospect of early losses more daunting.
When the mining tax involved a 40 per cent take from profitable mining projects, but a 40 per cent rebate for unprofitable projects, this made the proceeds from the tax highly cyclical. They would shoot up when world commodity prices were high, but collapse when resource prices were low. In those years, the government might be paying out almost as much on unprofitable projects as it was receiving from profitable projects. So the replacement of the 40 per cent rebate on losses with a higher uplift factor reduces the extent to which the new tax would act as one of the budget’s automatic stabilisers.
The economy has been on a roller-coaster ride from resource boom to global financial crisis to recovery from the mildest of recessions to the likelihood of an early return to the resources boom and an economy at near full employment. Monetary policy played its accustomed role in all this and Keynesian fiscal policy returned to the fore. But did we have a recession? And just what was the role played by fiscal/budgetary policy?
Yes, we did have a recession
The widespread belief - encouraged by the Rudd government - that Australia avoided recession is based solely on the notion that a ‘technical’ recession occurs when real GDP contracts for two quarters in succession. But though this rule is widely used by the media, it’s merely rule of thumb with no status among economists. It’s quite arbitrary, and doesn’t always give the right answer. A better definition of recession was given by Dr David Gruen of Treasury: ‘a sustained period of either weak growth or falling real GDP, accompanied by a significant rise in the unemployment rate’.
The evidence that we did have a (very mild) recession is clear: we saw the collapse of various local fringe financial institutions, a 0.7 per cent fall in real GDP in the December quarter of 2008 and weak growth in later quarters, a rise of 230,000 (1.8 percentage points) in unemployment and a bigger rise in under-employment, much tougher borrowing conditions for small business, and weakness in retail sales and home building as the effects of budgetary stimulus wore off.
The reasons why the recession was so mild and short-lived were many: our banks didn’t get into difficulties, the continued strength of our exports to China, the strong growth in the population, the reluctance of employers to retrench their skilled staff and the dramatic cuts the official interest rate. But much of the credit must go to the fiscal stimulus, which was particularly effective in turning around the collapse in business and consumer confidence following the US and European banking crisis.
Fiscal policy
Definition: the manipulation of government spending and taxation to influence the strength of demand.
Instruments: variation of the size and composition of government spending and taxation.
Objective: to serve as a backup to monetary policy in achieving internal balance - low inflation, low unemployment and a relatively stable rate of economic growth. It is conducted in accordance with the government’s ‘medium-term fiscal strategy’: to ‘achieve budget surpluses, on average over the medium term’.
This strategy, which the Rudd government essentially took over intact from the Howard government, was carefully worded so as to fully accommodate a Keynesian approach to fiscal policy. It implies that fiscal policy will support economic growth and jobs by allowing the budget to move into temporary deficit during an economic downturn. So it was deliberately framed in a way that permits the automatic stabilisers to respond to a downturn by turning the budget balance from surplus to deficit. But it also permits the Government to apply discretionary fiscal stimulus, provided the budget balance is brought back into surplus once the economy recovers. In this way, the deficits in the bad years will eventually be offset by surpluses in the good years, thus causing the budget to be balanced (or even in surplus) on average over the full cycle. In other words, the strategy is constructed to permit what I call ‘symmetrical Keynesianism’.
The fiscal stimulus
During the boom, fiscal policy was given a limited role to play in the policy mix, with the heavy lifting left to monetary policy. Once the economy turned down, however, fiscal policy came to fore. The Government announced its first fiscal stimulus package (worth $10 billion) in October 2008, then a second package (worth $42 billion) in February 2009. And it announced a $22 billion national infrastructure program in the 2009 budget.
The measures included in the various packages were intended to comply with three principles enunciated by Treasury and known as the ‘three Ts’: measures needed to be timely, targeted and temporary. Timely meant they should take effect as soon as possible; targeted meant the spending should go to those people or activities most likely to involve spending rather than saving; temporary meant they should involve only a one-off cost to the budget (eg cash bonuses, specific capital works) rather than a continuing cost (eg tax cuts, pension increases).
Some people have the impression that most of the stimulus spending went on cash bonuses. In fact, they cost about $22 billion, less than a third of the Government’s total stimulus spending of $74 billion over the four financial years to2011-12. The remaining two-thirds went on ‘shovel-ready’ minor capital works (road black spots, level crossings, public housing, roof insulation and primary schools) and major infrastructure projects (roads, rail, ports and broadband).
