NZ vs Australian Surpluses
December 24th, 2004 at 9:59 am by David FarrarJordan and I have been having quite a vigourous over the levels of the NZ Govt surplus and the Australian surplus.
I started it off here by noting we have a larger surplus than Australia, despite being one sixth their size, yet still get told no money for tax cuts.
Jordan responded with this post and I then responded with a comment on that post. Then Jordan posted again on the issue and so I am pulling the debate back to my blog!
First of all the Australian Operating Balance of $5.6 Billion is calculated in much the same way as the NZ Operating Balance. Our accounting standards are similiar (and with adoption of international financial standards will get even closer from 2007). The NZ Operating Balance last year was a whopping $7.4 Billion.
Now we also have an OBERAC which basically is the operating balance less one off changes and revaluations. It is basically the underlying surplus and is regarded as the best measure of the sustainability of revenue and expenditure. The OBERAC for last year was $6.6 Billion and is predicted to be $6.5 Billion for this year. This is still a huge proportion of overall crown revenue being 13.3% surplus compared to 2.8% in Australia.
One then has the issue of whether it is the operating balance or the cash balance which should be used as a measure of affordability. Well for the last ten years every Government has referred to the operating balance. In fact Labour themselves introduced OBERAC as an even better measure of the operating balance to see what the underlying surplus is.
It is *only* in the last couple of years as the surplus has gotten so large that it has been impossible to claim one can not afford to reduce the tax burden, that Labour has turned to the cash balance and argued that this determines what one can afford.
As I have said previously claiming we need a surplus so large that it not only funds all operating expenditure (which includes depreciation on capital expenditure) but also all new capital expenditure is just not credible. You fund capital expenditure through depreciation over the life-time of the asset.
Putting aside the $2 billion a year for the superannuation fund, and say a prudent surplus of 1% of GDP being another $1.5 billion, I estimate there is easily $3 billion available for tax relief.
As others have pointed out this is also overlooking the huge amount of wasteful expenditure that we read about every day, such as $120 million of community education scams. Just because the Government is spending more money does not mean it it all producing benefits for NZ. But we’ll try and estimate that another day.
So what could we do with $3 billion of tax reduction:
$585 million to lower business rate to 30%
$300 million to lower 33% personal rate to 30% (applies from $38K to $60K)
$600 million to increase the threshold for top rate from $60,000 to $100,000
$960 million to lower 21% tax rate to 18%
$480 million to lower 39% tax rate to 35%
It would vary a bit from this due to combinations of changing thresholds and rates, but not much. So we would have tax rates of:
15% up to $9,500
18% between $9,500 and $38,000
30% between $38,000 and $100,000
35% above 100,000
And company rate of 30%
That is the best Xmas present we could give New Zealanders!
No tag for this post.
December 24th, 2004 at 10:13 am
Oh yeah – that would be sweet! I am getting almost sexually excited thinking about tax cuts like those.
In seriousness though I really hope Labour doesn’t bring in tax cuts because it would really pull the rug out from under Nationals feet.
Vote:December 24th, 2004 at 10:24 am
For the sake of Christ, my man. It’s Christmas Eve! Go outside and frolic. There is a time and a place for blogging. And it is neither here nor now.
Merry Christmas.
Ho ho ho.
Vote:December 24th, 2004 at 10:25 am
For the sake of Christ, my man. It’s Christmas Eve! Go outside and frolic. There is a time and a place for blogging. And it is neither here nor now.
Merry Christmas.
Ho ho ho.
Vote:December 24th, 2004 at 11:00 am
Phil, you need to get out more…
Vote:December 24th, 2004 at 11:49 am
Well, that was pretty clearly put. Has Cullen seen your figures yet?
Better yet, have you given your figures to the TV channels so they can do a proper story on it? On the 6′O’clock news on TV3 on Thursday 9th December they ran a story about Brash’s position on tax cuts with a picture of him headlined “Brash’s Bribe.” I have written them asking how a proposal allowing us to keep more of what we earn constitutes a bribe.
They could use figures like this and comparisons with other countries to formulate proper news stories and place politicians like Cullen on the spot over things like tax cuts.
Vote:December 24th, 2004 at 1:17 pm
And, of course, the rates could go even lower due to the increase in tax income that would result from the stimulated economy.
It is a great pity that our socialist government has resisted doing anything to stimulate the economy while they have been in office. The cynic in me is anticipating some sort of targeted tax relief from Cullen in the run up to the election next year. However, I’m sure it will be structured to deceive, and will only serve as a vote catcher, not an economic catalyst. He will do it with clenched teeth.
David – nice post, merry xmas.
Vote:December 24th, 2004 at 1:31 pm
Nice David, I like it alot, the bulk goes to mid income NZ & by dropping the rate to 18 up to 38k you really provide an incentive to upskill.
Vote:Nice post to go into xmas with.
All the very best for xmas & the New Year to you & all the readers who make this blog the best in NZ.
December 24th, 2004 at 2:06 pm
I hate to put a cloud over your parade but you can’t spend this year’s OBERAC unless you rescind the new spending decisions in the last budget. You really need to move out to a 2008 base where OBERAC is forecast at 3.1% of GDP or about 5.2 billion (and that’s already allowing for future “fiscal drag”). That only leaves about half the 3 bilion you’re looking for – and presumably doing something about those 91% marginal rates Don Brash identified is a top priority. Your calculations will be close for the 2005-6 cost but the 2007-8 costs will be higher as there will be more income over 60K and 100K which gets a 9% cut rather than 3 or 4.
