Welcome

Welcome to Grappy's Soap Box - a platform for insightful commentary on politics, media, free speech, climate change, and more, focusing on Australia, the USA, and global perspectives.

Wednesday, 23 March 2016

Hypothetical Budget FY17


Despite the spaghetti of issues that face a treasurer and the PM there are a few simple steps that it can take that will win wide acclaim by their party and the electorate at large. That is not to say it will not receive wide criticism from the ALP, Greens and the cross bench, as well as all the vocal vested interests. Alas that is political life today. No policy good or bad will escape a cacophony of critique.

Nevertheless let me venture to suggest a hypothetical Budget for FY16-17.

Setting the narrative: principles and strategy

The government needs a straightforward narrative that applies not only for a single budget but for the long term. This narrative should include a statement of principles along the following lines.

The Narrative

Size of government
All money raised by government is revenue foregone by individuals and corporations. Therefore it is incumbent on the government to remain as small as possible but have sufficient revenue to effectively and efficiently deliver the services the electorate mandates.
Historically, average Australian government revenues have been below 25% of GDP. While in recent years this has blown out due to both additional spending and lower tax revenues, your LNP government will return the revenue to and then ensure it remains below this historical average.

Equity
It is incumbent on governments to ensure any spending is equitable across all sections of the electorate. Within any budget there will be individual measures which advantage some sections and disadvantage others, but taken as a whole the measures in any budget will fall equitably across all sections of the community.

Equity also applies to generational equity. It is immoral for the current generation to continue to spend more than it earns and leaving the debt to future generations. Therefore the government will always strive to reduce government debt and to bring the budget into balance.

Current Economic environment 
While we firmly believe in the above two principles, we find ourselves in a difficult situation.
  • The large increases in expenditure initiated under the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd governments and the subsequent collapse of the mining boom have caused a wide and widening gap between Government income and expenditure creating a ongoing structural deficit.
  • The current gap between Expenditure and Income is such that we are failing our own limits on the size of government. Last year government revenue rose to just under 26% of GDP and due to the on going deficit we are failing on generational equity as well.
  • However our structural deficit cannot be redressed in a single cycle, as the consequences of introducing measures to redress it could be counter-productive putting further pressures on the economy and reducing government revenues.
    Our strategy 
    Given these constraints we see it prudent to take gradual but significant steps to redress our issues, with an emphasis on growing the economy while maintaining but not growing government.

    This implies; -
    • Addressing inequities in welfare and superannuation systems whereby lower income earners subsidize higher income earners.
    • Limiting personal tax relief to the real savings achieved by the above measures.
    • Ensuring full compliance with government policies, applies to corporate and personal tax collections, welfare payments etc.
    • Increasing the productivity within government departments.
    • Increasing productivity within business by eliminating red-tape and high-cost industrial relations practices.

      Proposed policy changes

      While I am at it I may as well put some 'flesh on these bones' and propose some specific budgetary changes. Needless to say these are just hypothetical and where figures are provided they are largely '"guesstimates".

      Specific Measures and their Impact

      Proposed Expenditure measures

      Effective for the 2017 Financial year we will require all government departments to improve their productivity by 5%.

      Given total government projected spending for 2016-2017 is $451 B (see MYEFO papers), of which ~$150 B is for Social Security and Welfare, the cost to run the government is ~$ 300B, a 5% cut amounts to ~$15B pa (see Table 1).

      Table 1: Australian Government general government sector historical and projected fiscal balance (a)




      Receipts(b)
      Payments(c)
      Net Future Fund earnings
      Underlying cash balance(d)

      $m
      % GDP
      $m

      %GDP
      $m
      $m
      % GDP
      2013-14
      360,322
      22.7
      406,430
      25.6
      2,348
      -48,456
      -3.1
      2014-15
      378,301
      23.5
      412,079
      25.6
      4,089
      -37,867
      -2.4
      2015-16(e)
      394,891
      23.9
      428,335
      25.9
      3,955
      -37,399
      -2.3
      2016-17(e)
      415,327
      24.1
      445,277
      25.8
      3,717
      -33,667
      -2.0
      2017-18(p)
      440,883
      24.3
      459,897
      25.3
      4,007
      -23,021
      -1.3
      2018-19(p)
      473,531
      24.8
      483,295
      25.3
      4,465
      -14,229
      -0.7


      (a) Data have been revised in the 2015-16 MYEFO to improve accuracy and comparability through time.
      (b) Receipts are equal to cash receipts from operating activities and sales of non financial assets.
      (c) Payments are equal to cash payments for operating activities, purchases of non financial assets and net acquisition of assets under finance leases.
      (d) Underlying cash balance is equal to receipts less payments, less net Future Fund earnings. For the purposes of consistent comparison with years prior to 2005 06, net Future Fund earnings should be added back to the underlying cash balance.
      (e) Estimates.
      (p) Projections.
      Source http://www.budget.gov.au/2015-16/content/myefo/html/16_appendix_d.htm

      As a result of this move the size of government will decrease from 26.1% of GDP (projected in the 2015 Budget papers ) to 25.2%, close to the government's target.

      In support we note; -
      • The lack of productivity in governments of all persuasions is legend. Moreover such directed cost cuts are a common approach in larger commercial organisations, which traditionally do not carry as much 'fat' as governments departments.
      • Rather than single out specific sections of government for cuts, we will do it uniformly across all departments with the details of the cuts to be worked out by Department heads.
      • No doubt this will create a lot of noise from Unions and other vested interests, but the savings can come from many areas not just staff numbers.
      • Nor does it require redundancies since staff turnover is greater than 5%, any savings related to staff can be done through natural attrition.(Australian Human Resource insititute survey showed the average Staff Turnover Rate for in 2103 was 13%) 
        Proposed Revenue measures

        Superannuation

        The objective of our superannuation system is Self Funded Retirement for the majority of Australian workers. 

        To be fully self funded a retiree today must have an Accumulated Superannuation Balance of ~$1,000,000. With this balance even at a modest investment return rate of 5% they will have an annual income equivalent to the single pension cut-off rate of $50,000.

        The government provides concessions on super contributions in order to maximise the contributions by workers during their working life in order for them to reach this Self-Funded Retirement Threshold (SFRT).

        Effective July 1, tax concessions on super contributions will only apply while the Projected Superannuation Balance at retirement is less than this SFRT.

        The SFRT (Self-Funded Retirement Threshold ) will be established each year together with a table of how to calculate the projected balances based on the workers years to retirement. These will take into account investment return rates and inflation.

        The super contribution discounts however will stay as they are today in order to limit the cost to business of administrative changes.

        This measure will ensure everyone is entitled to concessional contributions but only to the extent that they contribute to a self-funded retirement.
          Lump Sum withdrawals from super will be limited. Retirees will only be allowed to withdraw a lump sum from their super if their balance remains above the SFRT. ie you cannot withdraw a lump sum then go back on to the pension.

          This measure will raise ~$4 B pa.

          Personal Income Taxes

          Bracket creep is the insidious mechanism by which inflation pushes workers to increased Tax rates.
          We will apply all the savings from the Superannuation measures ($4B) and part of the reductions in the Productivity Dividend ($6 B) from government departments to relieve the tax burden on all workers. The reduction will be applied across the tax brackets to ensure the saving as proportional for all workers.

          This measure will re-dress most of the bracket creep projected in FY17. Further measures will be introduced when the government can afford them.

          Corporate Income Tax

          Red tape
          The existing program to eliminate red-tape will continue to reduce business costs and streamline operations.

          Corporate Tax compliance and Minimum Tax
          While most corporations pay their due taxes, there are some, including that largest multinational corporations which through complex transfer pricing mechanisms limit the amount of tax they pay in Australia.

          The government will continueit s programto close taxation loppholes and audit corporations to ensure all corporation comply with taxation rules.

          Effective for FY17 all corporations with an annual Turnover in excess of $250 million will have to pay a Minimum Tax equivalent to 5% of their turnover. This is a temporary measure that will be terminated when global agreement on the taxation of Multi-national corporations come into effect.

          These measure are anticipated to generate $5B per annum and will be applied to reduce Company tax for all companies to 27.5%.


          No other changes
          There will be no change in GST, Negative Gearing, or capital Gains tax. These raise limited revenues to the Federal Government and can have a range of unintended consequences.

          Summary

          The effect of these changes on the projected figures from the 2015 Budget papers are presented in Tables 2 and 3.



          Table 2: Financial impact of new policies

          Measure
          $B
          Revenue
          $B
          Superannuation
          4
          Corporate tax cut
          -5
          Corporate compliance and Min Tax
          5
          Personal Income Taxes
          -10
          Total
          -6
          Expenditure

          Productivity Dividend
          -15
          Net impact
          -9


          Table 3 Impact on Estimates for FY17 after MYEFO (see MYEFO appendix)

          Impact on FY16-17 after MYEFO$B$B$B
          Revenue423-6417
          % of GDP24.5
          24.2




          Expenses451-15436
          % of GDP26.1
          25.2
          Net Capital Investment505




          Fiscal Balance-33
          -24

          In summary

          The proposed measures will;
          • provide personal income tax cuts reducing the effect of bracket creep
          • provide modest but significant company tax cuts 
          • address the inequities in Superannuation 
          • partially address the problem of large companies not paying the fair share
          • reduce the projected deficit for FY17 from $33B to $24B 
          • reduce the size of government from 26.1% of GDP to 25.2% of GDP.
          Now let's see what ScoMo and Mr T deliver.







          Wednesday, 16 March 2016

          Customer disservice


          Some posts ago I lamented the intrusion of our media into our daily life; setting our mood, dictating our conversation, advising a therapeutic 'switching off', even if for just a few days.

          So it came to pass that two weeks ago fate broke my computer and left me adrift. If you thought my diatribe about the intrusion of our media into our very soul was bad, "you aint' seen nothin' yet". Being without my computer was like ..Batman without Robin, Bert without Ernie or indeed a smoker without a cigarette. I was left disconnected, my finger twitching for a touch of the key board, thirsting for the flickering lights of the display, characters reified with the beating rhythm of my fingertips, the enticing connection with the ether-verse, the ...the...
          Mmm, Yes it was pathetic. I raved about it noon and night, to nods of "I know, the computer is down", "poor schnooky has no computer", "Yes, those Beeblebrox people are terrible". Indeed they were!  I shall not mention their name, as they came 'OK' in the end, but really the service was abysmal.



          I won't labor the point but it had all the common hallmarks of poor service; -

          • A call centre in Asia with long wait times, 
          • polite but ineffective telephone operators, having to talk to someone else for information or authorization
          • service policies that are impractical for real customers. In my case the standard 'service' was to send my computer by mail to have it fixed and returned in 15 days!
          • promises that were not kept. I was promised a technician would telephone in 2 days and it took 8 days with repeated calls in between. In the end what seemed to turn the tide was a strongly worded email to one of the bosses.
          • Harried service technicians with much too much on their plates. My guy spent a total of 30 minutes on site and hurried off to service his workload of some 40 calls a day.


          Today like a patient after heart surgery I am doing well. My computer certainly works, however I am still rebuilding the environment that was my home; the layout of icons on the screen, the configuration of directories; the apps that would burst into life whenever they were called on. All taken for granted till they were missing and all appreciated the more once they were missing. Still I am almost there.

          The sorry saga is symptomatic of our complex world. We are so interdependent that small failures can lead to serious consequences. No I am not talking about my computer catastrophe, although for me those consequences were serious. No the same connected-ness that we rely on for the orderly functioning of our society is also a weakness. We can see it when an unusual weather event or an accident can cause chaos on our roads. It all argues for systems that interact but are standalone. Systems with greater intelligence. In my case I am looking to move more of my stuff into the cloud and create a System Image to allow seamless recovery. For the rest of the world it is more of a challenge.


          Friday, 19 February 2016

          One week ..

          The carnival rolls on, an ever-fescent drama; issues exciting, emoting, engaging but for mere instants only to be displaced like yesterday's leftovers.

          Look at the week just passed; -
          • Apple refusing to unlock a single terrorist's phone in order to protect our privacy. Is that why they keep asking us to provide them our data, to protect our privacy?
          • China putting missiles onto disputed islands. This fellow is no Mr Nice Guy. Perhaps the US could retaliate by refusing repayments on their China debt! He who lends is the pawn of he who borrows.
          • Refugee advocates take over the ABC! Oh no that is old news. Well ABC apologizes for incorrectly reporting the rape of a 5 year old asylum seeker child. Mr Scott  has ordered (perhaps begged would be more like his style) for 'controversial' stories to be referred 'up the line' before they are broadcast. What is controversial? Did the ABC journalists think the rape of a 5 year old was controversial?
          • Scott Morrison presents at the National Press club for a full hour on...! " uh, he didn't say much something about Unicorns." Nothing is off the table, I guess except the GST and Unicorns. There is a lesson in this for any government. If you start a debate you should say something. 
          • Of course the regular terrorist attacks, this time in Turkey. Some dozens dead. Seems like the PKK.  So Turkey attacks Kurds in Syria. 
          • Syria an endless morass of misery. Russia has changed the balance of power by simply bombing indiscriminately. Where are the protests for the innocent victims? Protests about disproportionate action by Russia? Really! Where are those passionate protesters for the innocent children?
          • Staff at Brisbane hospital refuse to let an asylum seeker child from Nauru be returned to the off-shore detention centre on Nauru. This is a case of heart ruling mind. No doubt these protesters feel with great passion the potential damage to this one child, but the consequences of such protests in the past caused the death of 2000 drowned on their way to Australia. The protest for this one child is in stark contrast to the lack of protests for the death of thousands of children in Syria
          • The share-market in turmoil with oil up one day, down the next . The nest egg certainly smaller since the beginning of the year. But by the end of the week oil rose and the world's markets rose and stockbrokers turned their frowns up side down.
          • Cardinal Pell abused in song for failing to return to Australia to face the music, admittedly for the third time. The press all cock-a-hoop about this one. One would think he was the paedophile.
          • And for some good news, a new cure for cancer ! Not quite, but good progress with a 90% remission rate on a trial of a therapy which boosts a patient's immune system. 
          • and much, much more. 
          The daily news and news commentary molds our mindset. In addition to our personal problems, our media encumbers us with the troubles of the world. News and news background is presented to enrage rather than inform. Facts are generously garnished with adjectival spice to engage our
          very human vices; wrath, envy, avarice and lust.

          If only it were otherwise I think the world would be a much different; more content, harmonious, even peaceful, place.

          If you are in doubt why not disengage from the news for just 2 days. I am sure you would find it therapeutic.




          Friday, 12 February 2016

          Tax Reform Farce

          I am bemused at where we have arrived in the Tax Reform debate. Launched just a few months ago by a freshly minted PM with some fanfare it had widespread support from the business community, economists and a then fawning media. See these welcoming headlines; -
          AFR 1 Oct,2015 - "Turnbull's summit greenlights super tax reform"-
          SMH 15 Sep 2015 - "Malcolm Turnbull touted as a more likely tax reformer than Tony Abbott"
          The Australian 1Oct 2015 - "Tax reform the key to Malcolm Turnbull’s vision
          Today, that idyllic dream seems so far away. The headlines again tell the story.

          SMH Feb 8,2015 - "Malcolm Turnbull lands on a snake on tax reform"
          SMH Feb 5,2015 - "Peter Hartcher: Tax reform proves to be a test of Malcolm Turnbull’s courage"
          The Australian Feb 11,2015 - "From tax reform to reshuffle, Turnbull needs to get cracking"
          AFR Feb 11,2016 - "Malcolm Turnbull's dark and stormy night of tax reform reality"

          How did we get here?

          It started with; we are moving forward, casting light, gaining insights, having the conversation with the people.

          Then proceeded to; we are not ruling anything in or out, everything is on the table, we are open to all discussions.

          As criticism rolled in, it turned to; we won't touch the life savings of the workers, we don't want to increase the overall tax take. And most recently, we can't see any justification in an increase in the GST.

          Is this not a trifle confusing?

          Lack of leadership exposed

          Our leaders have led us a merry chase.

          It reminds me awfully of Rudd's 2020 Summit, that mindless ideafest calling for the 1000 "best and brightest minds" in Australia to "map out a strategy for Australia's long-term future". With such high expectations , it was primed for failure. It has disappeared into that not insignificant pit of grandiose ideas concocted by our Kevin 07.
          Turnbull too had set the bar high for his Tax Reform agenda and now it too faces a similar fate.

          With a hostile senate, negotiating the tricky path to reform was never going to be easy. But let's face it Turnbull had a lot going for him. A partisan media euphoric at the ousting of  Tony Abbott rolled out the red carpet and focused on the opposition. The collapse of the mining boom highlighted the need for real reform, especially since it had been sadly lacking for many years. So the professional classes, the media and the electorate were ready and waiting for their new leader, with such excellent business credentials, to lead them to the Tax Reform promised land.

          Alas, in but three short months we have had our confidence shaken and our once great expectations are nothing but a wind in the willows.

          Leadership, true leadership requires ideas, an understanding of the available options, conviction a firm belief in the correct path and guts, the courage to make unpopular decisions and see them through. Unfortunately all three seem to be sadly lacking in our PM.

          What next?

          It is not yet too late to resurrect this mess. Who knows the Tax Reform team, Turnbull, Morrison and Cormann, may stop sitting on the sidelines, decide on a course of action and start convincing the electorate of its merits. I live in hope.

          If not, the consequences of Tax Reform failure are not inconsiderable. We would face an extended period without real reform, a growing national debt and further deterioration of living standards.

          While the reform agenda can still be resurrected the Turnbull prime ministership has taken a direct hit. The whole sorry saga has exposed Turnbull's frightening lack of political skill. This does not bode well for our future.