Whereas in May 2008 the government was projecting a long run of budget surpluses, it is now projecting large budget deficits, leading to an increase in the Australian Government’s net debt. It is important to understand, however, that most of this deterioration has been caused by the operation of the budget’s automatic stabilisers, rather than by the Government’s explicit spending decisions. Lower prospective tax collections required the Government to write down its projected revenue by $110 billion over the five years from 2008-09 to 2012-13. Higher prospective dole payments would also have contributed to the deterioration in the budget balance.
The latest estimates suggest the government is expecting the budget deficits over the four years to 2011-12 to total $135 billion. Thus discretionary fiscal stimulus accounts for only a bit over half of the accumulated deficits, with the automatic stabilisers accounting for the rest.
Stimulus spending by governments is intended to have ‘multiplier effects’. Empirical research shows, however, that, particularly because of leakages to saving and imports, the multiplier effects are much smaller in real life than in textbooks. In the Treasury’s calculations for the budget it used highly conservative (pessimistic) multipliers of 0.6 for the Government’s cash bonuses and 0.85 for capital works spending. It now seems clear that the fiscal stimulus has been far more successful than even its promoters expected. That is, the multipliers seem to have been greater than expected.
The changing policy mix
The Opposition’s calls for the stimulus spending to be curtailed now the economy has begun to recover fail to take account of the originally planned phase-down as the T-for-temporary spending programs expire. According to Treasury’s calculations, after the December quarter of 2009 the stimulus spending’s contribution to GDP growth swung from positive to negative. This occurred because, though more stimulus money was spent in the March quarter, it was less than the stimulus money spent in the December quarter. And this meant it subtracted from the rate of growth in GDP (even though it still added to the level of GDP). In other words, from the end of December the stance of fiscal policy switched from expansionary to (mildly) contractionary as the stimulus was withdrawn. To hasten this planned withdrawal would make fiscal policy more contractionary.
By contrast, the various increases in the cash rate we’ve seen, taking it to 4.5 per cent, merely represent moves to take the stance of monetary policy from stimulatory to neutral.
What we have to show for the fiscal stimulus
The Opposition runs hard with the line that, thanks to all the fiscal stimulus, we’re left with nothing to show but a lot of deficits and debt. This isn’t true. Clearly, we’ll be left with all the shovel-ready capital works - rail crossings, fixed black spots, social housing, school buildings and ceiling insulation - and major infrastructure.
But that’s not all - though you have to be an economist to see it. Even the money spent on the cash splashes and unneeded assembly halls has left us with something to show. All the spending - discretionary and automatic - reduces the time it will take for the level of real GDP to return to its previous peak. And that leaves us better off than we would have been in two respects. First, the smaller the rise in unemployment and thus the fewer people unemployed - and the shorter the time they spend unemployed - the less the atrophy (wasting away) of individuals’ skills. Reducing this problem, which economists call ‘hysteresis’, is a benefit not just to the individuals involved, but also to the community.
Second, the milder the recession, the fewer viable businesses go bust, thus avoiding the destruction of various forms of tangible and intangible capital. Some capital equipment - and some understandings, networks and arrangements the firms have made - that could have been used to produce goods and services in the upswing is destroyed. So the milder the recession, the less the loss of productive potential because of the destruction of human, physical and intangible capital.
The opposition opposed all but the first stimulus package and has been continually finding fault. At first it argued the measures - particularly the cash splash - wouldn’t work. But it’s clear from the economic indicators - for retail sales, home loan approvals, new home building approvals and business investment in equipment - that the measures were highly successful in leading to increased private spending. It’s true some of the cash was saved rather than spent, but the marked improvement in business and consumer confidence at the time suggests this saving made many people less anxious about their debts and so less keen to cut back their spending as a precautionary measure.
Later the opposition switched to claiming much of the stimulus - particularly the spending on ceiling insulation and school buildings - had been wasted. It’s true the insulation program should have been much more carefully administered and that there was a degree of waste in the school building program. However, an official inquiry received complaints from only 2.7 per cent of schools, suggesting the extent of waste had been greatly exaggerated by the opposition and sections of the media. Stimulus spending always involves a difficult trade-off between conflicting objectives: the macroeconomic objective (getting the money spent as soon as possible so as to limit downturn in activity) and the value-for-money objective (making sure we have something of lasting value to show for the spending). The way to avoid waste is to take as long as necessary to ensure the money is spent well. So when speed is a high priority, some degree of waste is inevitable. Note, too, that even when spending is wasted on classrooms no one wants, it still creates jobs.
