- Joined
- 10 December 2012
- Posts
- 3,632
- Reactions
- 9
The original Rudd MRRT was partly along those lines. Pretty much every economics article I've read has repeatedly said that land taxes and GST are far more efficient in collecting revenue than income / corporate taxes. There's a mountain of evidence to back up what I'm saying, heck it's one of the reasons Howard fought to bring in the GST.
I think land taxes are the simplest of all to implement. Difficult to hide land, probably the best ownership records we have, and pretty easy to determine it's value and bring some of the true economic rent back into the public purse than constantly benefiting the private sector.
I just don't think our politicians are up to the task of explaining the issues and showing economically rational ways forward.
Personally I'd like to see the budget provide estimates of the tax expenditures. They're a hidden tax on us all as other taxation has to be higher to account for the loss of revenue. Even if the OECD is wrong, and say tax expenditures are only 5% of GDP, that's still the equivalent of $80B in spending or twice the current deficit.
Maybe if I use the last budget figures it gets a bit easier to understand my argument about taxation efficiency
http://www.budget.gov.au/2012-13/content/overview/html/overview_42.htm
* Income Tax 163B collected - roughly $39B consumer welfare loss
* Company and resource rent taxes collected $82.4B - roughly $33B consumer welfare loss
Lets say we bring in a land tax and broaden the GST base so as to allow a halving of the revenue received via income and corporate taxes.
So Income tax drops to $81.5B and Corporate tax to $41.2B
I'll go conservative and say that this tax change will halve the consumer welfare loss of each
So the land tax and broadening of GST will need to raise $122.7B, but in the process we've halved the consumer welfare loss of each so there's a net benefit of $36B or ~ the current cost of the aged pension. Plenty enough to see stamp duties finally wiped out.
If the federal Govt was smart they'd combine a progressive land tax with the ability for the states to vary the level - along the lines of how US states are able to set different sales and land tax levels. Probably a better way to encourage development out of the capital cities, and I'd say it will help with housing affordability as building properties where land values are lower will probably start to provide better economic returns to building companies - progressively higher land tax should in theory limit how much someone is willing to pay for a property.
Combine this with a true legislation repeal day to make things easier for businesses with further corporate tax reductions paid for by corporate tax expenditure cuts, and the party that starts talking along these lines will definitely get my attention. Abbott's in the box seat, but I don't think he has any intention of being this economically rational.
* NBN CBA - paid for an not used
* Commission of Audit - paid for and not shown to Treasury before the budget is released.
Some will argue it's not up there with "pink bats" but it's only been 7 months and this kind of waste is not a good sign.