          Monday, 8 February 2016

          Republic manyana

          Congratulations must go to Fitzy, if he will forgive my familiarity, for his single-handed resurrection of the formerly comatose Republic debate. He took over the reigns of the pro-Republic movement but a whisper ago.Yet there it is, wall to wall media coverage, an almost unanimous call from state Premiers in support, and even hearty support from the newly minted, although already tarnished, AOTY, General Morrison. The only hold back was Mr T, with his somewhat reluctant words of caution, " err .. not now...perhaps later", "when the queen dies", or  "when there is a clamor for it", is it 'just give me a good reason to take a risk".

          Been there done that!

          If you are experiencing a bit of deja vu , you are right. We had a similarly widespread, hysterical chorus all in favor just before the referendum a decade ago. Despite virtually unanimous support from most of the media, state Premiers and the chattering classes, the referendum was defeated in every single state. A sobering result with scars still showing on many staunch republicans.

          Wouldn't it be different this time?

          It is true that time has passed and I doubt there is a significant proportion of Australians who would not like an Australian to be Head of State (HoS). It is positively odd for an ostensibly independent country to have a nominal HoS living thousands of kilometers away and whose primary allegiance is to another country. Admittedly they are very 'hands-off, they do not interfere in our daily lives, except perhaps for the occasional state visits and openings. But it is symbolic, and symbols do matter. So I am in favor of leaving behind the Queen, the monarchy and the Union Jack. Like a child who can leave the family home to live on their own, but loving their parents no less.


          How to select the HoS?

          Yet I think it will not happen soon.

          The underlying problem remains how to select the HoS?

          Monarchies make this decision simple. A single elite family is ordained to fill the role. Selection is automatic and as long as there are viable heirs there are no problems.

          Republics where the HoS is elected have a varied and complex range of processes for electing their presidents. Just consider the extensive and convoluted process we are currently witnessing in the US.

          Any referendum must identify how the HoS is to be chosen.
          The options posed at the last referendum remain unchanged. Simply anoint the Governor General as the new HoS with all rules pertaining to his /her selection unchanged. or let the people vote for HoS.

          Plan A - Anoint Governor General as Head of State

          The easiest and most straightforward way to get an Australian HoS is to simply make the Governor General the HoS modifying the constitution sufficiently to remove all connections between the Governor General to the British Monarchy. It fulfills the objective of having an Australian as the HoS without breaking anything. You get an Aussie HoS without any other consequences. You can change the title to President if you wish , but even that is not necessary. There is a certain charm in keeping the title 'Governor General', personally l like the idea.

          Plan B - The people elect the HOS

          The second option, and this is the one polls indicate is generally favored by "the people", is to have the people elect the HoS.

          Electing a HoS raises many questions;-
          • who selects the candidates?
          • how long is the term?
          • what level of support is required for a candidate ( eg is 51% of the vote enough)?
          • what proportion is required in each state?
          • how do you remove a HoS? This is really complicated, just consider the impeachment processes in the US.
          • what 'power' would this HoS be given? In legislation? In practice?
          In all countries that have presidential elections, all these issues have been hammered out over a long period. The systems vary, and they are invariably complicated.

          While serious in themselves  in some ways these are 'technical issues' that could be solved by wise men around a table. I make it sound easy , it is not but it is much easier than my next objections.

          There are consequences of electing a President, an individual who is selected by the people to represent them and not all of the consequences are foreseeable. 

          His/her views would place pressure on the government of the day, right or wrong. A president elected by popular vote, would automatically have some political power.  

          Remember that currently, in Australia the people do not elect our Governor General, or our Prime Minister. We only elect a representative in our electorate. It is up to these representatives to select a leader. This has its downsides, most notably the revolving-door-leaders over the past 6 years, but it does have at least one major benefit. When the PM can be removed by his party at any time, there is inbuilt protection against dictators.  Any move to elect the HoS carries significant risk.

          Lets not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

          Yes, let's have an Australian HoS, but don't change anything else as it can have unforeseen, unwanted and disastrous consequences.. The precautionary principle often used by climate change advocates  applies here too. Do not take a chance with out constitution. Especially when it is unnecessary.


          The Republican movement , under Fitzy, has learned from the failure of the past and is strongly advocating Plan A, the minimalist path to a republic. However, if the polls are correct, the people still want Plan B, to elect the HoS. This is a rerun of the failed referendum of a decade ago.

          Despite the recent euphoria, there has been little progress on selecting the model that would be acceptable to a majority of Australians. So for Australia the Republic will have to be Manyana.