The tax reform package
The main measure announced in this year’s budget was a tax reform package, in partial response to the report of the Henry review of the tax system. After its amendment by Julia Gillard, the package consisted of a minerals resource rent tax, expected to raise about $10 billion in its first two years, the proceeds from which would be used to cover the cost of reducing the company tax rate from 30 per cent to 29 per cent, plus tax concessions for small business, superannuation and individuals. Note that the new tax won’t take effect until July 2012, so the measures it pays for will be phased in from that date. Note, too, that the package is roughly revenue neutral, meaning it’s wrong to imagine the resource tax will play a significant part in returning the budget to surplus.
Mr Swan is now expecting a budget deficit for the old financial year (2009-10) of $57 billion (or 4.4 per cent of GDP), falling to a deficit in the present financial year of $40 billion (2.8 per cent). With the cessation of most stimulus spending programs, this means the stance of policy adopted in the budget is mildly contractionary.
The budget is projected to reach a small surplus in 2012-13 for three reasons: First, the effect on the budget’s automatic stabilisers of the economy’s expected return to strong growth; second, the always-planned completion of the government’s temporary stimulus measures; and third, the government’s adherence to its ‘deficit exit strategy’ of allowing the level of tax receipts to recover naturally as the economy improves (ie avoid further tax cuts) and holding the real growth in spending to 2 pc a year until a surplus of 1 pc of GDP has been achieved. The fact that the government now expects the return to surplus to occur three years’ earlier than it expected in last year’s budget is explained by the much milder recession than it expected and the much stronger forecasts for the next four years.
IQ2 Debate, Sydney City Recital Hall
Tuesday, August 10,2010
The older I get, the more I worry about saving the planet. The past 200 years have seen a phenomenal expansion in economic activity around the world. In that time, the world’s population has exploded from one billion to 6½ billion. Over the same period, the average standard of living of all the people in the world has increased sixfold. Multiply the two together and you see the amount of economic activity in the world has increased by a factor of 45.
I fear that this huge expansion of human activity over just the past 200 years has reached a point where it’s starting to do significant damage to the natural environment - the ecosystem. The trouble is that, while the economy grows exponentially (that is, at a reasonably steady percentage rate) - the ecosystem doesn’t. It’s fixed in size. This says there must be natural limits to growth, and I suspect we’re close to those limits. That certainly seems to be the case with global warming: 200 years of growing use of fossil fuels have caused a build-up of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere that exceeds the earth’s capacity to absorb it, and this is starting to interfere with the climate in ways that are soon likely to do great damage to the economy. And the threat to the planet isn’t just from global warming. We also have big problems with water, soil, fish stocks and the destruction of species. As I say, I fear we’re reaching the limits to growth in our use of natural resources.
And yet I have no hesitation in supporting the motion that ‘Only capitalism can save the planet’. Why? Because, as Maggie Thatcher used to say: TINA - there is no alternative. And because capitalism is malleable. It’s changed a lot over the past 200 years as circumstances have changed, and it can change further as our needs dictate.
If you doubt that, it’s because you’re reacting to a comicbook definition of capitalism. Capitalism is just a pejorative term for a market economy - an economy where the means of production are largely privately owned and decisions about supply and demand are made in markets, with those markets receiving a greater or lesser degree of guidance from government. The world’s experiments with alternatives to market economies - central planning as in the former communist countries or heavily regulated socialist economies (such as pre-reform India) have failed and been abandoned. Those economies that retain vestiges central control are generally moving closer to a market model.
Don’t fall for either criticism or praise of The Free Market. Free markets don’t exist - never have, never will. In all real world economies freedom is constrained by government intervention to a greater or lesser extent. That’s really the point: the choice we face is not between markets that are totally unregulated or markets that are so tightly regulated they cease to be markets. The answer to our problems will never be found at one extreme or the other; it will always be found somewhere in the middle. Finding the optimal degree of regulation isn’t easy, particularly because regulating markets is much harder than it looks. It’s terribly easy to get reactions you weren’t expecting. So there’s plenty of scope for debate about where the line should be drawn.
Clearly, with the global financial crisis, the line in America was drawn too far in the direction of deregulation, great damage ensued, and now it’s clear the line needs to be redraw further in the direction of regulating. Note that we didn’t have any significant problem with our banks. So does that mean the Americans had a capitalist economy and we didn’t? Of course not. It just means we drew the regulatory line in a better spot than the Yanks did.