Vote:December 24th, 2004 at 3:40 pm
Personally I have no problem with rescinding some of the new spending decisions. In fact I would enjoy doing so.
Treasury tends to always under-estimate surpluses also. I expect by next budget the OBERAC will have grown significantly.
Vote:December 24th, 2004 at 4:00 pm
I agree with all you propose on new tax tables but I think it important to have an initial tax free amount ,say $5,000 to stimulate thrift among children and free the likes of paper boys and part-time workers from the burden of tax
Vote:December 24th, 2004 at 4:47 pm
This is not the time for politics, there’s drinking to be done.
Vote:December 24th, 2004 at 9:19 pm
Amen brothers, to the wassail and the tax relief. God rest ye merry Gentlemen.
Vote:December 25th, 2004 at 9:06 am
greyshade, with a little bit of deficit financing you would be able to move towards UMR. Strongly recommend the UMR as the way to get the working classes tax cuts (as opposed to the hammock classes)check out greyshades costings.
Vote:December 26th, 2004 at 10:24 am
are you a communist? Here’s my tax table….15% flat rate, and increase GST to 15%. Balance the books by going thru every government expenditure item and ask is this improving lives, if so how, and can it be done better more efficiently? Then bin any questionable expenditure.
Vote:December 26th, 2004 at 10:29 am
DPF – There’s no problem with tax cuts if you rescind the working for families package but I can’t see National doing that (at least not to any material extent). Sage – thanks for your comment I would recommend the UMR (aka Basic Income, negative tax, see my blog) as a better structure. It’s often perceived as a left-wing idea but it certainly needn’t be.
Vote:December 26th, 2004 at 12:52 pm
I agree with Jackel. Income tax is economically inefficient (it discourages hard work) and is expensive to administer. However there are two complications. 1 The inpact your tax reductions have on the present family assistance costs and 2 What assumptions you make on the proportion that will get saved/spent. A high % spent on consumption will put inflationary pressures on the economy and will result in an increase in interest rates negativing the effects for all those taxpayers who are heavily in (floating rate) debt.
Vote:December 29th, 2004 at 2:19 pm
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/PA0412/S00600.htm yes there will be a period of inflationary flux, but after 2yrs of 10% growth a more sustainable 5% growth will be achieved. The govt tax take will within 7 years be more in net terms than it is now, but the actual proportion of GDP will be much lower.
Vote:December 29th, 2004 at 7:38 pm
Jackal – this is fantasy land economics. If we were going to get a boom out of cutting tax rates, it would have happened last time we did so – from 66c in the dollar in 1986 to 33c in the dollar in 1988. Remind me where the boom went – I seem to have lost it.
David – you have also made the mistake of seeing last year’s surplus as going on and on. It won’t. I would challenge you to either show what assumptions you plan to change (ie programmed spending you plan to cut), or explain how the 3% of GDP surplus we’re expecting in the out-years (which are the level I think is about right) can be spent on a) the super fund at 2% of GDP, b) public investment of about 2.5% of GDP, and now c) tax cuts of 2% of GDP.
I would also like you to explain how your tax cuts will help the current account deficit, or do anything other than achieve an inflationary boom.
Vote:December 29th, 2004 at 9:54 pm
and the miracle of the current boom has it’s origins where Jordan; the failed policies of Douglas/ Richardson?
Vote:If you want an example of how tax cuts can spur an economy, look at what Reagan did for the US/ california economies when he introduced his tax reform packages.
As for the argument about the current account deficit, as people’s properties are peaking in this cylcle, their equity gains and subsequent expenditure thereof will dry up. Many will use the improved cashflow from regaining their hard earned yet deprived lucre for short term debt repayment, thus decreasing their net levels of debt and helping swing the net deficits back towards a more viable position.
December 31st, 2004 at 7:47 pm
I like the general principle of what you are saying. But don’t forget that public debt. Personally, I’m not into deficit spending.
So, if I may be so bold to suggest some changes that could make NZ more attractive and fairer (marginal utility policy)
0% up to $10,000*
5% up to $20,000
10% up to $30,000
15% up to $40,000
20% up to $50,000
25% up to $60,000
30% up to $70,000
35% above $70,000
Such a proposal is a stable progressive taxation scheme, whereas the one you proposed has certain excessive breakpoints. That’s best avoided.
Whilst I don’t have a distribution of NZ income figures handy, I suspect that both the schemes would raise similar amounts of public revenue.
And have a company tax rate of 25%**
* Keep in mind Oz is 0% for first $6,000
** A lower company tax rate that highest marginal tax rate induces people on higher incomes to put their money in business enterprises thus improving productivity. Also it would move _heaps_ of business from Aus to NZ.
Oh, and completely switch from a property rates system to a land-value system as well. Seriously.
Vote:January 1st, 2005 at 1:44 pm
Jordan it isn’t fantasy land economics, as Reagans spell and the economies of Singapore and Hong Kong will attest to. We’ll never know if it will work in NZ because our politicians have no guts to tell people the truth about effort, reward risk and the falacies of socialism.
Vote:As for changing rates to a land value based system, that is essentially what we have. It is a very unfair system, as a lot of poeople use many more resources but pay a fraction of the cost.
January 1st, 2005 at 2:10 pm
As for changing rates to a land value based system, that is essentially what we have. It is a very unfair system, as a lot of poeople use many more resources but pay a fraction of the cost.
That can’t be the case. Land Value Taxation is based on user-pays principle of resource usage.
cf.,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_taxation
Vote: