Going ahead with the stage 3 tax cuts would be irresponsible

Whichever side wins the election will inherit a serious budget problem, one caused to a large extent by a single, irresponsible decision: to legislate years ahead of time for hugely expensive tax cuts in July 2024. Turns out they will be “unfunded”.

No one who professes to be terribly worried about the federal government’s huge and still-growing debt is genuine in their concern unless they’re prepared to pay a price for it: forgoing the tax cut that can no longer be afforded. Allowing the cut to happen will add significantly to the budget deficit and the further growth in our debt.

People who own a business that’s running at a loss, so to speak, shouldn’t be awarding themselves a pay rise that adds to the annual loss.

Putting it more formally, it was fully justified for the Rudd government to borrow heavily to cover the temporary measures that kept us out of the global financial crisis, just as it was fully justified for the Morrison government to borrow heavily to cover the temporary measures that saved life and limb during the worst of the pandemic.

But there is no justification for allowing the lasting spending increases and tax cuts made at the same time as the temporary measures to continue unfunded year after year, long after the crisis has passed and the economy has recovered.

A government that, having incurred so much debt through no fault of its own, continues to run a residual, “structural” deficit every year simply because it lacks the political courage either to make sweeping cuts in government spending or to ask the electorate to cover the full cost of services it doesn’t want cut by paying for them with higher taxes, simply cannot claim to be economically responsible.

It’s following a lax and unnecessarily risky practice should, say, a heavy fall in our export prices, cause the (nominal) economy to grow more slowly than interest rates, leaving us exposed when the next global crisis comes along.

That’s hardly fiscal conservatism. But the coming big tax cuts take us to a whole new level of irresponsibility.

Not only is the government afraid to ask voters to pay for the government services they demand, it’s trying to bribe its way to election by offering to make an unfunded cut in the tax they do pay, thus adding to the structural deficit and continuing growth in the debt, in both dollar terms and relative to the size of the economy that services the debt.

And the worst of it is that voting one irresponsible government out of office won’t avert the problem, just exchange that one for another. Both sides committed stage 3 to law in 2019, five years ahead of time, and Anthony Albanese has further promised to go through with it.

Here we see the worst of the games of chicken our politicians play in their unceasing attempts to “wedge” each other. Because both sides understand the game, their attempts rarely succeed. But the inevitable consequence is both sides agreeing to policies contrary to the public’s best interests.

Before the budget, Chris Richardson, Deloitte Access Economics’ great budget expert, estimated the ongoing structural deficit to be as high as about $40 billion – 2 per cent of national income. Because they’re legislated, this estimate includes the cost of the July 2024 tax cuts, whose cost he updates to be more than $21 billion a year.

See how central stage 3 is to the ongoing structural problem? Richardson notes that, because wages grew by far less that projected at the time stage 3 was announced, the cuts “now overachieve in handing back bracket creep”. That is, they’ll be “real” tax cuts, not just ones that restore the status quo.

Richardson could have added that stage 3 was never capable of achieving Scott Morrison’s advertised claim for it, that it would end bracket creep for almost all taxpayers. (You don’t have to literally change tax brackets to be a victim of inflation causing you to pay a higher average rate of tax on all your income.)

Richardson proposes that stage 3 be amended in one respect: keeping the marginal tax rate for those earning above $120,000 at 37¢ in the dollar – rather than reducing it to 30¢ – would cut the cost of the measure by (an amazing) $9 billion a year.

But why stop there when there’s so much more to be done? And when deciding not to do something you haven’t yet done is always easier politically than reversing something already done. And when not cutting taxes is infinitely easier politically than cutting existing entitlements to government spending.

Stage 3, first announced in the 2018 budget, was based on mere budget projections seven years into an unknown future - which included a pandemic. It’s a monument to the folly of counting your budgetary chickens long before they fail to hatch.

Read more >>

Despite all the hoopla, budget's extra economic stimulus isn't huge

Sensible economists accept that, because they’re determined by politicians, budgets are more about politics than economics. Pre-election budgets are more political than other budgets. And budgets coming before an election a government fears it may lose are wholly politically driven.

Welcome to this week’s budget. But here’s the point: whatever the motivation driving the decisions announced in the budget to increase this or reduce that, all the decisions have an effect on the economy nonetheless.

It’s a budget’s overall effect on the economy that macro-economists care about, not so much the politicians’ motives. So good economic analysis involves leaving the politics to one side while you focus on determining the economic consequences.

A glance at this week’s budget says that, with all its vote-buying giveaways, the budget will impart a huge further stimulus to an economy that was already growing strongly, with unusually low unemployment, but rising inflation.

What on earth are these guys up to, ramping an economy that doesn’t need ramping just to try to buy their re-election? But glances are often misleading, and the story’s more complicated than that.

You can’t judge the “stance” of fiscal (budgetary) policy adopted in a particular budget – whether it will work to expand aggregate (total) demand (spending) in the economy or to contract demand – just by looking at the few of its many “measures” (policy changes) that hit the headlines, while ignoring the other hundred measures it contained.

And, as with many concepts in economics, there are different ways you can measure them, with the different ways giving you somewhat different answers.

The simplest way to judge the stance of policy adopted in a budget – it’s expansionary, contractionary or neither (neutral) – is the way the Reserve Bank does it. You just look at the direction and size of the expected change in the budget balance from the present financial year to the coming year.

Treasurer Josh Frydenberg expects the budget deficit for the year that will end in three months’ time to be $79.8 billion, and the deficit for the coming year, 2022-23, to be slightly smaller at $78 billion.

In an economy as big as ours, that decrease of $1.8 billion is too small to notice. The difference between how much money the budget is expected to take out of the economy in taxes and how much it puts back via government spending is expected to be virtually unchanged.

So, judging it the Reserve’s way, the budget will neither add to aggregate demand (total private plus public spending) nor subtract from it. The stance is neutral.

However, there’s a two-way relationship between the budget and the economy. The budget affects the economy but, by the same token, the economy affects the budget.

The size of the budget’s deficit or surplus is affected by where the economy is in the business cycle. When the economy’s booming, tax collections will be growing strongly, whereas government spending on unemployment benefits will be falling, thus causing a budget deficit to reduce (or a surplus to increase).

On the other hand, when the economy’s dipping into recession, tax collections will be falling and the cost of benefit payments will be rising, thus increasing a deficit (or reducing a surplus).

The Keynesian approach to deciding the stance of policy adopted in a budget is to distinguish between this “cyclical” effect on the budget balance – what the economy’s doing to the budget – and the “structural” effect caused by the government’s explicit decisions.

So, many economists believe that when assessing the stance of a new budget, you should ignore the cyclical component and focus on the change in the structural component – what the government has decided to do to the economy.

You can determine this by looking at what the great budget-expert Chris Richardson, of Deloitte Access Economics, calls “the table of truth”, table 3.3 of budget statement 3 in budget paper 1, page 18 in the PDF (page 86 in the printed version).

The table shows that in the few months since the mid-year budget update last December, the economy has strengthened more than expected - mainly because of the growth in consumer spending and employment but, to a lesser extent, because of the rise in the prices we get for our exports of coal and iron ore.

This means the cyclical component of the budget deficit (what Treasury calls “parameter and other variations”) is now expected to be $28 billion less in the present financial year, and $38 billion less in the budget year, 2022-23.

Adding in the “forward estimates” for three further years to 2025-26, gives a total expected improvement of $143 billion – all of which comes from higher-than-expected tax collections.

So, had the government done nothing in the budget, that’s by how much the string of five budget deficits would have been reduced, relative to what was expected last December.

However, the table also shows that the new policy decisions announced in the budget (and in the few months leading up to it) are expected to reduce that cyclical improvement by $9 billion in the financial year just ending, and $17 billion in the coming year.

These are additions to the expected “structural deficit”. Over the full five years, they should total $39 billion, with more than three-quarters of that total coming from increased government spending.

So, relative to where we expected to be in December, the government’s spending in the budget won’t stop the next five budget deficits – and the government’s debt – being more than $100 billion less.

Even so, judged in Keynesian terms, the government has added to the structural deficit, so the budget is expansionary.

The independent economist Saul Eslake calculates that the budget involves net stimulus equivalent to 0.4 per cent of gross domestic product in the present financial year, and 0.7 per cent in the coming year.

So, he concludes, “the budget does put some additional upward pressure on inflation...but it’s fairly small”.

Read more >>

Sleight of hand: Frydenberg's disappearing cash trick

If you think this is a going-for-broke, pre-election vote-buying budget aimed squarely at the hip pocket of people worried about the rising cost of living, let me pass on Treasurer Josh Frydenberg’s grateful thanks. That’s just the impression he’s hoping you get.

But it isn’t true. When you read the fine print, you discover that, for most people, most of the cost of the extra help they will soon be getting will later be recouped by an increase in the income tax they pay.

True, low- and middle-income earners will get a one-off increase of $420 in their annual tax offset when they submit their tax return for this financial year (costing the budget more than $4 billion) and pensioners and other welfare recipients will benefit from the one-off $250 payment (costing $1.4 billion) that Mr Frydenberg will ensure hits their bank account before election day.

And every driver will save, thanks to the 22 cents a litre cut in the excise on petrol during the six months to the end of September. Coming at a net cost to the budget of $2.9 billion, it’s not to be sneezed at, even if the usual ups and downs of petrol prices will make it hard for many people to see the saving they’re making.

All this follows the old rule for politicians who put their political survival ahead of the public interest: make sure you look like you’re doing something about whatever is exercising voters’ minds at the minute, even if what you do makes little real difference to the problem.

But Mr Frydenberg has been trickier than that. Without needing to announce it – and hoping no one would notice – he has omitted to continue the low- and middle-income tax offset in the coming financial year.

This is his way of avoiding saying that the 10 million-plus taxpayers earning up to $126,000 a year will have their income tax increased by up to $1080 a year, from July 1. But they won’t feel it for at least a further 12 months, when they discover their tax refund is much smaller than they are used to.

Discontinuing this tax offset will increase tax collections by about $8 billion a year, thereby covering almost all the cost of the three temporary cost-of-living measures announced in the budget.

It’s a point worth remembering when next you hear Scott Morrison repeating his line that the Liberals are the party of lower taxes, whereas his opponents are the party of “tax and spend”.

So this budget is more about moving the budgetary deckchairs between years than significantly changing the government’s finances.

When you go beyond temporary handouts, the budget’s greatest weakness is Mr Frydenberg’s assurance that wage growth in the coming financial year will more than keep up with rising living costs. It is based on nothing more than optimistic forecasts.

The rise in consumer prices will slow from 4.25 per cent in the present financial year to 3 per cent in the coming year. Wages, on the other hand, will grow faster, from 2.75 per cent this year to 3.25 per cent next year.

Should this come to pass – and this government’s record on forecasting wage growth is woeful – it would mean that “real” wages grow by 0.25 per cent in the coming year, which would hardly make up for their expected fall of 1.5 per cent in the present year to the end of June.

If I were deciding my vote based on which side was promising to do more about the cost of living, I wouldn’t be greatly impressed. Whereas Labor is full of plans to speed up wage growth, the budget says nothing about changing wage-fixing arrangements.

The people most disapproving of the temporary cost-of-living relief are those sticking with the Coalition’s now-abandoned fatwa against debt and deficit. To them, reducing the debt must override all other objectives.

This was always based on the misconception that a national government’s finances work the same way a family’s do.

Mr Frydenberg is right in telling us that the best way to get on top of the government’s debt is to outgrow it.

Even so, he should be doing more to reduce the budget deficit in coming years – not because the government’s debt is dangerously high, but to give us greater safety should another global setback come along that yet again requires the government to buy our way out of trouble.

If Liberals were the great economic managers they claim to be, this budget would have included a plan to get started on largely eliminating the budget deficit. That means reducing the deficit by about $40 billion a year.

It didn’t. Which leaves us to wonder whether, should the Coalition be re-elected, its plans to cut government spending and increase taxes will be announced in its next budget, or whether it will continue avoiding unpopular measures and kicking our economic problems down the road.

Labor, on the other hand, is warning that, should it win the election, it will use a second budget to make improvements to this one. Of course, what counts as an improvement changes with the eye of the beholder.

The budget’s increased spending on the training and skills of apprentices and other young workers earns a big tick in my book.

One reason some may see the budget as profligate is its long list of $18 billion-worth of new infrastructure projects – big and small – being added to its much-mentioned record $120 billion infrastructure pipeline.

Many of these projects seem chosen to improve the Coalition’s vote in marginal electorates and few have been checked out and approved by the public service infrastructure experts.

Maybe this is an area where Labor would want to “improve” the list of lucky marginal seats.

But worriers should remember that, after the electioneering  is over, not every project that goes into the massive “pipeline” emerges from the other end. And many take much longer to emerge than the campaigning politician suggested they would.

This budget is not as fiscally responsible as the government would like you to believe when it’s claiming to be the party of good economic management. But nor is it as fiscally irresponsible as it would like you to believe when it is claiming to have fixed your problem with the cost of living.

Read more >>

How to help the well-off: make their taxpayer assistance invisible

There’s a key principle of economics that’s not widely realised. Economists believe anything that looks like a duck and quacks like a duck must be a duck. Q: When is something that isn’t government spending still government spending? A: when it’s a tax break.

A government can impose taxes and spend the proceeds on achieving some objective – say, helping the retired with their living expenses – or it can achieve the same objective by charging those people less tax than they’d otherwise pay.

Whichever way the government chooses to do it, the effect on the budget balance is the same. And the effect on the people the government’s trying to help should be the same.

The only difference is that the two ways of assisting people appear on opposite sides of the budget. One adds to government spending while the other subtracts from government tax revenue. But, reason economists, this is a distinction without a difference. In principle, it doesn’t really matter.

Which is why economists have long sought to highlight the lack of difference between the two ways of assisting particular people or businesses by referring to special tax concessions as “tax expenditures”.

But though there may be no difference between the two in principle, in practice there’s an important difference. Government spending – on the age pension, for instance – is highly visible. It’s “salient” as psychologists and behavioural economists say.

By contrast, tax concessions – such as those applying to income that’s saved in a superannuation scheme, for instance – are much harder to see.

The practical consequence of this big difference in visibility is that actual government spending is examined carefully each year by the bureaucrats and by the Expenditure Review Committee of Cabinet, whereas all the spending on tax concessions tends to be ignored until someone decides to play around with a few of them.

This relative lack of attention paid to our many tax breaks prompted Treasury many years ago to begin estimating the value of the most important of them and publishing an annual Tax Expenditures Statement.

In 2019, however, the statement’s name was changed to the snappier, more enticing and informative Tax Benchmarks and Variations Statement. What a page-turner.

When the latest statement, for 2021, was published a few weeks ago, Dr John Hawkins, of the University of Canberra – in an earlier life, a senior Treasury official – used an article on the universities’ The Conversation website to explain that the name change reflects the truth that the amount of tax the government forgoes by granting a certain tax concession isn’t necessarily the same as the amount of tax it would regain if it abolished the concession.

Why not? Because when you make certain actions “tax-preferred”, people become more likely to take those actions, whereas when those actions cease to be tax-preferred people become less likely to take them.

But there’s another, less-defensible reason for switching to a title that will make tax expenditures even less visible than they already are. In the main, when governments want to help people in the bottom half of the distribution of incomes, they pay them money or buy things for them. But when governments want to help people in the top half of the distribution, they give them tax breaks.

(Hawkins points to one exception to that rule: the exemption of fresh food from the goods and services tax favours the poor over the rich because fresh food accounts for a higher proportion of the spending of the poor.)

If you’re well-off, and so have to pay proportionately more tax to support government spending to help those not doing as well as you are, it suits you for government spending to be highly visible and regularly scrutinised by politicians looking for ways to save money.

Conversely, it suits you for the support you get from the government to come in the form of tax concessions and thus be hidden from the public’s and the politicians’ view.

Hawkins notes that the biggest annual tax expenditures are: $64 billion because private homes are exempt from tax on any capital gain when they’re sold; $23 billion because the earnings on money in superannuation funds are taxed at a concessional rate; $21 billion because contributions to super funds are taxed at a concessional rate; and $12 billion because capital gains are taxed at only half the rate that income from “personal exertion” (work) is taxed.

Last financial year, the top 10 tax expenditures totalled just under $120 billion, which compares with total actual tax collections by the federal government of $460 billion. This year, 2021-22, the cost’s expected to be $150 billion. That increase of almost a quarter is explained mainly by the boom in house prices and share prices.

While tax expenditures primarily benefit the individual taxpayers who receive them, there’s a flow-on benefit to the industries conducting the economic activity that’s getting favourable tax treatment.

One stand-out is the property industry – developers, builders and real estate agents – which sees itself as benefiting from negative gearing and the 50 per cent discount on capital gains tax.

Another stand-out is the superannuation industry. It’s selling a product that’s heavily subsidised by the government – apart from the small fact that the government compels employers to buy its product on behalf of their employees.

The super industry has led claims that Treasury’s estimates of the value of tax expenditures are overstated. But Hawkins notes that its estimates of the revenue gained by canning a tax break don’t differ greatly from its estimates of revenue forgone.

A final “benefit” from the near invisibility of tax expenditures is that it allows recipients to delude themselves – and others – that they’re not dependent on government handouts.

John Roskam, boss of the Institute of Public Affairs, has written to correct my memory of an exchange between us more than a decade ago, as recounted in earlier editions of this column. I had written that the institute was “taxpayer-subsidised”. He wrote denying my claim. I replied that, since its donations were tax-deductible, this amounted to a subsidy from the taxpayer. He objected that I didn’t describe other government-supported organisations in this way.

Read more >>

Aged care crisis a clue we’ll be paying higher, not lower taxes

Do you like paying tax? No, I thought not. With so many other calls on our pockets, it’s easy to tell ourselves we’re already paying enough tax – probably more than enough.

Trouble is, our reluctance to put more into government coffers doesn’t stop us demanding the government spends more on additional and better services.

This presents a problem for politicians on both sides. They solve it by ensuring that, particularly in election campaigns, they tell us what we want to hear, not the unvarnished truth.

They’re often promising a tax cut sometime after the election, but also telling us their plans to spend more on this and more on that. What they don’t mention is what might have to happen after the election to ensure the tax cuts and spending increases don’t add too much to government debt.

But we’ve become so distrusting of our politicians that, in more recent years, they spend less time telling us how wonderful their own policies are and more time telling us how terrible the other side’s policies would be. Fear works better than persuasion.

Scott Morrison won the last federal election partly by claiming the Liberals are the party of lower taxes, whereas Labor is the party of “tax and spend”. It worked so well he’s bound to say it in this year’s election campaign.

So, it’s worth examining the truth of the claim. It strikes a chord because it fits voters’ stereotypical view that the party of the bosses must surely be better at running the economy and managing the government’s budget than the party of the workers.

But just because it fits our preconceived notions doesn’t make it true. It’s true that Labor’s record shows it to be a party that spends more on public services, and so has to tax more. What’s not true is that the Liberals are very different.

The record simply doesn’t support their claim to be the lower taxing party. If you look at total federal tax collections as a proportion of national income (gross domestic product) – thus allowing for both inflation and population growth – over the past 30 years, taxes have been highest under the Howard government and the present government.

Most of this has happened without explicit increases in taxes and despite governments usually having tax cuts to wave in our faces as proof of their commitment to lower taxes.

So, what’s the trick? An old one that all of us know about but few of us notice: bracket creep. It works away behind the scenes slowly but steadily increasing the proportion of our incomes paid in income tax. This usually ends up increasing tax collections by more than governments ever give back in highly publicised tax cuts.

Now, however, the aged care sector’s inability to cope with the additional pressures from the pandemic – where they’re so desperate for workers they even want help from the Army’s clodhoppers – offers a big clue about the tax we’ll be paying in the coming three years: more not less.

Ever since the public rejected Tony Abbott’s plans for sweeping spending cuts in 2014, the government has been trying to keep a lid on government spending in areas where there wouldn’t be much pushback.

By this means the Libs have had remarkable success in limiting the growth in government spending overall but, as the Parliamentary Budget Office has warned, they’re holding back a dam of spending. They can’t keep it up forever.

Eventually, problems and pressures from the public get so great, the government has to relent and start catching up. You can see that in this week’s election-related decision to reverse some of the cuts in grants to the ABC.

But a more significant area where the government’s been trying to limit the money flow is aged care.

It’s clear the sector’s problems getting everyone vaccinated and coping with COVID-caused staff shortages have just piled on top of all its existing problems.

The longstanding attempt to limit costs by moving the sector to for-profit providers has failed, with businesses making room for their profit margin by cutting quality. The aged care workforce is understaffed, underqualified, underpaid and overworked.

Most jobs are part-time and casual; staff turnover is high. When a work-value case before the Fair Work Commission is decided, hourly wage rates may be a lot higher.

After the royal commission’s shocking revelations, the government had no choice but to ease the purse strings, spending an additional $17 billion in last year’s budget. But it’s already clear a lot more will need to be spent to get the care of our parents and grandparents up to acceptable standards.

Turn to the national disability insurance scheme and its problems, and it’s clear we’ll end up having to spend a lot more here, too.

And that’s before you get to the failure of the job network – “employment services” – and the chaotic understaffing of Centrelink.

We have a lot of repressed government spending to catch up with. Don’t let any pollie tell you they’ll be putting taxes down.

Read more >>

It's the holidays, so let's have some fun with economic puzzles

So it’s holiday season, when (almost) everyone takes a break, chills out and tries not to think about workaday worries. So let’s have some fun. Let’s do a few economic puzzles.

There’s an old joke in economics that says, “it may work in practice, but does it work in theory?” If you take that to mean economists care more about getting their theory right than about its usefulness then, yes, too many of them do.

But an empirical revolution is happening in economics, where economists test their standard theory to see how well it explains the real world. A big part of this is the rise of “behavioural economics” which, rather than simply making the conventional assumption that everyone acts “rationally” – with carefully considered self-interest – in the economic decisions they make, studies the many reasons people often make decisions that aren’t rational.

So, first puzzle. When, in 2012, prime minister Julia Gillard introduced what she called a “price on carbon” and opposition leader Tony Abbott correctly labelled a “carbon tax”, which increased the price of electricity, she took care to cut income tax and increase pensions in a way designed to leave households on average incomes no worse off.

Among Abbott’s many criticisms, he claimed the move would fail to reduce electricity consumption because people would simply use their tax cut to allow them to keep buying the same amount of power. Puzzle: conventional economics says Abbott was wrong, but behavioural economics suggests he may have had a point.

In compensating most people for the cost of her carbon tax, Gillard was doing just as economists advised. They were confident people would still reduce their electricity use because theory says a change in the price of some item has two, conflicting effects: the income effect and the substitution effect.

The income effect reduces the consumer’s real (after-inflation) income, whereas the higher price relative to the prices of similar items encourages the consumer to substitute other items for the now-dearer item, at least to some extent.

So even though Gillard’s compensating tax cut eliminated the income effect, economists were confident the remaining substitution effect would still encourage people to use less electricity and use what was left of their tax cut on something else they wanted more of.

But behavioural economics says maybe it’s not that simple. One of its early and major findings is that many people are “loss averse” – they hate losing money from the increase in the price of electricity more than they like getting the money back as a tax cut.

So, contrary to theory, many people wouldn’t have felt the tax cut left them no worse off. If so, they may well have chosen to use all their tax cut to keep buying the same amount of electricity.

For the record – and for whatever reason or reasons (remember, this wasn’t an experiment where all else was held equal) – electricity sales and emissions of carbon dioxide fell sharply during the two years before the Abbott government abolished the “carbon pricing mechanism”.

Then they rose again. History will not be kind to that man.

Second puzzle. An ABC series called How to Live Younger presented scientific evidence showing that regular exercise throughout life can rewind the clock on cognitive (mental) decline, fight cancer, prevent disease, beat depression and even enhance our lives by making us smarter and more creative.

So people who’ve exercised throughout their lives generally do much better in old age. It’s also true that people who aren’t used to exercising find it harder to start working out and so don’t get as much “utility” - enjoyment and benefit – from exercising.

The economists’ convention model of “rational decision-making” predicts that knowledge of all this will lead parents to encourage their children to exercise and lead kids to keep it up as young adults and in middle age, thus setting themselves up for a healthy, happy old age.

Doesn’t always happen that way, you say? True. By why not?

Because, as behavioural economists recognise, many people, even those who fully understand how keeping fit will benefit them in old age, still have trouble making themselves exercise regularly. If they get out of the habit, it’s hard to get back into it.

A finding of behavioural economics is that this is partly explained by the “projection bias” that affects the thinking of many people. They mistakenly believe that the benefit they enjoy from exercise at this stage of their life will be the same in later stages. Actually, they’ll benefit more in later stages if they keep exercising now; if they give up exercise now they’ll find it harder to take it up again later.

So, whereas conventional economics can’t see there’s a problem – also with adverse consequences for the health system and the taxpayer – behavioural economics can see it. It can see the case for a government education campaign to help people overcome their projection bias, for instance.

And there are techniques individuals use to overcome their projection bias, short-sightedness and lack of willpower. Psychologists call such techniques "commitment devices". I did little exercise until, in my late 40s, a diabetes doctor ordered me to start.

I’ve been able to keep going to the gym two or three times a week since then, and I enjoy it. The tricks I’ve used to keep it up are to have a highly qualified trainer and go at set times with a bunch of gym buddies who’ve become good friends.

A couple of times last year I criticised academic economists for not doing enough to make their theories more realistic – and more useful to the students they teach.

The two “puzzles” we’ve just looked at are derived from a university exam paper in behavioural economics, sent to me in response to my criticisms by Professor Simon Grant, of the Australian National University.

It seems that, at least at our better universities, economists don’t just bang on with conventional theory oblivious to its limitations.

Read more >>

Stop kidding: the 2024 tax cut will be economically irresponsible

It’s a safe bet that, once we’ve seen the mid-year budget update on Thursday, we’ll hear lots of economists and others saying the government should be getting on with budget repair: spending cuts and tax increases.

That’s despite the update being likely to show that the outlook for the budget deficit in the present financial year and the following three years is much better than expected in the budget last May.

It’s also true even though the case for “repairing the budget by repairing the economy” is sound and sensible. The federal public debt may be huge and getting huger, but, measured as a proportion of gross domestic product, the present record low-interest rates on government bonds mean the interest burden on the debt is likely to be lower than we’ve carried in earlier decades.

It’s true, too, that recent extensive stress-testing by the independent Parliamentary Budget Office has confirmed that the present and prospective public debt is sustainable.

It remains the case, however, that both this year’s Intergenerational report and the budget office project no return to budget surplus in the coming decade, or even the next 40 years – “on present policies”.

So, it’s not hard to agree with former Treasury secretary Dr Ken Henry that doing nothing to improve the budget balance is more risky than it should be, too complacent. It leaves us too little room to move when the next recession threatens.

And, indeed, the Morrison government’s revised “medium-term fiscal strategy” requires it to engage in budget repair as soon as the economy’s fully recovered.

But there’s no way Scott Morrison wants to talk about spending cuts and tax increases this side of a close federal election. Nor any way Anthony Albanese wants to say he should be.

Of course, that won’t stop Morrison & Co waxing on about how “economically responsible” the government is – especially compared to that terrible spendthrift Labor rabble. Nor stop Labor pointing to all the taxpayers’ money Morrison has squandered on pork barrelling, and promising an Albanese government would be more “economically responsible”.

But here’s my point. There’s a simple and obvious way both sides could, with one stroke, significantly improve prospective budget balances, and because it would be front-end loaded, disproportionately reduce our prospective public debt over years and decades to come.

There’s no way such a heavily indebted government should go ahead with the already-legislated third stage of tax cuts from July 2024, with a cost to the budget of more than $16 billion a year.

Those tax cuts were announced in the budget of May 2018 and justified on the basis of a mere projection that, in six years’ time, tax collections would exceed the government’s self-imposed ceiling of 23.9 per cent of GDP. That is, the government would be rolling in it.

It was said at the time that it was reckless for the government to commit itself to such an expensive measure so far ahead of time. It was holding the budget a hostage to fortune.

But so certain were Morrison and Josh Frydenberg that the budget was Back in Black that, soon after winning the 2019 election, they doubled down on their bet and insisted the third-stage tax cuts be legislated. Desperately afraid of being “wedged”, Labor went weak-kneed and supported the legislation.

If, at the time, a sceptic had warned that anything could happen between now and 2024 – a once-in-a-century pandemic, even – they’d have been laughed at. But they’d have been right.

Just last week, Finance minister Simon Birmingham righteously attacked his opponents for making election promises that were “wasteful and unfunded” – by which he meant that they would add to the budget deficit.

But the tax cut both sides support is now also “unfunded”. We’ll be borrowing money to give ourselves a tax cut. That’s economically responsible?

It might be different if you could argue that the tax cut would do much to support the recovery, but it wasn’t designed to do that, and it won’t. Stage three is about redistribution, not stimulus and not (genuinely) improved incentives.

The budget office has found that about two-thirds of the money will go to the top 10 per cent of taxpayers, on $150,000 or more. Only a third will go to women. So, the lion’s share will go to those most likely to save it rather than spend it. Higher saving is the last thing we need.

Now, I know what you’re thinking. Get real. There’s no way either side would want to repeal a tax cut, especially just before an election.

Regrettably, that’s true. But, this being so, let’s tolerate no hypocrisy from politicians – or economist urgers on the sidelines – making speeches about “economic responsibility” without being willing to call out this irresponsible tax cut.

Read more >>

Don't let any politician convince you your taxes will be going down

Whenever an election approaches, we can expect the bulldust count to soar on claims about the prospects for the economy and, particularly, about how well the budget’s being managed.

Election campaigns inhabit a financial fantasyland, with both sides promising lower taxes, higher government spending and improved budget balances.

Our politicians have spent decades training voters to believe that, when it comes to the budget, we can have our cake and eat it.

It’s now pretty clear that, whether the federal election is held in March or May, Scott Morrison will be repeating the winning formula he used last time: the Liberals are the party of lower taxes, whereas Labor is the big-spending, big-taxing party.

You want lower taxes? Vote Liberal.

But take my tip. Whatever party gets voted in, and whatever tax cuts they’ve promised in the short term, over any longer period taxes will be going up.

Why? Two reasons, one general, one specific. And remember this: one of Morrison’s claims is to have abolished “bracket creep” – the way inflation causes you to pay a higher proportion of your income in tax. He hasn’t.

The general reason we’ll be paying more in tax is that, as the Australian Council of Social Services reminded us this week, “as people become wealthier, they expect better health, education and income support and modern public infrastructure.

“As the populations of wealthy nations age, we sensibly devote more resources to health and [aged] care.”

Just so. Where it concerns budgets, the notion of Smaller Government – lower government spending and lower taxes – was always a pipedream.

As the Economist magazine has written recently, “stopping further growth of government over the coming decades will be close to impossible. The most important debates to come will be about the state’s nature, not its size.”

Why is it that economists, business people and mainstream politicians unceasingly advocate economic growth? To raise our material standard of living. To give us more income to spend on the things we want, to improve our lives.

But here’s the trick: many of the things we want more of come from the government, or are heavily subsidised by the government. We pay for them indirectly, via the taxes we pay.

That’s true of health (doctors, medicines, hospitals), education (schools, TAFE and universities), all the various forms of “care” (childcare, disability care, aged care) and much else.

As our incomes rise over time, we spend more on some things but not others, as we see fit. Much of what we choose to spend more on comes from the private sector. Better homes, for instance. Not a problem, as young waiters say incessantly.

But when the things we want more of come via the government, suddenly there is a problem. What? You want me to pay higher taxes just because I demanded more and better health care? Outrageous.

We even have conservative politicians trying to tell us paying more tax for more health care is bad for the economy. Bad for jobs and growth.

What? Employing more doctors, nurses and other health workers is bad for jobs? Spending more on health is bad for growth? Are you stupid? It is growth.

Over the 30 years between 1991 and 2019, federal government spending per person grew at the rate of 1.7 per cent a year, after inflation.

What we got for that included the introduction of Medicare, pensions (but not unemployment benefits) linked to wage increases so pensioners’ living standards kept pace with the rest of the community, and introduction of the National Disability Insurance Scheme.

But get this. Between 2010 and 2018, the rate of real growth in federal government spending per person slowed to just 0.5 per cent a year.

And the budget last May projected that the rate of growth from 2022 to 2024 would be minus 0.7 per cent a year.

But the independent Parliamentary Budget Office warned in its recent review of budget projections to 2032: “Australians’ expectations about the volume and quality of services provided by government mean greater risks that [public expenditures] will be higher”.

That’s a bureaucrat’s way of saying “You guys have got to be kidding”.

The latest growth in real annual spending per person of just 0.5 per cent is unsustainable. The projected fall of 0.7 per cent a year is simply unbelievable.

The Morrison government has been trying to cover the cost of its various tax cuts by, as ACOSS and the community sector have said, running a “low-cost government”. It claims to have guaranteed the provision of “essential services” but, in truth, it’s been cutting corners and penny-pinching all over the place.

Its income support payments to people of working age, of just $45 a day, are well below the poverty line. We have a growing number of people who can’t afford housing, but the government refuses to spend on social housing.

The government imposes long waiting times for in-home aged care packages and other care services – which are often of poor quality. It seems to be yielding to pressure to reduce funding of the national disability scheme.

It has neglected to spend what it should on dental care and mental health care. Its privatised system of employment service providers has failed to reduce entrenched, long-term unemployment. It has allowed a decline in public and community education and training infrastructure.

It has failed to Close the Gap with community-controlled Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander services.

And it’s made inadequate investment in the transition to a clean economy, disaster resilience and other help for people to adapt to global warming.

Governments can get away with this neglect for only so long before voters start pushing back and – as we saw with the big spending on aged care in this year’s budget, following the royal commission’s damning report – government spending has to catch up.

And where government spending goes, taxes follow – whatever false impressions pollies try to give us in election campaigns.

Read more >>

Net zero can't be reached by magic, but we can ease the pain

Scott Morrison’s long-term plan for net zero emissions by 2050 won’t impress anyone who’s been following Australia’s long and tortuous battle over climate change. But then, it’s not intended to.

His “learning” after miraculously wining the unwinnable election in 2019 is that whatever half-truths he tells voters will be believed by enough of them. Particularly since God is on his side, not the side of those other, untruthful and ungodly people.

No, his Plan – which is not a plan to achieve net zero, just an optimistic forecast that it will be achieved – is largely a political document, intended to be sufficient to convince those voters who aren’t paying attention that he’s “doing more” to cope with climate change.

His goal is not so much to fix the climate as to neutralise it as an issue at next year’s election. Climate change is an issue that naturally favours Labor. He wants all the focus to be on two issues that naturally favour the Coalition: the economy and national security.

He was walking a tightrope last week. He had to discourage voters in Liberal heartland seats who were worried about global warming from trying to send their party a message by voting for liberal independents – as they’ve done in Tony Abbott’s former seat and, briefly, Malcolm Turnbull’s – by convincing them he was serious about reducing emissions.

At the same time, however, he needed to reassure voters in the National Party’s various Queensland coal-mining seats that he wasn’t serious.

His solution was to produce a document that says: the boffins I hired assure me we’re on track to eliminate net emissions by 2050 but, don’t worry, this will be achieved by the miracle of new technology, without anyone feeling a thing.

There’ll be no new taxes, no new regulations forcing people to do things and no new costs on households, businesses or regions. We won’t shut down coal and gas production, and no jobs will be lost.

Does it sound a bit too good to be true? Voters in the Liberal heartland tend to be well educated and well informed. I doubt it will do the trick.

As we’ve seen with the pandemic, when our federal leaders fail to lead, others feel a need to fill the vacuum. The premiers, of course, but also many people from business and the community.

The latest report from Tony Wood and colleagues at the Grattan Institute, Towards net zero: a practical plan, offers a more realistic assessment of the challenge we face, says why we must get more achieved by 2030 and proposes ways this can be done without too much pain.

Perhaps because he’s not standing for office, Wood is frank about the difficulty in getting to net zero. The scale and pace of change involved in a net-zero target are “daunting, but they are outweighed by the consequences of the alternative.

“Factors outside Australia’s control will shape the flow of capital and the demand for our exports, while climate change itself will increasingly threaten Australians’ lives and livelihoods.”

Just so. Only a fool would believe we can avoid pain by doing nothing. We can seek to delay the pain, but that would relinquish our ability to influence our future, as well as making the pain greater.

The longer we leave it to make big progress towards net zero, the more pain we ultimately suffer. But also, our failure to throw our support behind the global push for earlier progress – which is what we’re failing to do in Glasgow this week – increases the risk that the goal of limiting warming to 1.5 degrees will be exceeded by the end of this decade, making it less likely we ever get back below it.

But while it’s foolish to think we can avoid pain, we shouldn’t imagine the pain will be intolerable. And here’s the trick: provided it’s done sensibly, paying a bit more tax and putting up with a bit more regulation is actually intended to reduce the amount of pain, and share it more fairly.

Wood accepts Morrison’s figuring showing that we’re likely to exceed the 26 to 28 per cent reduction in emissions by 2030 we promised to make in 2015. But we’ll still fall short of the 45 to 50 per cent reduction we’re being asked to make and other rich countries are agreeing to.

Wood’s plan for getting up to the higher target is neither heroic nor frightening. While we wait for the technological breakthroughs Morrison’s modelling assumes will come, we should get on with applying the technology we already have.

Generate electricity almost completely from renewables, and step up the move to electric cars and vans by tightening emission standards for petrol-driven cars, giving EVs tax breaks and supporting the spread of charging stations.

This is the first step towards the new green manufacturing industries that will provide the regional jobs for miners and gas workers to move to as other countries stop buying our coal and gas.

It won’t be easy or painless, but it’s not beyond the wit of decent governments.

Read more >>

Cheapest, easiest way to reach net zero is to put a price on carbon

If Scott Morrison fails to front for the Glasgow climate conference at the end of the month, his preference to stay home while we’re dismantling the lockdown will be only one reason. The other’s that the conference isn’t looking like it’ll be a roaring success.

You wouldn’t know it from all Morrison’s agonising over signing up to net zero carbon emissions by 2050, but it’s the easy bit. The hard part about Glasgow is the expectation you’ll make an improved commitment on how much you’ll have done to reduce carbon emissions by 2030.

Unlike us, most of the big players have already put their revised commitments on the table. That’s the problem with Glasgow. So far, those commitments add up to much less than needed to hold the global average temperature rise to the “well under 2 degrees” agreed on at Paris in 2015, let alone the 1.5 degrees the poorer countries demand.

As many of us now realise, we wouldn’t be trembling in our boots over the enormity of getting our emissions down to net zero by 2050 – and making big strides long before then – had we not abolished after only two years the perfectly good carbon pricing scheme the Gillard government introduced in 2012.

By 2014, people had realised the carbon tax accounted for only a little of the huge increase in electricity prices we experienced, and that the Coalition’s talk of $100 legs of lamb was just a fairy story.

Of course, the carbon price would be higher by now, and we’d have had to extend it beyond electricity and gas to all other sources of emissions.

The series of studies the Grattan Institute’s Tony Wood is doing on how we can reduce emissions in other parts of the economy – transport, manufacturing, agriculture – shows that without the help of a carbon price it’s much harder going.

And it strikes me that insufficient reliance on a carbon price may explain much of the trouble the other parties to the Paris Agreement are having in making adequate progress. Indeed, it could be we won’t make it to net zero without the biggest emitters making greater use of emissions pricing.

In a recent paper, Ian Parry, of the International Monetary Fund, says more than 60 carbon tax or emissions trading schemes have been introduced at sub-national, national or multi-country levels. In recent months, China and Germany have launched major initiatives, the carbon price in the European Union has risen above €50 ($80) a tonne of carbon dioxide, and Canada announced its price would rise to the equivalent of $185 a tonne by 2030.

Even so, only about a fifth of all global emissions are covered by pricing schemes, and the global average price is only about $4 a tonne. Parry says that’s a far cry from the global price of about $US75 (more than $100) a tonne needed to reduce emissions sufficiently to keep global warming below 2 degrees.

Does $100 a tonne sound expensive? It is in the sense that the price increase built into the prices of emissions-intensive goods and services needs to be big enough to produce sufficient change in the behaviour of consumers and businesses.

But it’s cheap when you realise that the purpose of a carbon tax (or, equivalently, the proceeds from the government auctioning emissions permits to businesses who need them) is not to raise additional revenue but to change behaviour.

So the proceeds can be used to make equivalent reductions in other taxes, especially income tax. Thus people pay more for some of the goods and services they buy, but pay less income tax. People on welfare benefits have them indexed to cover their higher living costs.

As we discovered in 2012, introducing a carbon tax or emissions trading scheme (ours was the former that, after a few years, would become the latter) is a relatively simple business. You don’t tax emissions directly, but use scientific estimates of the average amount of carbon dioxide the production and use of that class of product emits.

But almost all economists recommend using a carbon price to decarbonise the economy also because they think it’s the policy instrument likely to achieve the objective with the least disruption to the economy and least loss of growth in the production of goods and services.

That’s what economists really mean when they say a carbon price is the cheapest way to get to net zero. They know that sufficiently large changes in relative prices will change people’s use of fossil fuels.

Get this: a carbon tax is a tax the government actually wants people to find ways to avoid having to pay. It’s intended to discourage people from using fossil fuels. How? By using electricity, gas and petrol less wastefully.

By switching to renewable energy (which is untaxed) because it’s relatively cheaper. By making sure that the next car or appliance or production machine people buy is more energy-efficient than the last. By increasing the monetary incentive for businesses to come up with less-polluting ways of doing things and inventing less-polluting machines.

To save face, Morrison has set his face against using the price mechanism to save the planet. But economic reality – or pressure from other, more sensible countries, or even voters – may yet change his tune.

One worry about putting a price on carbon is whether it would put our exporters at a disadvantage. A new and opposite worry is whether countries that have one when we don’t will protect their industries by slapping a “carbon tariff” on our exporters.

But the International Monetary Fund has come up with a solution to these worries that would also allow every country to use carbon pricing to make greater progress towards net zero. It proposes that the G20 countries (including us) phase in a uniform carbon minimum or “floor price” of $US75 a tonne of CO2 by 2030. Smart idea.

Read more >>

We won’t be paying back government debt, but we WILL be paying

If you’re one of the many who worry about how we’ll pay off the massive debt the Morrison government has incurred during the pandemic, the Parliamentary Budget Office has reassuring news.

The budget office – which is responsible to the whole Parliament and so is independent of the elected government – has prepared its own projections of the budget deficit and debt over the decade to 2032.

It’s also assessed our “fiscal sustainability” over the 40 years to 2061, testing the budget against 27 different best, worst and middle scenarios with differing assumptions about economic growth, the level of interest rates on government debt and the size of our budget deficit or surplus.

It finds that the federal government’s debt is projected to keep growing until it reaches a peak equivalent to about 50 per cent of gross domestic product in 2029. After that it’s projected to keep growing in dollar terms, but at a slower rate than the economy is growing, so that it slowly declines relative to the size of the economy, to reach 28 per cent of GDP in 2061 in the middle scenario.

We don’t pay off any debt unless we get the budget back into annual surplus. But this happens only in the best-case scenario, where the debt is completely repaid by 2058. Don’t hold your breath.

So the budget office’s reassuring news is not that we’ll be able to repay the debt – it’s unlikely we will – but that it accepts Scott Morrison’s assurances we don’t have to repay it to keep out of trouble. That, unless our leaders go crazy, we can outgrow the debt and that the interest bill isn’t likely to become a significant burden on taxpayers even though the debt remains unpaid.

These are not controversial propositions among economists. If you find them hard to believe then – forgive me – but you don’t understand public finances as well as you should. It’s a mistake to think that a national government of 25 million people has to live by the same rules as your household.

Households must pay off their debts before they’re too old to work, but governments go on forever and always have most of their population working and paying taxes. Their populations keep growing and getting a bit richer every year, so they can keep rolling over their debts.

They can do what no household can do: pay their bills not by working but by imposing taxes on other households. So stop thinking governments have to pay off their debts the way you and I do.

And stop thinking our kids will be lumbered with massive government debts; they won’t be. Indeed, it won’t be government debt our kids and grandkids will hold against us, it’s our generation’s failure to act early enough to stop global warming.

But that’s not to say government debt doesn’t matter or that it comes without a price tag. In its projections over the next decade and its scenarios over the next 40 years, the budget office assumes that the “shocks” causing ups and downs in the economy in the future will be no worse than those we’ve experienced over the past 30 years or so. Maybe; maybe not. As well, it assumes that present and future governments will be no more reckless spenders than governments have been over past decades.

It judges that our deficit and debt position will be sustainable over the next 40 years – will cause no need for “major remedial policy action” (no horror budgets) – “provided fiscal strategy is prudent”. We can continue to run budget deficits provided they’re “modest”.

We’ll need “a measured pace of fiscal consolidation”. Translation: if governments stop trying to keep deficits low, all bets are off. So governments will need to avoid wasteful spending. And they’ll need to ensure tax collections are sufficient to cover most of any growth in government spending.

It’s here I think the budget office’s projections of an ever-diminishing budget deficit out to 2032 are hard to believe. They’re based on assumptions that government spending grows no faster than the economy grows, but tax collections grow a lot faster than the economy.

How? By letting bracket creep rip. The tax cuts we’ve been promised for 2024 will be limited to high-income earners, and will be the last we see for the decade.

That’s not hard to believe. What’s hard is believing governments can keep the lid on government spending for another decade. We know we’ll be spending hugely more on nuclear subs and other defence equipment, on aged care and on the National Disability Insurance Scheme.

So how is government spending supposed to grow only modestly? Because spending on social welfare – age pension, family tax benefits, disability support pension, JobSeeker and sole parent payment – will fall as a share of GDP.

Get it? The only way we’ll keep on top of our debt and deficit is by driving the disadvantaged further into poverty. If we’re not that heartless, we’ll be paying a lot more tax – whatever we’re promised at the election.

Read more >>

How Morrison can get going towards net zero - if he wants to

Scott Morrison seems keen to keep his job as Prime Minister, but not so keen to do the job PMs are paid to do: make tough decisions in the nation’s interests. So it’s up to the rest of us to step into the breach. And when it comes to the decision Morrison fears most – getting to net zero emissions by 2050 – no one’s keener to help out than Tony Wood and his team at the Grattan Institute.

Wood begins where everyone with any sense begins: by noting that the best way to reduce emissions at minimum cost to the economy - and all the people in it - would be to introduce a single, economy-wide price on carbon emissions.

But the temptation to win elections with populist bulldust about “a big new tax on everything” proved too great and so, with that off the table, we must find other, more interventionist, sector-by-sector ways to skin the cat (many of them requiring additional government spending, which will have to be paid for somehow).

The basic strategy for reducing our emissions is clear: move from fossil fuels to renewable ways of producing electricity (plus the use of batteries to store it), then meet all other energy needs with electricity. In practice, it’s more complicated, of course.

Official projections foresee emissions from electricity falling substantially over his decade, while the next four largest sources of emissions either grow or, at best, plateau. Grattan is producing a series of five reports proposing relatively easy and obvious ways of achieving early reductions in emissions in each sector.

Its thinking is to get early progress because, even if we were to reach net zero emissions just before 2050, that wouldn’t be sufficient to stop the increase in the global average temperature being a lot greater than 1.5 degrees – which is about as much as we can take without major social and economic disruption, not to mention personal discomfort.

If we take as many easy shots as we can now, that buys more time for technological advances to help us with the harder stuff. Getting some momentum going should help build public acceptance of the need for more, as well as giving business a clearer picture of where we’re heading and the risks it runs if it ploughs on regardless.

In any case, the latest report of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change isn’t likely to be the last telling us temperatures are rising faster than earlier thought. It wouldn’t be surprising to see the 2050 deadline brought forward.

Wood’s first report in Grattan’s five-part series covered the transport sector. It proposed measures to achieve an early move to electric cars, while we wait for hydrogen technology to help with heavier transport.

Wood’s second report, on the industrial sector, was released on Sunday. This covers emissions arising from the production of coal, oil and gas – as opposed to their customers’ use of their products – emissions from the mining and processing of other minerals and metals, and emissions from processing in manufacturing.

As well as burning fossil fuels to help extract fossil fuels, coal, oil and gas production involves “fugitive” emissions of greenhouse gases during the extraction process.

The sector’s emissions have increased significantly since our base year, 2005, mainly because of our foolish decision to permit three different companies to build huge liquefaction plants on an island off the coast of Queensland and turn us into one of the world’s largest exporters of liquid natural gas. Liquefaction, it turns out, involves massive emissions.

The entire industrial sector accounts for almost a third of our total emissions, which are projected to be little changed over the decade. The good news is that 80 per cent of its emissions come from just 187 large facilities. Most of these are subject to the federal government’s existing “safeguards mechanism”, which sets a baseline – or maximum - for each facility’s emissions.

So Wood’s chief proposal is for this mechanism to be modified and extended. Existing facilities should be required to use technologies now available to gradually reduce their emissions. New facilities should be required to meet benchmarks substantially lower than existing ones.

“From now on,” Wood says, “every decision to renew, refurbish or rebuild an industrial asset potentially locks in emissions for the coming decades. Getting these decisions right will be critical for reaching net zero.”

Of course, when it comes to the many facilities producing fossil fuels for export, their future prospects will be affected more by other countries’ climate-change policies than by ours. Good luck finding customers for fossil fuels as the reality of global warming catches up with them as well as us.

Read more >>

Getting to net-zero emissions an easier ride than some want to think

I have a mate who – in normal times, anyway – gives me a lift to the gym in his new all-electric Mercedes. He loves its lack of engine noise and amazingly fast acceleration when the lights change (not that I’m implying he’s a rev-head hoon the police should be watching). I’m no car lover, but it’s certainly a smooth, quiet ride.

Most of us accept that, as part of the world’s move to net-zero emissions by 2050, we’ll all be moving to electric cars. Other countries are already further down this road than us.

We’ve made big strides in shifting electricity generation to renewables, and our emissions are falling. But electricity production accounts for only a third of our total emissions. Transport, in all its forms, accounts for about 20 per cent of total emissions, so its move away from fossil fuels is another part of the transition we should get on with.

In all the years we’ve been arguing about climate change, people have tried to convince us how costly it will be. How disruptive to industry and our way of life. All the higher prices, the tax we’ll pay, the jobs we’ll lose.

So far, however, there’s been little extra cost or disruption. The rise of wind and solar power has happened without much pain. And a report this week from Tony Wood and colleagues at the Grattan Institute think tank suggests the move to electric vehicles can be achieved without angst.

More than 60 per cent of the transport sector’s 20 per cent of total greenhouse gas emissions comes from the tailpipes of cars and light commercial vehicles, including our two biggest selling cars, Toyota HiLux and Ford Ranger utes. That leaves trucks accounting for 20 per cent of the sector’s emissions and domestic aviation for about 10 per cent.

Australia has about 18 million light vehicles, up from fewer than 15 million in 2010. And we’re driving bigger, heavier cars than we were a decade ago. (All those appalling SUVs. One day they’ll run over my little Toyota Yaris.)

At present, electric vehicles make up just 0.7 per cent of new sales in Australia. This doesn’t count hybrid electric/petrol cars which, because of their continued use of fossil fuel, can’t be a lasting part of the shift, Wood says.

Our tiny all-electric share of new sales compares with 2 per cent in the US, 3 per cent in New Zealand, 11 per cent in Britain and 75 per cent in Norway.

Because it takes more than 20 years to replace our light vehicle fleet, for our transport sector to make a sufficient contribution to the target of net-zero total emissions by 2050 we’ll need to get to the point where all new light vehicles are electric by about 2035, he estimates.

Government projections suggest that, if the market is left to itself, the move to electric vehicles will cause light vehicle emissions in 2030 to be 7 per cent lower than they were in 2019. This isn’t good enough.

So what can be done to speed the shift? Wood says governments should reduce the main barriers to buying an electric car. First, the high cost of switching and limited choice and, second, the lack of charging points.

We pay an average of about $40,000 for a new car. But we have fewer than 30 electric models to choose from – much lower than overseas – and of these, just three models retail for less than $50,000.

As with all innovative products, the price of electric cars is coming down as the novelty wears off and sales increase. They’ll fall further as batteries become cheaper to make. But the point where the price of an electric car falls below an equivalent conventional car is still some years away.

So Wood proposes removing several taxes on the purchase of new electric cars. Scrapping state stamp duty would cut the price by up to 6.5 per cent, he estimates. Remembering that, these days, all vehicles are imported, removing federal import duty would cut the cost by up to a further 5 per cent.

Exempting electric cars from the federal luxury car tax – a tax of 33 per cent of the price exceeding the first $80,000 – until 2030 would also help.

Australia is alone among the rich countries in not having mandatory fuel efficiency and emissions standards. And there’s a suspicion some foreign makers send us only the high-emissions conventional models they have trouble flogging in other markets.

So to these carrots, Wood adds a stick: to phase out petrol and diesel cars, the feds should impose an emissions limit on light vehicles and reduce it to zero by 2035.

Many people hesitate to buy an electric vehicle because they worry about finding places to recharge. Wood says governments should require all new buildings with off-street parking to make provision for vehicle charging.

Getting everyone into electric vehicles wouldn’t solve our emissions problem, but it would help. And it’s another indication that the fears of huge costs and disruption are greatly exaggerated.

Read more >>

Reality is catching up with our freeloading, populist climate deniers

Don’t be taken in by the Morrison government’s outraged cries of “protectionism” against the EU plan to impose a carbon tariff on our exports to Europe. It’s we who are in the wrong, failing to do what we should have to reduce emissions, in favour of politicking and populism.

What we’re seeing is just the reality of the world’s need to act to limit climate change catching up with a government and federal party which, since Tony Abbott used denialism to seize the party’s leadership from Malcolm Turnbull in 2009, decided to make global warming a party-political football: a way to beat your opponents, not a need to tackle the nation’s biggest problem.

It’s a condemnation of our business people that, when their own side of politics offered them a way to postpone the inevitable costs of adjusting to a low-carbon world, they happily embraced it.

It’s a condemnation of Australian voters that they were willing to allow their preferred party to tell them whether they cared or didn’t care about their children’s future. It should have been the other way round. “It’s all too hard; you do my thinking for me.”

But the game has moved on since those bad days, and now it’s not just the rest of the world that’s realised there’s no future in denying the reality of climate change and the need to act. As each day passes, we see more evidence that our own financial regulators, banks, investors and businesses are accepting the inevitable and modifying their behaviour.

All our state governments – most notably the Berejiklian Coalition government of NSW – have embraced the target that all other rich nations have embraced, net-zero emissions by 2050. Everyone can see that our refusal to take climate change seriously is wrong-headed and unsustainable.

So, apart from being a national embarrassment – we’re the person stopped for not wearing a mask, so to speak – it’s no bad thing that even other countries have stepped in to oblige our national government to shoulder its responsibilities.

As part of their plan to reduce their emissions by 55 per cent by 2030, the Europeans are toughening up the emissions trading scheme they introduced in 2005, which imposes a price on the carbon emissions of European industries.

To prevent this putting their industries at a disadvantage against imports from countries that don’t impose a similar carbon price on their own industries, the Europeans plan to use a “carbon border adjustment mechanism”, a tax on imported cement, fertilisers, aluminium and iron and steel to bring their carbon costs up to those faced by local producers.

This not only levels the playing field for local industry, it eliminates the incentive for producers to move their production to countries without carbon pricing.

These problems are ones we ourselves worried about when designing Kevin Rudd’s original carbon pollution reduction scheme (which the Coalition and the Greens voted down in 2010) and Julia Gillard’s carbon pricing scheme of 2012 (which was repealed by Abbott in 2014).

So what the Europeans want to do can’t honestly be called protectionism. It bears no similarity with the new import duties China’s imposing on some of our exports.

What’s true is that it’s a messy but necessary way of solving the “wicked” problem of climate change which, being global, can only be fixed by all of the world’s big emitting countries doing their bit. This is why we can expect many other big countries – starting with America, and maybe extending to Japan − to impose similar carbon border taxes on those countries that try to freeload on those doing the right thing, while helping to sabotage the good guys’ efforts in the process.

So there’s no reason for any of us who believe climate change is real and must be countered to have any sympathy for the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government. All its sins of expedience and populist politicking are finding it out. It took a bet that the rest of the world wouldn’t get serious, and we lost.

The point is, had we stuck with either the first or the second version of our own emissions trading scheme – which were actually designed to fit with the Europeans’ scheme – we wouldn’t have this problem.

By now our exporters would be paying our carbon tax to our government (or, if they weren’t yet, we could easily fix it) rather than paying the same tax to foreign governments. Why’s that a good idea?

From the beginning, this government has used climate change as nothing more than an opportunity to attack the other side of politics by pushing populist delusions that taxes are always and everywhere a bad thing. Bad for the economy. Yeah, sure.

Read more >>

Reform not a dirty word when it benefits the many, not the few

The idea that the economy needs to be “reformed” has been hijacked by the business lobby groups. Their notion of reform involves making life better for their clients at the expense of someone else. But that doesn’t mean there aren’t things that could be changed to make the economy work better for most of us, not just the rich and powerful.

Trouble is, Scott Morrison shows little interest in any kind of reform, whether to advance business interests or anyone else’s. Reform involves persuading people to accept changes they don’t like the sound of, and increases the risk they’ll vote against you at the next election.

Morrison’s government is making heavy weather of our most urgent problem – getting all of us vaccinated against the virus ASAP – so maybe it’s not such a bad time for him to Keep it Simple, Stupid.

But we do have an election coming up, in which it’s customary to think about what improvements could be made over the next three years. And it’s not illegal for us to dream about what could be improved if sometime, somewhere we ever found leaders interested in doing a better job as well as staying in office.

Next to the pandemic, the most important problem we need to be working on is climate change. That’s stating the obvious, I know, but not to Morrison and his Treasurer, Josh Frydenberg, whose recent intergenerational report paid lip service to the issue but then proceeded to project what might happen to the economy and the federal budget over the next 40 years without taking climate change into account.

What’s surprising is that another Coalition government, Gladys Berejiklian’s in NSW, did take account of global warming in its state intergenerational report. It found that more severe natural disasters, sea level rises, heatwaves and declining agricultural production would reduce incomes in NSW by $8 billion a year in 2061 under a high-warming scenario compared to a lower warming one.

Clearly, climate change will be bad for everyone in the economy – some people more than others – while acting to reduce our emissions of greenhouse gases will be a cost to our fossil fuel industries.

But the world’s demand for our coal and gas exports is likely to decline whatever we do. Our government doesn’t believe climate change needs to be taken seriously but, fortunately for more sensible Australians, the rest of the world does, and is in the process of forcing “reform” on our obdurate federal government.

In the meantime, however, our electricity industry is finding it hard to know what to do because the Morrison government won’t commit itself to a clear plan on how we’ll make the transition to all-renewable power.

Worse, our abundance of sun and wind relative to most other countries makes us well placed to become a world renewables superpower – exporting “clean” energy-intensive manufactures, maybe even energy itself - if we act quickly.

Right now, however, our need to choose between being a loser from the old world or a winner in the new world is sitting in the too-hard basket.

Moving to less strategic issues, Danielle Wood, chief executive of the Grattan Institute, gives a high priority to lowering barriers to workforce participation by women, by making childcare more affordable and improving paid parental leave.

We’ve long seen the benefits of free education in public schools. Making “early childhood education and care” free would not merely make life easier for young families, it would get more of our kids off to a better start in the education system and allow women to more fully exploit the material benefits of their extensive education, not just to their benefit but the benefit of all of us.

The benefits of getting an education greatly exceed getting a better-paid job – education broadens the mind, don’t you know – but it makes no sense for girls, their families and the taxpayer to put so much effort and money into gaining a better education, then make it so hard for them to do well in the workforce when they have kids.

One factor that’s widening the gap between rich and poor in the advanced economies is years of “skill-biased” technological change, which is increasing the wages of highly skilled workers while doing little to increase the wages of unskilled workers. Indeed, many routine jobs are being replaced by machines.

This says one way to ensure Australian workers prosper in the digital future of work is to ensure our workforce is well educated and highly trained. We must be willing to spend – to invest – however much it takes to have a workforce capable of providing the more analytical, caring and creative skills employers will be demanding.

We need to do more to help our teachers teach better so that fewer kids leave school early without having acquired sufficient education to survive in the world of work. Some teachers are better at it than others; they need to be used to train younger teachers on the job and rewarded accordingly.

Universities need to be better funded by the federal government, so they can afford to give students a higher quality education, vice-chancellors aren’t so eternally money hungry, unis stop exploiting younger staff with insecure employment and aren’t so dependent on making money out of overseas students and thus obsessed by finding ways to game the international university league tables.

How’s all this to be afforded? By all of us paying somewhat higher taxes, how else? By politicians giving up their election-time pretense that taxes can come down without that leading to worse quality government services rather than better.

Throwing money at problems doesn’t magically fix them, you must use the money effectively. But when mindless cost-cutting is the source of much of the problem, nor is it possible to fix problems without spending more.

If our politicians would speak to us more honestly along the lines of “you get what you pay for”, that itself would be a welcome reform.

Read more >>

Little sign Morrison is serious about improving productivity

Improving the economy’s productivity is so central to lifting our material standard of living that politicians and big business people talk about it unceasingly. But the funny thing is, most of what they say makes little sense.

But first, let’s be sure we know what “productivity” means. It may be that politicians and business people get away with talking so much nonsense on the subject because so many of us aren’t sure.

A lot of people assume “productivity” is just a flash way of saying “production”. Wrong. It’s also possible people – particularly business people – think it means the same thing as profit, competitiveness or effort.

Wrong again. As Dr Richard Denniss and Matt Saunders, of the Australia Institute, say in a new paper, “while cutting the wages of a worker may lead to an increase in profit, and potentially improve the competitiveness of one firm compared to another, wage reductions do not result in an increase in productivity.

“Indeed, lowering wages may lead to a reduction in productivity if it dissuades firms from investing in labour-saving technology.”

The productivity of a business (or an economy) is the quantity of its output – production – of goods and services compared with the quantity of its inputs of raw materials, labour and physical capital.

It’s most commonly measured by dividing output by the quantity of usually the most expensive input, labour, to get output per hour worked.

The great achievement of capitalist economies is that they’ve been able to extract a bit more output from the average hour worked almost every year for the past two centuries.

It’s this improved productivity that almost wholly explains why the developed countries’ material living standards have got a bit better almost every year.

But how on earth has it been done? Mainly by advances in technology. Continuously since the Industrial Revolution, we’ve been inventing machines that allow us to produce goods using fewer and fewer workers.

This has greatly reduced the proportion of the workforce needed to work in farming, mining and manufacturing, but made it possible to afford far more people delivering services ranging from doctors and professors to people working in aged care, disability care and child care. Over the decades, total unemployment has been little changed by labour-saving technology.

The productivity of labour has been improved also by better education and training of workers, and by improvements in the way businesses are managed.

Now, as discussed last week, Australia’s rate of productivity improvement has slowed markedly since the global financial crisis. And, to be fair, we should remember that much the same has happened in the other rich economies.

But that’s no reason why the government shouldn’t be doing what it can to turn this around. And there’s been no shortage of talk about all the things the Coalition is doing to improve our productivity. What’s missing are signs that all this professed effort is doing much good.

It’s clear Scott Morrison hates being held accountable, but Denniss and Saunders have gathered a remarkable list of the claims he’s made, particularly while he was treasurer, to be working wonders on the productivity front.

In 2016, he claimed the creation of the Australian Building and Construction Commission was “an important reform . . . that will drive productivity, that will support wages growth, that will support increases in profits of small businesses so they can grow and expand”.

The same year he claimed the alleged “free-trade agreements” that the government had been making with other countries would “increase Australia’s productivity and contribute to higher growth by allowing domestic businesses access to cheaper inputs, introducing new technologies, and fostering competition and innovation”.

That’s a claim the Productivity Commission and many economists would strongly dispute.

Treasurer Morrison also claimed “the government is implementing a $50 billion national infrastructure plan to unlock our productive capacity, generate jobs, and expand business and labour market opportunities”. Train station car parks, for instance?

Other ministers have made similar claims, including Christian Porter’s assertion that his reform of wage-fixing rules would “make the bargaining system . . . more efficient and, most importantly, capable of delivering those twin goals of productivity and higher wages”.