If the other side wants to argue that market economies are far from perfect, they won’t get any argument from me. Of course markets are far from perfect. That’s particularly true in the case of the environment, where many scarce natural resources don’t have prices and so don’t get into the market process. They’re external to the market system and so don’t benefit from the market’s usual ability to ensure those resources aren’t wasted or used to excess. But that just means governments have to find ways to get prices on them and thus get them into the market system.
Guess what? The planet is in danger and making the appropriate modifications to the capitalism system offers the best chance we have of saving it.
Talk to Independent Scholars Association, Sydney
July 24, 2010
I’m not a historian, philosopher or even an independent scholar, so I confess I find today’s topic rather daunting. So I’ll make a few general observations and then comment on the topic very much from a journalist’s perspective, which I imagine is the most useful contribution I can make.
I’m old enough to believe there is such a thing as objective truth, if only we could find it. But the truth is elusive. It’s known to God, but we mere mortals merely seek it, never knowing for certain how close we’ve come to it. Of course, in the search for truth some people try harder than others. Plenty of people are happy to give us ‘the truth as I see it’ without making any great attempt to offer a balanced account. It’s often a safe bet that such accounts are far from even-handed. And some of us are happy to repeat that version - sometimes unadorned, sometimes as part of a more conscientious attempt to discern the truth of the matter.
As for memory, it’s highly fallible. Last year I was invited to speak to the annual dinner of the old boys’ association of my school, Newcastle Boys’ High. I did a lot of thinking back to my time at school in the early 1960s, and mentioned to a friend that one of the things I planned to mention was my memory of being in the school playground when the news came through that President Kennedy had been shot. My friend said I’d better check it because he was sure the news came through on a Saturday. I checked and he was right. So what it is that I have such a clear memory of I now have no idea.
The illustrious psychologist Daniel Kahneman, who won the Nobel Prize in economics for discovering behavioural economics, has more recently turned his mind to the study of happiness, particularly the definition and measurement of it. His recent research - too recent to be included in my new book, The Happy Economist - draws a distinction between experienced happiness and remembered happiness. He found that when you ask people how happy they are during an event - a holiday, for instance - you get a different answer to the one you get if you ask them after the event how happy it was. People are generally happier about things in retrospect than they were at the time. Which of the two perspectives represents the truth?
Earlier, Kahneman did a famous experiment that asked people how they felt about their colonoscopy examination, which in those days seems to have been a lot more painful than it is today. What emerged from this was the psychologists’ ‘peak-end rule’. How people felt about their experience was determined by two factors: how it felt at its worst, and how it felt at the end. This meant that doctors could influence how painful people remembered the procedure as being simply by leaving the scope in for an extra minute or so without moving it and making it painful. I think this tells us something about the fallibility and susceptibility of memory.
It’s often said that newspapers provide ‘the first draft of history’. I guess that’s true, but since I imagine many of you refer to newspapers in your research, I want to stress what a rough and ready first draft it is. Newspapers - and the media more generally - offer only the roughest and potentially quite misleading first draft for many reasons. One is the haste with which the first draft is prepared. Media outlets are increasingly understaffed these days and, in any case, journalists are required to produce their reports in only a few hours. Economic and political journalists, for instance, have to summarise the purport of lengthy government reports or budget documents before they could possibly have had time to read them properly.
The more the media turn to ‘breaking news’ - as even the morning newspapers are now doing on their websites - the more they’ll be telling us things that are undigested, ill-considered, incomplete and probably wrong in some respects. That’s true almost by definition. With breaking news, the highest priority goes to getting the news out within minutes of it occurring. In the case of a set-piece event (such as the announcement of a change in interest rates) it has be on the site within seconds. It’s all about racing your competitors, and accuracy runs a very poor second. An editor once said to me that the only way you could produce breaking news was to use the principle: ‘Never wrong for long’. Trouble is, the media are reluctant to admit and correct their mistakes. More generally, they pass judgment too quickly and are reluctant to return to stories they regard as old hat. They’re weak on follow up, often not following stories to their conclusion.
People are always claiming to have been misquoted or misrepresented by the media. The media’s attitude is generally ‘they would say that, wouldn’t they’. And it is true that people say things then, when they see them in the paper for all the world to see (including their boss), have second thoughts and claim to have been misreported. But I’ve been interviewed and reported on by print journalists a few times in my life, and I’ve been quite unimpressed by the results. They’ve not understood what I was on about, they’ve misquoted me or taken me out of context, or they’ve filled in facts without asking me and not got them right.
There may have been a time when newspapers took a pride in being ‘journals of record’, but those days are long gone, even for the broadsheets. Much that transpires - even government decisions - is these days regarded as too boring to waste space on. Newspapers face a lot more competition from the electronic media - radio, television and now the internet - which means they’re often bring their readers news the readers have already heard. They compensate for this by search for new ‘angles’, reporting reaction and by ‘taking the story forward’ - which means they assume their readers already know the basic facts of the story and don’t bother repeating them, or allude to them only well down in the fine print of the story.
But the main thing I want to say to you is that the media simply aren’t in the truth business. You may be seeking the truth, but we aren’t. You’re entitled to expect us to be truthful - that is, to get our facts right and resist the temptation to distort - but not to imagine we’re seeking the truth. We’re not in the truth business, we’re in the news business. We’re literally in the business of selling news. That is, our primary motivation is commercial - to make a profit - not ideological or scholarly. What’s more, humans’ evolutionary drive to compete means that, despite its lack of commercial motivation, the ABC behaves much the same way as its profit-motivated rivals do.
Why aren’t we seeking the truth? Because much of the time the truth is dull. Media owners are dedicated to profit maximisation, and their minions seek to do this by selling a product called ‘news’. What is news? Whatever sells. What sells - what’s ‘newsworthy’ as journos say? Anything happening out there that our audience will find interesting or important, although the interesting will always trump the important. Paris Hilton is interesting but of no importance; the latest change in the superannuation rules is important but deadly dull - guess which one gets more media coverage?
Maybe 99 per cent of what happens in the world is of little interest: it’s the old, not the new; the good, not the bad; the usual, not the unusual. It’s dog bites man, not man bites dog. Much of the criticism of the media rests on the unspoken assumption that the media’s role is to give us an accurate picture of the world around us. We don’t have first-hand experience of much of what’s happening around us and we need the media to inform us.
Sorry, but that’s just not what we do - because we don’t think there’s much of a market for it. Let me tell you a story or two to demonstrate how we select news - how what we do bears no relation to the scientific method that guides so much of what scholars do. Once when I was answering a question at a Treasury seminar in Canberra it occurred to me to say this: when social scientists take a random sample they may examine the sample and discard any outliers that could distort their survey, throwing them on the floor. A journalist is someone who comes along, finds them on the floor and says, ‘these would make a great story’.
Final story: I happened to be in the Herald’s daily news conference in February 2009 on the day Kevin Rudd’s $42 billion stimulus package was announced, with all its (then) $950 cash handouts. We discussed searching for a farmer who’d get $950 because he was in exceptional circumstances, $950 because he paid tax last year, $950 because his wife also works, $4750 because he has five school-age kids, and maybe another $950 because one of the kids is doing a training course. And, of course, he’d have a big mortgage, meaning he’d also save $250 a month because of the 1 per cent cut in interest rates announced the same day. Had we found such a person and taken a good photo of him he’d have been all over our front page. The point is that we were search for the most unrepresentative person we could find. Why? Because our readers would have been fascinated to read about him. It’s reasonable to expect the media to be accurate in the facts they report but, even if they are, it’s idle to expect them to give us a representative picture of the world. They’re not in that business.
Economics and Business Educators annual conference, Bankstown, Friday, May 28, 2010
This talk has been billed as an update on fiscal and monetary policies, but now I’ve seen the budget I want to focus in on just one development, the most interesting aspect of the budget, the Rudd government’s tax reform package - its mini reform package. This year the budget was announced in stages and the government’s response to the report of the Henry tax review was unveiled a bit more than a week before the budget - though some elements of the response were announced in the budget itself. Either way, it’s now clear that the tax package was main measure in the budget.
Contents of the package
The package consists of one big new tax, the resource super-profits tax, which will cover the cost of various tax cuts and increased tax concessions. The resource tax effectively replaces the states’ various royalty charges for the use of minerals owned by the Crown. Although the states will continue to charge these royalties, miners will have their payments refunded by the feds. The resource tax is expected to raise a net $9 billion in its first full year of operation.
Proceeds from the resource tax will finance a range of tax reductions:
• Company tax rate phased down from 30 pc to 28 pc
• Small business receives company tax rate cut earlier than other companies, plus instant write-off of new fixed assets worth less than $5000
• The present tax deduction for resource exploration costs will be turned into a ‘refundable tax offset’ at the prevailing company tax rate, making it more valuable to explorers and much more expensive to the government
• The concessional treatment of superannuation is made more concessional in several ways, including: the 15 pc contributions tax for people earning up to $37,000 a year is effectively eliminated and the higher cap on contributions by people over 50 will be continued permanently for those with inadequate super. The package will also cover the cost to revenue of the decision to slowly phase up the compulsory contribution rate for employees from 9 pc to 12 pc between 2013 and 2019. (The cost to revenue arises because wages that formerly would have been taxed at the employee’s marginal rate will now be taxed at the 15 pc rate of the contributions tax. The legal incidence of the increased contributions falls on the employer, but economists believe it is shifted to the employee by means of wage rises that are lower than otherwise.)
• Tax on interest income will be subject to a 50 pc discount (similar to the tax on capital gains) up to a limit of $1000 interest income.
• As a step towards simplifying tax returns, rather than itemising their work-related expenses (and tax agent’s fees), people may opt to claim a standard deduction of $500, to be raised to $1000.
As well as these tax measures, the government announced that part of the proceeds from the resource tax will be contributed to a ‘resource state infrastructure fund’ and distributed to the states, particularly the resource-rich states, to finance resource-related infrastructure. This measure, combined with the resource exploration rebate, is supposed to account for ‘approximately one third’ of the proceeds of the resource tax. In the first full year, however, they’re expected to make up less than half that.
Timing: the resource tax isn’t due to begin for more than two years - July 2012 - and so all the other parts of the package are begun or phased in from that date.
The Henry tax review
The tax package was produced as the government’s response to the Henry review panel’s comprehensive review of the Australian tax and transfer system, federal and state. It’s the first comprehensive review since the Asprey report of 1975. Just as the Asprey report set the direction for tax reform over the following 25 years, so Ken Henry’s goal was to lay down a blueprint to guide further reform over coming decades, whether by this government or its successors. Henry set out proposals to:
• concentrate federal and state revenue-raising on four broad-based taxes: personal income, business income, rents on natural resources and land, and private consumption. Other taxes should be retained only where they serve social purposes or internalise negative externalities (eg gambling, tobacco and alcohol taxes, petrol taxes, pollution taxes). State taxes on insurance, conveyancing and other stamp duties and payroll tax should be replaced by a comprehensive 1 pc land tax and a ’broad-based cash flow tax’ (a simplified GST-type tax). (The objection to payroll tax is not that it’s a tax on labour - so is the GST - but that its high threshold means only larger businesses are taxed.)
• change the mix of taxation to reduce reliance on taxing mobile resources (eg business income) and increase reliance on taxing immobile resources (eg land and resources, and consumption). The company tax rate should be reduced from 30 pc to 25 pc. State royalty charges on minerals should be replaced by a resource rent tax levied at 40 pc.
• introduce a new two-step income tax scale with a tax-free threshold of $25,000 (but with the low-income tax offset and other offsets abolished), a 35 pc rate to $180,000 (but the 1.5 pc Medicare levy abolished) and (the present) 45 pc rate above that.
• regularise the widely disparate rates of tax on income from savings by allowing a 40 pc discount on income from interest, rent and capital gains, but also on deductions for interest expense of rental properties.
• improve the targeting of cash transfer payments.
• reform the taxation of superannuation by abolishing the 15 pc tax on contributions. People’s contributions should be taxed at their marginal rate, but they should receive a tax offset designed to ensure low income earners pay no net tax on contributions, middle income earners pay no more than 15 pc and only high income earners pay more than 15 pc. This would greatly improve the present inequitable distribution of the super tax concession. The tax on fund earnings should be halved to 7.5 pc. These two measures would lead eventually to greater super payouts, particularly for low and middle earners, making a rise in the compulsory contribution rate unnecessary.
• improve the taxing of roads by introducing congestion pricing that varies by time of day, using the proceeds to replace the tax element of motor vehicle registrations and possibly fuel taxes. Heavy vehicles should pay changes reflecting the damage they do to roads.
• reduce the complexity of the tax system, including by using an optional standard deduction for work-related expenses to simplify the completion of tax returns and save on tax agents’ fees.
The package as tax reform
The Rudd government’s response to the Henry tax review was surprisingly limited. Of the review’s 138 recommendations, the government accepted and acted upon just a couple, explicitly rejected 19 politically controversial proposals and failed to comment on the rest. In other words, it cherry-picked the report, selecting just a few things it thought would bring short-term electoral benefit.
The report contained many politically difficult recommendations but one that was particularly attractive: a proposal to introduce a whole new source of revenue by using a federal resource rent tax to replace the states’ mineral royalty charges. Here the government had some highly respected economists urging it to introduce a lucrative new tax on an unpopular, mainly foreign-owned industry and assuring it the tax would do nothing to discourage mining or hurt the economy.
It could use the new tax to pay for various politically attractive ‘reforms’, to be introduced after it was re-elected. The resource rent tax it announced was in line with Henry’s recommendations, except for a spin-doctor-inspired name change to the ‘resource super-profits tax’. The tax is being opposed by the Opposition and bitterly resisted by the big mining companies, which have won a fair bit of sympathy from wider business community. This resistance has caused many voters to wonder whether the tax would be bad for the economy, but almost all the criticisms are unjustified. Precisely so as to ensure the tax doesn’t do the bad things it is being accused of, it is hugely complex, meaning that many of its critics simply don’t understand how it would work.
When you look at the other supposed reforms, however, you find they bear little resemblance to the Henry report’s recommendations:
• It did propose a cut in the company tax rate, but to 25 pc not 28 pc.
• It did propose the instant write-off of assets, but for those costing less than $10,000 not $5000.
• On superannuation, the report proposed that the cost of increasing the concession on contributions by lower income earners be covered by reducing the concession to higher income earners. The government did the nice bit but not the nasty bit. The government did nothing about halving the tax on fund earnings as recommended. The report specifically avoided recommending an increase in the rate of compulsory contributions, but we got on anyway.
• The report recommended a thorough overhaul of the tax on savings, with the 50 pc discount on capital gains cut to 40 pc and the 40 pc discount extended to interest income and the interest expense deductions on rental property. The government introduced a 50 pc discount for interest income, but with a cap of $1000 in interest income. It made no changes to the capital gains discount or to negative gearing.
• The introduction of a standard deduction for work-related expenses was in line with the report’s proposals (though it may have been more generous that the report had in mind) and the report said nothing about introducing a new infrastructure fund.
The economic rationale for the resource super-profits tax
The present state government royalties - which aren’t so much taxes as charges for the use of mineral resources belonging to the community - are quite inefficient because they are based either on quantity (a price per tonne) or on a certain percentage of the market price. This means they take no account of the cost of mining the mineral, which varies from site to site and may increase as the exploitation of a particular site moves from the easily extracted to the hard-to-extract. Thus the present royalties can have the effect of making a prospective site uneconomic and discouraging the full exploitation of a site. This inflexibility limits the ability of state governments to raise the rate of the royalty when world commodity prices are high. (They may also be inhibited by perceived competition between the states or unduly close relations with the mining companies.)
The beauty of the super-profits tax (and the existing petroleum resource rent tax) is that, because they are based on taking a share of super-normal profits, they don’t discourage the exploitation of marginal sites, nor encourage the under-exploitation of existing sites. They are highly flexible, taking higher royalties when world commodity prices are high, but automatically reducing the take when world prices fall. There will be times when world prices fall to the point where some sites are paying no royalty-equivalent (the resource tax) and there will be some sites with high production costs that never have to pay royalties.
Super-normal profits are profits received in excess of those needed to keep the capital employed within the business rather than leaving in search of more profitable opportunities. So super-normal profit represents ‘economic rent’ - any amount you receive in excess of the amount needed to keep you doing what you’re doing, your opportunity cost. Accountants and economists calculate profit differently. Accountants take revenue, subtract operating costs and regard the remainder as profit. But economists also subtract normal profit - the minimum acceptable rate of return on the capital invested in the business - which they regard as an additional cost, the cost of capital. The appropriate rate of return must be ‘risk-adjusted’ ie the higher the risk of the business operating at a loss, the higher the rate of return above the risk-free rate of return, usually taken to be the long-term government bond rate.
(This is what’s so silly about the mistaken claim that the resource tax regards any profit in excess of the bond rate as super profit. The risk is taken into account not by adding a margin to the bond rate [as occurs with the petroleum resource rent tax] but directly, by having the government, in effect, bear 40 pc of the cost of the project, including losses.)
Most taxes on an economic activity have the effect of discouraging that activity. This is clear in the case of the existing royalty charges. But resource rent taxes (including the resource super-profits tax) have been carefully designed to have minimal effect on the taxed activity. Because the return on capital remains above its opportunity cost, activity should not be discouraged, meaning there should not be any adverse effect on employment or economic growth. Indeed, because of the more favourable treatment of marginal projects, there should be more employment and growth.
Economic theory says a resource rent tax should not add to the prices being charged by the taxed firms because it does nothing to add to their costs (as opposed to the effect on their after-tax profits) and because the firm is already charging as much as the market will bear. In practice, it may not be charging as much as it could. So a better argument is that our mining companies are price-takers on the international market, with Australian producers’ share of the world market not big enough to have much effect on the world price.
The fact that resource rent taxes have been explicitly designed not to do all the bad things the vested interests accuse them of doing explains the strong support for such taxes from economists. The resource rent tax is actually the proud invention of Australian economists, available to be copied by other countries.
The package as short-term macro management
The tax package is roughly revenue neutral over the next four financial years. It can be thought of as detachable - should the resource tax not be passed by the Senate, none of the measures it finances would go ahead, thus leaving the budget little affected.
This means it’s wrong to imagine the resource tax would play a significant part in returning the budget to surplus. The budget is projected to reach (negligible) surplus in 2012-13 for three reasons:
• the effect on the budget’s automatic stabilisers of the economy’s expected return to strong growth
• the always-planned completion of the government’s temporary stimulus measures
• the government’s adherence to its ‘deficit exit strategy’ of allowing the level of tax receipts to recover naturally as the economy improves (ie avoid further tax cuts) and holding the real growth in spending to 2 pc a year until a surplus of 1 pc of GDP has been achieved.
The fact that the government now expects the return to surplus to occur three years’ earlier than it expected in last year’s budget is explained by the much milder recession than it expected and the much stronger forecasts for the next four years. Various factors caused the recession to be so mild, including the V-shaped recovery in China and the rest of developing Asia, and the consequent bounce-back in coal and iron ore prices.
In view of the government’s commitment to limiting the real growth in its spending to 2 pc, it’s worth noting that virtually all the things on which it intends to ‘spend’ the proceeds from the resource tax are tax cuts and tax concessions. That is, the package has been structured so as to add little to the government’s difficultly in meeting its 2 pc target. The qualification to this is the plan to put about $700 million a year into the new state infrastructure fund. My guess is that contributions to the fund have been designed to be the ‘swing instrument’ - that is, to be reduced or even eliminated should collections from the resource tax fall short of projections.
The package as long-term macro management
Because the resource tax is designed to be heavily influenced by the ups and down in world commodity prices, receipts from it are likely to be highly variable over the years. By contrast, the cost to revenue of the tax cuts and concessions it finances is likely to be far less variable. For an accountant-type, as Peter Costello appeared to be, this would be a worry. The tax package will make the budget balance much more cyclical. For an economist, however, this is a virtue: by introducing the resource tax the government has added a new and powerful automatic stabiliser to its budgetary armoury.
Because Australia is such a major producer of mineral commodities, the cycle in world commodity prices is likely to align pretty closely with our business cycle. Whenever we’re in a resources boom, close to full capacity and with the Reserve Bank worried about inflation pressure, the resource tax will take more revenue from the boom sector and send it to the budget. Provided this extra revenue isn’t spent or used to repeatedly cut income tax (as it was in John Howard’s day) it will act as a drag on the economy, reducing inflation pressure and hence the need for higher interest rates. Whenever we’re in a resources bust, the economy has turned down and unemployment is rising, resource tax collections will collapse, the budget will go more quickly and more deeply into deficit and this will be the automatic stabilisers working to help prop up the private sector and put a floor under the downturn.
The tax package can be seen as an attempt to improve the economic managers’ ability to manage the economy during resources booms: to chop the top off them and make them less inflationary, but also to ensure we have more to show from them when they’ve passed. The contributions to the state infrastructure fund are a way of requiring the miners to contribute more towards their own additional infrastructure requirements.
More significantly, the linking of the resource tax with an increase in compulsory superannuation contributions should ensure at least some of the income from the boom is saved rather than spent. Empirical evidence suggests the introduction of compulsory super has done more to increase national saving than conventional analysis led us to expect. (The practical weakness in the argument is that the super increase is being phased in so slowly - the first tiny increase takes place in July 2013 and the last in July 2019 - the boom could be long past its peak by then.)
Ceteris paribus, an increase in national saving will cause our current account deficit and foreign liabilities to be lower than otherwise - always remembering that the resumed resources boom is expected to cause the CAD to be high for a protracted period. The small cut in company tax may make Australia more attractive as a destination for foreign investment, particularly equity investment. Combined with the higher national saving and potential for interest rates to be less high than otherwise (less weight on monetary policy), it’s possible to see this leading to a lower exchange rate than otherwise.
