Why the super tax changes mustn't be watered down

Everyone wants to know what achievements Malcolm Turnbull can point to after his first year as Prime Minister. Well, I can think of something: his reform of the tax breaks on superannuation – provided he gets it through without major watering down.

Why is it such a big deal? Because it ticks so many boxes. Because it makes the taxation of super much less unfair.

Note, I didn't say much fairer. It will still be an arrangement that gives the least incentive to save to those who find saving hardest, and the greatest to those whose income so far exceeds their immediate needs that they'd save a lot of it anyway.

A report by John Daley and others at the Grattan Institute, A Better Super System: Assessing the 2016 tax reforms, independently confirms the government's claim that the changes will adversely affect only about the top 4 per cent of people in super schemes.

That still leaves a lot of well-off people – including the top 4 per cent – doing very nicely out of super.

Remember this when Turnbull's backbenchers embarrass their leader and add to their government's signs of disarray by pressing for the changes, announced in this year's budget, to be watered down.

Whose interests did you say the Liberal Party represents? Why exactly does it claim ordinary middle-income voters can trust the party to look after their interests?

But back to the reform's many attractions. It would cut back one of the major loopholes that make tax paying optional for the well-placed but compulsory for everyone else; that allow very high income-earners to end up paying a lot less tax than they're supposed to.

A lot of the savings from reducing concessions to the high fliers (who, you should know, include me) would be used to improve the bad deal given to low income-earners and to make other changes but, even so, would produce a net saving to the budget of $770 million in 2019-20.

This saving would get a lot bigger over time.

So the super reforms would contribute significantly to reducing the government's deficits and debt, but do so in a way that spread the burden more fairly between rich and poor than the Coalition's previous emphasis on cutting welfare benefits.

A lot of well-off people have been using super tax concessions to ensure they leave as much of their wealth as possible to their children – a practice lawyers refer to euphemistically as "estate planning".

Wanting to pass your wealth on to your children is a human motivation as old as time. The question is whether it should be subsidised by other taxpayers.

If it is, rest assured it's a great way to have ever-widening disparity between rich and poor. In the meantime, it adds to (recurrent) deficits and debt.

The rationale for Turnbull's changes is the decision that superannuation's sole purpose is to provide income in retirement to substitute for, or to supplement, the age pension.

They fall well short of eliminating the use of super tax concessions to boost inheritance, but they make a good start.

This is the goal of the three main measures Turnbull wants. Reducing the cap on before-tax contributions to $25,000 a year will save almost $1 billion in 2019-20.

Capping at $1.6 million per person the amount that can be held in a retirement account paying no tax on the annual earnings. Any excess balance will have its earnings taxed at the absolutely onerous rate of 15 per cent – less dividend imputation credits. This will save $750 million a year.

Introducing a $500,000 per person lifetime cap on after-tax contributions, counting contributions since 2007, will save $250 million a year.

If those caps strike you as low, you're just showing how well-off you are. The huge majority of people will never have anything like those amounts.

They're set at levels sufficient to allow a comfortable retirement even for those anxious to maintain a high standard of living. Anything more and you're in estate planning territory – or you just want every tax break you can get because you're greedy.

The claim that starting to count contributions towards the $500,000 cap in 2007 (the time from which good records became available) makes it "retrospective" is mistaken.

The measure is prospective in that it applies to income earned after the day it was announced, not before.

Where contributions in excess of the cap have been made already, they won't be affected by the measure.

Any tax change is likely to affect the future tax consequences of actions taken in the past. That doesn't make it retrospective.

To say "I had planned to do things in the future to reduce my tax which now won't be effective" is not to say the changes are retrospective.

Sometimes politicians announce changes well before they take effect, to allow people to "get set". But it's common for them to make tax changes that take effect from the day of announcement, precisely to stop people getting set. That doesn't make the change retrospective, either.

As Daley says, "the proposed changes to super tax are built on principle, supported by the electorate, and largely supported by all three main political parties.

"If common ground can't be found in this situation, then our system of government is irredeemably flawed."

Read more >>

TALK TO BSL FORUM ON YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT

Melbourne, Monday, September 12, 2016

Last week I got an email from Peter, a 23-year-old who’s been unemployed and on the dole for the past six months. As required by Centrelink, he applied for 20 jobs a month, from which he got just three interviews and no job offers. “I’m finding it hard to get work”, he says, “because I’d like to work in a computer shop . . . but it’s either ‘you don’t have enough experience’ or ‘you don’t have the qualifications’. Really annoys me. It’s not that I want to be a bludger, I’d gladly take part-time and earn some small money . . . or full-time work if I could.”