This is not to mention the various tax cuts – in the rate of company tax for small business; the three-stage cuts in income tax, including the last stage, in 2024, which will give huge tax cuts to high income-earners despite adding $17 billion a year to an already swollen budget deficit – which are always justified as encouraging more effort, innovation and investment.

Trouble is, all this supposed achievement did nothing to encourage the authors of last week’s intergenerational report to raise their assumed rate of annual productivity improvement over the next 40 years.

Indeed, they cut the rate a fraction to 1.5 per cent a year. They said nothing about any of the above “reforms” helping to justify even that lower assumption, which is actually much higher than the 0.7 per cent average annual improvement achieved over the five years before the coronacession.

What’s more, both the report and Treasurer Josh Frydenberg acknowledge that it will take a lot more reform to get the rate of productivity improvement up to 1.5 per cent a year. What they don’t do is say what reforms they have in mind. Maybe we’ll be told after next year’s election. Or maybe it’ll just be more of the same sort of “reforms” Morrison has assured us are doing so much good.

In former times, big business worthies and conservative politicians used to tell us our goal must be to increase the size of the pie for everyone (which is what improved productivity does), not fight over the size of my slice of the pie compared to yours.

Maybe they’ve stopped saying this because, if we looked too hard at all the changes they assure us will improve productivity, we’d notice they’re aimed at increasing the slice of pie going to business owners and high income-earners.

Read more >>

The real reason the budget may stay in deficit for the next 40 years

If you follow a rule that when a politician cries “look over there!” you make sure you stay looking over here, there’s much to be deduced from Treasurer Josh Frydenberg’s Intergenerational Report, before we put it up on the shelf with its four predecessors.

That’s especially so with a federal election coming by May next year. Elections are times when politicians try to convince us they can do the arithmetically impossible: cut taxes while guaranteeing adequate spending on “essential services” and getting on top of “debt and deficit”.

Intergenerational reports always involve sleight of hand. They’re always about getting us to focus on a certain aspect of the problem and ignore other aspects.

As Frydenberg admits, the five-yearly intergenerational reports “always deliver sobering news. That’s their role. It is up to governments to respond.”

He’s given us little idea of what that response will involve. But there’s little doubt about his sobering news: the budget is projected to stay in deficit in each of the 40 years to 2060-61.

And we’re left in no doubt about the stated cause of those deficits and growing government debt: excessive growth in government spending.

As the report’s authors confess in an unguarded moment, “the emphasis of the [successive intergenerational] reports rested on pressures that demographic change [that is, the ageing of the population] was likely to impose on future government spending”.

We’re told that, even after you remove the effect of inflation, government spending per person is projected to “almost double”. (And I thought only journalists were prone to exaggeration. “Almost double” turns out to be an increase of 73 per cent.)

Why the huge growth in real terms? Mainly because of huge growth in spending on healthcare, but also because of big growth in spending on aged care and interest payments.

Get it? Government spending will grow like steam because of the ageing of the population. Except that when you read the report’s fine print you find that’s not the main reason. Only about half the projected growth in health spending is explained by population growth and ageing.

The other half is explained by advances in medical “technology, changing consumer preferences and rising incomes”. That is, as Australians’ real incomes rise over time, they want to spend a higher proportion of that income on preserving their good health and living longer.

And improved medicines and procedures almost always cost more than those they replace. But voters won’t tolerate government delay in making the latest drugs and operations available under Medicare.

As for the projected greatly increased spending on aged care, only part of it’s due to the Baby Boomers eventually reaching their 80s. The rest is explained by “changing community expectations”.

That’s a bureaucrat’s way of saying that “after the royal commission confirmed all we’ve been told about widespread mistreatment of people in aged care, governments will have no choice but to stop doing aged care on the cheap”. That is, it’s the higher cost of better-quality care.

Expressed as a percentage of national income, spending on the age pension is expected to fall as bigger superannuation payouts put more people on part-pensions. And, even though this saving is projected to be more than offset by the increased cost to revenue of super tax concessions, the combined effect is that the retired will have a lot more money to spend than their parents did.

Now get this: whereas total government spending is projected to grow, in real terms, at an average rate of 2.5 per cent a year in the coming 40 years, this compares with growth of 3.4 per cent a year over the past 40 years.

So it’s not just that ageing doesn’t adequately explain the expected growth in government spending, it’s also that the projected 40 years of budget deficits can’t be adequately explained by excessive spending.

The real reason the spending horse is expected to outrun the taxing horse is that the taxing horse has been nobbled. At a time when the coronacession led to a huge blowout in the budget deficit, the government used this year’s budget to bring forward the second stage of its tax cuts, and will proceed with the third-stage tax cut in July 2024 despite the continuing deficits and rising debt.

Worse, the projections assume that, because projected tax collections would otherwise exceed the government’s self-imposed limit on taxation as a proportion of national income after 2035-36, we’ll be getting new tax cuts in each of the last 15 years up to 2061. Yes, really.

No wonder interest payments are projected to account for three-quarters of the budget deficit in 2060-61.

We can be sure Scott Morrison will go into the election campaign claiming the Liberals are the party of lower taxes. But what voters will have to decide is whether a re-elected Morrison government would “respond” to the Intergenerational Report’s projection of its existing policies by letting taxes grow, slashing spending on “essential services” or letting debt and deficit just keep keeping on.

Read more >>

My new hero, Mathias Cormann, now valiant for truth

I find it hugely encouraging. Don’t know if you’ve heard the glad tidings but, on his road to Damascus – or, in this case, Paris – our own Mathias Cormann, former senator and minister for finance, has experienced a miraculous conversion. He’s gone from persecutor of those who care about climate change to being a leader of the cause.

As we said in my Salvo youth, there is much joy in heaven over one sinner that repenteth. I bet Brother Scott’s joy is unconfined.

And it’s clear from Cormann’s first speech as Secretary-General of the revered Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development that he’s seen the light on a lot more than climate change. Indeed, the new man is exhibiting a distinct air of wokefulness. He’s now valiant for “stronger, cleaner, fairer economic growth”.

Speaking to a meeting of the OECD’s 37 rich and wannabe-rich member-country Council at Ministerial Level last week, Cormann said: “We need to continue to overcome the immediate health challenge, including by pursuing an all-out effort to reach the entire world population with vaccines.

“This is not just an act of benevolence from advanced economies. It is about sustained virus protection for all of us and about giving ourselves the best chance of a sustained recovery.”

Enlightened self-interest. I love it.

Cormann hasn’t changed his tune on chasing down slippery multinational tax avoiders. “It is very important we [the OECD] continue to lead the global fight against tax evasion and multinational tax avoidance and to ensure that digital businesses and all large businesses pay their fair share,” he said.

“We need to complete this work, including by facilitating agreement on an appropriate minimum level of global taxation and by minimising the profit-shifting that has accompanied the digitisation of our globalised economy.” All well and good.

On other matters, where I come from, there was nothing we enjoyed more than hearing some reformed Trophy of Grace testifying to his former wicked ways. As finance minister, Cormann led the Coalition’s repeated cuts to our overseas aid budget which, as a poor country with a big debt, we were told, we could no longer afford.

The reborn Cormann sees it differently. “We [the rich OECD countries] must also continue to strengthen our development co-operation. Low-income countries need our co-operation more than ever – to ensure access to vaccinations, to trade, to financing to help them deal with the climate challenge,” he said.

Cormann, you recall, was one of Tony Abbott’s lieutenants in abolishing Labor’s (already watered-down) minerals resource rent tax and its “price on carbon”.

At the time we were led to believe Julia Gillard’s carbon tax was the reason the retail price of electricity had risen so steeply. Turned out it was just a small part of the story. Prices stayed high.

But, in any case, new insight has come to Cormann in a blinding flash. “Market-based economic principles work,” he now sees. “Global competition at its best is a powerful engine for progress, innovation and an improvement in living standards.”

True, he admits, competition can be uncomfortable. “It can lead to social disruption which, collectively, we need to better manage.” Love that new thought that we ought to do more things “collectively”. Doesn’t quite roll off Cormann’s tongue, but he’s getting there.

“We need to ensure access to high quality education, upskilling and reskilling to ensure everyone can participate and benefit. We need the necessary social supports for those who struggle,” he said.

Amen to that. No hanging the unis out to dry during the pandemic. No spending a decade starving technical education of funds.

On climate change, he tells us that “more and more countries are committing to net-zero emissions as soon as possible and by no later than 2050.

“The challenge is how to turn those commitments into outcomes and to achieve our objective in a ... way that will not leave people behind.”

It’s easy to be cynical. In my youth, working in a big private-sector bureaucracy and watching people fighting their way to the top, I formed the view that many people were happy to adjust their views to fit their new role in the organisation.

When, with much assistance from the Morrison government, Cormann was travelling the world canvassing support for the top OECD job, many environmental groups were loudly opposing his candidacy. They failed to anticipate the fluidity of his views.

In my limited contact with the man, I found this Rocksolid Roarer of the Right friendly to the point of charming. Remembering how successful he was at getting crossbench Senate support for the government’s controversial measures – and at so little cost to the exchequer – I think he has just the right qualities to succeed in bringing the OECD’s divers members to agreement.

And, after all, he wouldn’t be the first person lately to realise that the climate worm has turned and fossil fuel’s days are ending.

Benediction from the Apostle Mathias: “Protecting ourselves from competition and innovation does not stop it from happening elsewhere – it just means that, over time, those who find themselves behind those protective walls fall further and further behind.”

Read more >>