Something funny has been going on in the labour market since the global financial crisis in 2008. Funny peculiar, I mean; it’s not exactly amusing. Until then, the overall rate of unemployment had been falling steadily since an uptick after the introduction of the GST in mid-2000. After the financial crisis, unemployment jumped, but then fell back reasonably quickly as we realised we’d escaped being caught up in the Great Recession as the other advanced economies had been - and pretty much still are.

But then our economy went for some years growing at below-trend rates and the overall unemployment rate began creeping up. Only since early last year has the economy been growing a bit faster and has overall unemployment fallen from a peak of 6.2 per cent to its present 5.7 per cent, which does seem to be a plateau.

The peculiar thing is that the youth unemployment rate - for those aged 15 to 24 - has followed roughly similar trends, but in a more exaggerated way. That’s particularly true since the GFC.  When overall unemployment jumped after the crisis, youth unemployment jumped by a lot more. It didn’t fall back as far after the crisis subsided, and it rose faster when the economy’s growth was inadequate. When growth picked up more recently, youth unemployment did fall back faster than overall unemployment, but now while the overall rate seems to have plateaued, the youth rate is actually rising.

So, while the overall rate fell to a low of 4.1 per cent before the GFC, the rate for youth’s lowest point was 8.7 per cent. And today, while the overall rate seems to have plateaued at 5.7 per cent, the youth rate is up at 13 per cent - which is a widening of the gap between the two of about 60 per cent. It’s also well over a quarter of a million young people (276k).

I want to give you my explanation for that widening gap, but first let me describe some other dimension of the youth unemployment problem. There is quite a bit of variation between regions and within states. Using the most recent figures, for January, and rounding to whole numbers, NSW’s worst regions are the Hunter Valley (22 per cent) and the Mid-North Coast (20 per cent). Victoria’s are Melbourne West and Geelong, both on 18 per cent.

Turning to long-term unemployment, nearly 17 per cent of those youths unemployed at present have been so for more than a year, meaning there are about 45,000 Australians who’ve been looking for work without success for a year or more. Here, too, the improving trend before the GFC has since reversed.

And in line with the worsening in youth unemployment has been a rise in youth under-employment - people with part-time jobs who’d prefer longer hours - including, no doubt, plenty who’d prefer a full-time job. The most recent figures, for May, show the youth under-employment rate is nearly 20 per cent. That’s more than a third of a million young people (360k).

So why is it that, even though we congratulated ourselves in 2009 for having escaped the Great Recession, we’ve seen this worsening in youth unemployment? Well, the first point I’d make is one retiring Reserve Bank governor Glenn Stevens has often made. The fact is we didn’t escape recession at that time. We did have a recession - when sensibly measured as a period of falling growth and sharply rising unemployment - but exceptionally deft economic management ensured it was a shallow and brief recession. It wasn’t anything like the severe recessions we experienced in the early 90s and, before that, the early 80s.

But one of the ways employers contributed to the shallowness of that post-GFC recession was by minimising layoffs and using other, seemingly gentler ways to reduce their payrolls. There was, for a time, a lot of resort to four-day weeks and, for much longer, what’s euphemistically known as “natural attrition” - not replacing people who leave, and skimping on, or skipping entirely, the annual entry-level intake.

In the years since then when, until recently, growth hasn’t been all that strong, particularly in the “non-mining” part of the economy, many employers have persisted with low levels of recruitment at the entry level.

The trick, of course, is that this solution suits the interests of older, established workers, but does so by shucking off most the burden of adjustment onto young people, particularly that year’s crop of education leavers. How much concern for their welfare? Not a lot.

We do hear a lot about the trouble some older people find in regaining employment should they lose their jobs. It’s a genuine problem and one we should care about.

But the unemployment problems of the old seem to attract a lot more public attention - and sympathy - than the similar problems of the young.

Research by the Brotherhood using the HILDA survey - finds those aged 55-and-over account for just 8 per cent of the unemployed, whereas those aged under 25 make up more than 40 per cent.

So unemployment is concentrated among the young. And, as Stephane and his OECD colleagues have reminded us, the sad truth is it’s concentrated among the less educated and less skilled.

In the modern technologically-driven workforce, there are many fewer jobs for people who quit school early and for those who don’t acquire post-school trade or tertiary qualifications. What unskilled jobs remain tend to be casual and occupied by uni students or young mothers.

In 2008, according to the Brotherhood’s figures, 45 per cent of the unemployed had failed to complete year 12, with another 20 per cent having gone no further than year 12. That’s almost two-thirds.

Governments can’t be blamed for the employment practices of businesses, but they can be held accountable for their punitive treatment of the young unemployed - even if they are reflecting the adult world’s lack of sympathy for youthful job seekers. Oldies seem convinced that the young’s only problem is that they don’t want to work and so need to be starved back to the grindstone.

The dole has been allowed to fall way below the age pension so that it’s now less than $280 a week for a single adult. The “youth allowance” is even lower. Now the government wants to deny the $4.40 a week “energy allowance” to new entrants, as a cost-cutting measure.

Why young voters cop this crappy deal so meekly I don’t know.

Read more >>

Our youth jobs report card: what's up with you people?

It's surprising how many of our politicians, economists and business people fail to see that our preference for looking after high-achieving young people and not worrying too much about the stragglers is a recipe for much more than social injustice and unfulfilled lives.

The earlier we identify and help kids at risk of doing poorly in education, training and employment, the more we help the community as well as the kids.

It's a social and economic investment. Neglect it and we lose much more later, as people spend more of their life on benefits and add little to the productivity of our workforce.

On the face of it, a report card on our performance, Investing in Youth: Australia – to be released by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development at a forum hosted by the Brotherhood of St Laurence in Melbourne on Monday – gives us a pass.

Our education system "performs well overall, and school completion rates have been rising in recent years".

The labour market situation of youth in Australia is "quite favourable by international standards". Our youth unemployment rate is [a bit] "below the OECD average".

But this is not so terrific when you remember that "Australia was hit much less heavily by the Great Recession than most other countries".

"After continuous decline in youth unemployment rates since the early 1990s, rates have started rising again, while youth employment has fallen."

But the report focuses not on youth unemployment, but on NEETs – the share of youth (people aged 15 to 29) who are "not in employment, education or training". And, at 11.8 per cent, the share of NEETs was higher in 2015 than it was before the global financial crisis in 2008.

That's well over half a million young Australians out of education and work. About a third of those are looking for work, but the other two-thirds aren't.

The first factor driving the high proportion of NEETs is low educational attainment. Quelle surprise.

Youth with, at best, a year 10 certificate, account for more than a third of the NEETs. And their risk of being in that state is three times as high as for those with tertiary education.

Worse, "many NEETs lack foundational skills (numeracy and literacy) and non-cognitive skills, which are important prerequisites for labour market success," the report finds.

But there's hope if we bother helping. "Recent research demonstrates, however, that non-cognitive skills, like cognitive skills, remain malleable for young people through special interventions."

Get this: the risk of being NEET is 50 per cent higher for women, and women account for 60 per cent of all NEETs.

So the biggest single explanation of why so many NEETs aren't looking for work is that many of them are young mothers with a child below the age of four. And don't assume they're all sole parents on welfare.

The report adds that NEET rates are substantially higher among Indigenous youth, who represent 3 per cent of the youth population, but 10 per cent of all NEETs.

And the likelihood of being NEET is substantially higher for youth with disabilities.

In case you're tempted by visions of all those lazy loafers out surfing, or with their feet up watching daytime television, the report says NEETs "tend to exhibit higher rates of psychological stress and lower levels of life satisfaction" than other youth.

In its own ever-so-polite way, the report notes our less-than-stellar performance. The completion rate for vocational and educational training certificates and apprenticeships "remains low by international standards".

That's one way to acknowledge the awful stuff-up we've made of VET.

Australia has a wonderful, very flexible, market-based network of employment service providers that "cover, however, only about 60 per cent of NEETs, leaving around 200,000 youth unserviced". Oh.

"Young jobseekers' participation in training programs increased over the last years, but this trend came to a halt with the recent expansion of Work for the Dole", we're told.

"Given strong evidence on positive employment effects of training, including for disadvantaged jobseekers, Australia should continue promoting training program participation as an effective way of moving young jobseekers into stable employment."

Translation: what's up with you people?

The report praises our Youth Connections program and its effectiveness in improving educational attainment for youth at risk of dropping out of school – before noting it was phased out in 2014.

"The recent tightening of eligibility criteria for unemployment benefits may create additional incentives to actively look for work, but it also bears the risk of pushing the most disadvantaged youth into inactivity and possibly poverty," we're told.

Translation: you mean Aussie bastards.

Read more >>

Economy steams on for another quarter

Just about everyone who doesn't look at the numbers - which is most people - is convinced the economy is "slowing", suggesting disaster may be just around the corner.

How do they know it's slowing? Because almost all the economic news is bad. They don't notice that most of the bad news comes from somewhere else - Britain, Europe, Japan, China, even the US.

And people who warn that the economy is slowing always sound wiser and more knowing than people who say it seems to be going OK and will probably stay OK.

Of course, if you do look at the figures you find little sign the economy is slowing. Indeed, the national accounts we got from the Bureau of Statistics this week show that real gross domestic product grew by 3.3 per cent over the year to June.

Three months earlier, the figures tell us, real GDP grew by 3 per cent over the year to March. Before that we had growth of 2.8 per cent over the year to December and 2.6 per cent over the year to September 2015.

During all that time we've had people confidently telling us the economy is "slowing". What's more, within a week they'll have forgotten this week's good news from the national accounts - as they did all the other times - and be back telling us the economy is "slowing".

The good thing about the national accounts is you can always find something that's not looking too hot - provided you ignore all the things that are going OK.

This time you can say that, since the economy grew by 1 per cent in the March quarter, but by only 0.5 per cent in the June quarter, it must be "slowing".

But you have to be an amateur to believe the accounts can be taken so literally.

They're too subject to lumpiness (big transactions, such as the purchase of jumbo jets, which happen irregularly rather than smoothly from quarter to quarter), to error (such as a big transaction getting into the wrong quarter) and to frequent revision (there's a lot more statistical guesswork in the first estimate of growth during a quarter than people imagine, mainly because a lot of the figures needed are collected only yearly) for them to be treated as God's truth.

You could also say that growth in consumer spending of just 0.4 per cent in the quarter was surprisingly weak but, again, we shouldn't be too literal. Growth of 2.9 per cent over the year is pretty healthy.

Actually, if you're looking for something that really is "slowing" you'll find it not in the national accounts, but in the monthly job figures. They show that employment hasn't grown as strongly this year as it did in the last half of last year, meaning the rate of unemployment seems to have stopped falling and plateaued at 5.7 per cent.

This tells us there's been some instability in the normally fairly stable relationship between growth in the economy and growth in employment.

It would be more worrying if growth in the driver of that relationship - the economy - weren't holding up so well, and possibly increasing. This being so, employment should start behaving more normally in time.

The real growth in GDP over the year to June of 3.3 per cent was generated by, in descending order of contribution, growth in: the volume of exports of 9.6 per cent (with extra help from a 0.5 per cent fall in the volume of imports), consumer spending of 2.9 per cent, public consumption spending of 4.4 per cent, public infrastructure spending of 13.9 per cent, and home building of 8.3 per cent.

All of which was reduced by a negative contribution to growth of 2.2 percentage points from the 13.8 per cent fall in business investment spending, as the continuing fall in mining construction activity swamped still fairly flat growth in non-mining business investment.

If those figures make you think the public sector - federal, state and local - has been spending like crazy, don't be misled. Public sector spending is lumpy, and June quarter spending was overstated (and business investment spending correspondingly understated) by state governments buying prisons and other facilities previously built by the private sector.

Here's some indisputably good news: the productivity of labour in the market sector improved by 1.5 per cent during the quarter and by 2.9 per cent over the year.

There's an old rule that one quarter's figure doesn't equal the start of a new trend. Remembering this, there are some encouraging figures in the accounts we can hope will turn out to be improving trends.

The most significant is that, after deteriorating for nine quarters in a row, our terms of trade - export prices relative to import prices - improved by 2.3 per cent in the quarter.

This means stronger growth in real gross domestic income (real GDP adjusted for the terms of trade) of 1.9 per cent over the year. That is, the international purchasing power of the goods and services we produce wasn't cut back this quarter the way it has been.

When export prices fall far enough, nominal GDP grows more slowly than real GDP. This is a problem for the Treasurer because the taxes we pay are levied on our nominal income and spending.

But the improvement in the terms of trade helped nominal GDP to rise by 1.3 per cent in the quarter and 3.4 per cent over the year. This is the strongest result in more than two years.

The final good news is proof the economy is now well advanced in making the much ballyhooed transition from mining- to non-mining-led growth.

Over the year to June, the mining sector contributed about a quarter of the overall growth of 3.3 per cent, whereas the (much larger) non-mining sector contributed about three-quarters.

Read more >>

Let's not blow our big chance for progress on climate change

Our attitudes to climate change are becoming like our attitude to death: we know we must face up to it one day, but right now we'd prefer to think about something else.

This may explain why the media's coverage of a potentially breakthrough report from the government's Climate Change Authority focused on environmentalists' criticisms of it rather than its actual content.

Similarly, why focus on the world's two biggest greenhouse gas emitters, China and the United States, using the G20 meeting in Hangzhou to ratify the Paris climate change agreement – thus encouraging other countries to do likewise and raising hope the deal will come into effect this year – when you can speculate about conflict over the South China Sea and foreign investment?

Forgive me, but I'd never make a card-carrying greenie, righteously condemning any proposal to act on climate change that's less than heroic – as both the Paris agreement and the climate authority's report on the policies we need to ensure we deliver on our commitment, most certainly are.

I've never believed that if you can't have it all, you're better off having nothing. Nor that if you make a less than perfect start, this precludes you from getting better over time.

Our commitment – reached when Tony Abbott was still in charge – is to reduce our emissions of carbon dioxide by 26 to 28 per cent on their level in 2005 by 2030.

This is less demanding than many other countries' commitments and, in any case, all the commitments aren't enough to achieve the stated goal of limiting global warming to below 2 degrees.

Although the climate authority was established by Julia Gillard, the Coalition has replaced most of its members with people not known for their deep commitment to environmentalism.

It's chaired by a former director of the National Farmers Federation, joined by, among others, a former Liberal chief minister and boss of a top industry lobby, and a former National Party minister.

When Abbott abolished Gillard's euphemistically named "price on carbon" – it was an emissions trading scheme, but initially with the price set by the government at $23 a tonne of carbon dioxide – he replaced it with a "direct action plan" consisting of a taxpayer-funded emissions reduction fund used to pay farmers and others to reduce their emissions.

This was combined with a "safeguard mechanism" designed to prevent gains from the purchased reductions being undone by increases in emissions elsewhere in the economy.

Under the safeguard, about 140 large businesses that each have plants with direct emissions of more than 100,000 tonnes a year have been given an emissions "baseline" they must not exceed.

Many experts have criticised direct action as inadequate to achieve our new commitments, especially considering the government's budget pressures.

The greenie evangelists are calling on the government to confess the error of its ways, repent its manifold sins, scrap its evil direct action plan and replace it with measures so politically painful as to prove it is truly born again.

The climate authority's proposals are a little more conscious of politicians' aversion to losing face. They thus have a good chance of being accepted.

Whatever it says, the government must know its present arrangements are insufficient to meet its international commitments without hugely increased cost to taxpayers.

That's particularly true since, as the authority points out, the Paris agreement itself requires countries to review and improve their commitments over time.

The authority avoids the trap of proposing the government scrap what it's doing and start again from scratch. Rather, it shows how the government can build on its existing policies to strengthen its efforts.

Rather than proposing restoration of an emissions trading scheme, or the imposition of some economy-wide carbon tax, the authority takes the less economically virtuous but more practical approach of choosing between price-based and regulation-based measures, depending on the circumstances of particular industries.

That's why its report is titled Towards a Climate Policy Toolkit.

Since electricity generation is by far the greatest emitter of greenhouse gases, the authority proposes that the industry's present baseline under the safeguard mechanism be replaced with an "emissions intensity scheme", whose baseline would be reduced to zero between 2018 and "well before 2050".

In practice, this would require fossil fuel-based generators to subsidise renewable generators, eventually causing almost all generation to be from renewables. It would raise retail electricity prices somewhat, but by far less than under the Gillard scheme.

For other industries covered by the safeguard mechanism, their emissions baselines should decline in line with our Paris commitments.

Elsewhere, the authority wants the government to impose emissions reduction standards on new vehicles, continue and strengthen household appliance standards and building codes, and tighten regulation of emissions from landfill waste.

This toolkit approach minimises the risk of hip-pocket opposition from consumers. Building on existing arrangements rather than starting again is attractive to business groups.

The proposals not only build a bridge for the government to move to policies more adequate to the challenge we face, they build a bridge to a bipartisan climate change policy because the authority's proposals fit well with those Labor took to the election.

And bipartisan policy provides just the certainty needed for business to stop arguing the toss and accept that, since our move to a decarbonised economy is now inevitable, it should get on with adjusting.

Read more >>

Morrison's unplanned plan to fix the budget

Scott Morrison can use scare tactics in seeking greater support for his task of getting the budget back on track, but he'll do better by spreading the needed sacrifice more fairly. That means holding the line on his superannuation reforms against his own backbenchers.

Morrison isn't alone in fearing that our completion of 25 years of continuous economic growth has left many of us complacent, unaware of the tough measures we needed to put up with to make this success possible and, equally, the further discomfort needed to keep it going.

There's truth to this, no doubt. But I doubt that scare tactics are the way to puncture that complacency and win wider acceptance that we all need to take some pain for the greater good.

Morrison's claim in his latest speech that, given a host of dire but unstated assumptions, federal gross debt could reach a trillion dollars in a decade, is an easy way to get a headline but is unlikely to make anyone more amenable to unpopular budget measures.

Does the man not realise that, after decades of dishonest dealing with voters by both sides of politics, no politician has the credibility to have such extreme claims believed – or even remembered?

More fundamentally, do Morrison and his Treasury advisers not realise that their practice of exaggerating the budget deficit by refusing to distinguish between capital and recurrent spending – by, in effect, claiming that failing to pay for long-lived public infrastructure fully in the year of construction is financially irresponsible – is wearing thin and robbing them of support from the more economically literate?

The truth, if the budget papers are to be believed, is that the recurrent budget is already close to balance – which is not to say we shouldn't now aim for a period of recurrent surpluses so as to liquidate the part of our accumulated debt arising from earlier recurrent deficits.

No, a better way to win public acceptance of unpleasant budget measures is to demonstrate that the burden of restraint is being spread fairly between the bottom, middle and top income-earners.

The biggest single reason the Coalition has, from the beginning, met such resistance to budget repair from the public – and, therefore, the Senate – is its blatant lack of concern for fairness.

Remembering our tightly means-tested welfare system, to start from the premise that the budget has a spending problem, but not a revenue problem, is to pre-ordain that your savings measures will focus on spending programs benefiting the bottom and middle, while ignoring the "tax expenditures" favouring the top.

The Coalition's first term is testament to the truth that making budget repair conditional on achieving smaller government – lower government spending without any increase in taxation – is a recipe for failure on both.

Ostensibly, Morrison's talk of "the taxed and taxed-not" and repetition of his mendacious claim that "you don't encourage growth by taxing it more" suggest he's learnt nothing about the compromises he himself must make if he's to succeed in repairing the budget.

But things have changed, as witness Morrison's weasel-word acceptance of the need for measures to "protect the integrity of our tax base".

This year's (still unpassed) budget was aimed not at budget repair but at tax reform. To this end it nicked Labor's plan for further huge increases in tobacco tax, introduced convincing measures to greatly increase taxes paid by multinationals and cut back and redistributed superannuation tax breaks for high-income earners.

Even its $6-a-week tax cut for the top quarter of taxpayers is insufficient to prevent income tax increasing through continuing bracket creep, let alone give back proceeds from the creep that occurred under the Coalition's previous two budgets.

These tax increases were made to help cover the initial costs of the 10-year phase-down in the rate of company tax, of course. Over its life, however, the tax package looked to be "budget negative".

But here's the trick: Morrison looks a lot more likely to get his various tax increases through the new Senate than his cut in company tax.

If so, he'll end up doing a lot to improve the budget balance, and doing it in a much fairer way than all the collected penny-pinching in his $6 billion "omnibus bill", as revealed by Jessica Irvine.

But the perception of greater fairness, as well as the saving to the budget – both initially and in subsequent build-up – will be hit hard should the revolt by a few government backbenchers over the super changes succeed in letting a handful of rich Liberal supporters off the hook.

Read more >>

Combatting climate change: let's try Plan D

Just as they say there's more than one way to skin a cat, so there are a lot of ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and "decarbonise" the economy. We've tried three ways so far, and now we may try a fourth.

The Rudd government tried to introduce an emissions trading scheme in 2009, but it was blocked in the Senate when the Greens joined the Tony Abbott-led opposition in voting it down.

When the Greens came to their senses, the Gillard government introduced a carbon tax in 2012, which it preferred to refer to euphemistically as "a price on carbon".

When Abbott came to power in 2013, he abolished the carbon tax and replaced it with "direct action" - using an emissions reduction fund to pay farmers and others to cut their greenhouse gas emissions.

But this week the government's Climate Change Authority recommended that the fund be supplemented by imposing an "emissions intensity scheme" on the nation's generators of electricity, so we could be sure of achieving the commitments the Abbott government made at the Paris climate conference last year.

Confused? Let me explain how an emissions intensity scheme would work and how it differs from its three predecessors. I think, given all the circumstances, it would be an improvement.

All four approaches are "economic instruments" which seek to use prices - rather than simple government laws about what we may and may not do - to encourage people to change their behaviour in ways the government desires.

Direct action just involves paying people to do things, whereas the other three are more sophisticated schemes, designed years ago by economists, to change market prices in ways that discourage some activities and encourage others.

Historically, economists have debated the relative merits of carbon taxes and emissions trading schemes, even though they are close relations.

If you look closely, however, you find that Julia Gillard's "price on carbon" was actually a hybrid of the two. It started out as a carbon tax because the government fixed the initial price at $23 a tonne.

But the plan was that after a couple of years, the price would be set free to be determined by the market, thus turning it into a trading scheme.

An emissions trading scheme - also called a "cap and trade" scheme - involves the government setting a limit on the total quantity of carbon emissions it's prepared to let producers emit, then requiring individual producers to acquire a permit for each tonne of carbon they let loose.

Producers who discover they're holding more permits than they need are allowed to sell them to (trade them with) producers who discover they're not holding enough.

The government would slowly reduce the number of permits it issued each year. This reduction in the supply of permits relative to the demand for them would force up their price.

The higher cost would be reflected in the retail prices of emissions-intensive goods and services, but particularly the prices of electricity and natural gas.

This, in turn, would encourage businesses and households to use energy less wastefully, as well as encouraging producers to find ways of reducing emissions during the production process.

The third scheme economists have invented, the emissions intensity scheme (a class of "baseline and credit" schemes), has similarities with emissions trading schemes.

The government takes the total emissions of an industry - in this case, the electricity industry - during a year and divides it by the industry's total production of electricity during the year, measured in megawatt hours, to give the industry's average "emissions intensity" - C0₂ per MWh.

Those producers within the industry whose emissions intensity exceeds this "baseline" must buy "credits" to offset their excess emissions, from those producers whose intensity is below the baseline, or face government penalties.

In practice, this would mean brown and black coal generators having to buy offset credits from combined-cycle gas, wind and solar generators, benefiting the latter at the expense of the former.

The Climate Change Authority recommends that the intensity baseline be reduced each year by a fixed percentage until it reaches zero "well before" 2050.

If the scheme began in 2018 and was to reach zero by, say, 2040, the baseline would have to be reduced by 4.5 per cent a year (100 divided by 22).

So the absolute size of the reduction in emissions required would be high in the early years, but get smaller over time.

A great political attraction is, whereas the other schemes raise the price of every unit of electricity, the intensity scheme just shifts costs between different parts of the industry, meaning the average price increase should be small.

There would be some price rise, however, because the production costs of renewable generators are higher than those for fossil-fuel generators, and the scheme would increase the proportion of renewable energy in total production.

Just how high the price had to go would depend to a big extent on the effects of further economies of scale and further advances in technology in reducing the average cost of producing renewable energy.

An economic advantage of the intensity scheme is that it wouldn't be open to trading permits with other countries' emissions trading schemes (especially the European Union's, where the carbon price has collapsed) nor to dodgy emissions credits from developing countries.

The main economic drawback of an intensity scheme is that, by not doing a lot to raise the price of electricity, it wouldn't do much to encourage businesses and households to reduce their demand for electricity.

To counter this, the authority proposes that generators needing to buy offset credits be allowed to meet their requirements by purchasing "white certificates" from existing state government schemes which offer incentives to firms that do things to reduce their power use.

Let's hope the new approach brings some action.

Read more >>

THE STRUGGLING AUSTRALIAN ECONOMY

September 2016

We are living through times when there’s a fair bit of bad economic news, but most of that news is coming from abroad. America’s economy is not growing strongly enough for the Federal Reserve to risk getting on with its intention to raise the official interest rate from its present level not far from zero. Britain’s decision to leave the European Union means it economy is likely to slump, which won’t help the rest of Europe, whose growth is weak as it struggles to hold the euro currency area together. Japan is continuing many years of weak growth. And China’s economy has slowed as it makes the transition from investment-led to consumption-led growth.

All this bad news is well publicised in Australia, so many Aussies assume our economy must be quite weak, too. Or, if it's been going OK to date, it must be slowing. It’s true that we can’t be unaffected by the weaker growth of our trading partners, but it’s also true that our economy is affected mainly by purely domestic factors. And the effects of those domestic factors mean it’s not true that our growth is weak, nor that our economy is slowing. Recent quarterly national accounts show the economy is growing at the annual rate of 3 per cent, and the Reserve Bank’s forecast is for it to stay growing at 3 per cent for the next few years. This a much better rate than most other developed economies are achieving.

As we’ll see in a moment, growth of 3 per cent is actually a fraction faster than our “potential” growth rate, which should be sufficient to at least hold the rate of unemployment steady, even allow it to fall a little. And, indeed, over the year to July, the trend rate of unemployment has fallen from 6.1 per cent to 5.6 per cent, where it seems to have stabilised.

But since 5.6 per cent is still above our NAIRU - our non-accelerating-inflation rate of unemployment - as demonstrated by our high rate of under-employment, but also by our exceptionally low rates of inflation and wages growth, it’s clear the labour market and the rest of the economy still has a fair bit of idle capacity. In other words at present we have a negative “output gap”. Earlier years of below-potential growth mean the economy could grow for a few years at a rate well above our medium-term potential growth rate as we return to full capacity - full employment - without any risk of excessive inflation. This is why, though our present growth rate is OK, it would be good to see it a bit higher.

The new era of slower growth

It’s tempting to think the slower rate of growth in the world economy is essentially “cyclical” - that is, many economies are still in the process of recovering from the global financial crisis of 2008 and the Great Recession it precipitated. There is truth to this, but many economists have concluded that part of the slowdown is “structural” - it has deeper, longer-lasting causes. In other words, the world economy - but particularly the developed economies - seem to have entered an era of slower growth. Remembering that the causes of economic growth can be decomposed into the Three Ps - population, participation and productivity - the developed countries have slower rates of population growth and growth in the population of working age (15 to 64). Population ageing as the baby boomers retire is lowering the overall rate of participation in the labour force. And the rate of productivity improvement (output per unit of input) has slowed and seems likely to stay slow, for reasons economists are still debating. One factor is that a slower-growing and ageing population has less reason to increase investment in business equipment and infrastructure.

Australia’s lower potential growth rate

Australia is no exception to this move to permanently slower growth for structural reasons. You can see this in the way the econocrats have been revising down their estimate of our “potential” growth rate. Our potential growth rate is determined by the supply-side of the economy, rather than the demand side. It is the average rate of growth in the economy’s capacity to produce goods and services over the medium term. It can be raised by growth in the labour force, growth in investment in business equipment and infrastructure and improvement in productivity. Once the economy is operating at full capacity utilisation - full employment - it sets the speed limit at which the economy can grow without excessive inflation. But while the economy is operating with spare production capacity - that is, while it has a negative “output gap” - it can grow at rates exceeding the potential rate without worsening inflation.

An economy’s output gap is a measure of the extent of its spare production capacity. Where its actual rate of growth is lower than its potential growth rate, the difference contributes to a negative output gap. Where the actual rate of growth is higher than the potential rate of growth, and economy is at full employment, the difference is a positive output gap, which will be causing inflation pressure to build. Note that, because the economy’s ability to produce goods and services gets a bit bigger almost every year, potential is a rate of growth.  By contrast, the output gap is an absolute amount - the deference between one level of GDP and another level.

It’s hard to calculate an economy’s potential growth rate (or, for that matter, its NAIRU) with any degree of certainty. And the rate will change over time as the factors affecting it change. For a long time Australia’s potential rate - often referred to as our (forward-looking) “trend” rate of growth -was taken to be 3.25 per cent a year. But then this was lowered to 3 per cent and last year it was cut further to 2.75 per cent. Why? Because of slower population growth since the end of the resources investment boom, because the retirement of the baby boomers is lowering the labour force participation rate (only partly offset by the trend to later retirement) and because, as is true for all the developed economies, Australia’s rate of productivity growth is lower than it used to be.

It’s roughly estimated that, because of many years of weak growth until the past year or so, our negative output gap is equivalent to about 1.5 per cent of GDP. That is, actual growth could be a cumulative 1.5 percentage points higher than the potential rate before we reached full capacity and had to slow down to the potential rate to avoid excessive inflation. But each year that we grow by more than 2.75 per cent will take up spare capacity and reduce the output gap.

Now let’s turn to recent developments in the management of the macro economy using monetary policy and fiscal policy, starting with monetary.

Monetary policy

Monetary policy - the manipulation of interest rates to influence the strength of demand - is conducted by the RBA independent of the elected government. It is the primary instrument by which the managers of the economy pursue internal balance - low inflation and low unemployment. MP is conducted in accordance with the inflation target: to hold the inflation rate between 2 and 3 pc, on average, over the cycle. The primary instrument of MP is the overnight cash rate, which the RBA controls via market operations.

The RBA cut the official interest rate hard in response to the GFC in 2008, but then put rates back up once it became clear a serious recession had been averted.

In November 2011, the Reserve decided the resources boom was easing and would not push up inflation. It realised growth in the non-mining sector of the economy was weak - held down particularly by the dollar’s failure to fall back in line with the fall in export prices – at a time when mining-driven growth was about to weaken. So it began cutting the cash rate, getting it down to a historic low of 2.5 per cent by August 2013.

For the next 18 months the Reserve sat back and waited for this very low interest rate work through the economy and have its effect. Not all that much happened, with the economy continuing to grow at a below-trend rate. The dollar did start falling in the first half of 2013, and by June 2015 it had dropped to about US77 cents (from its peak of US1.10 in mid-2011), but this would have been explained much more by the continuing fall in coal and iron ore export prices than by our lower interest rates relative those in the major advanced economies. The Reserve continued to note that the exchange rate hadn’t fallen by as much as the fall in commodity prices implied it should have, explaining this as a consequence of the major advanced economies’ resort to “quantitative easing” (money creation), whose main stimulatory effect on their economies came by forcing their exchange rates lower (thus causing ours to be higher than otherwise).

So in February 2015, after a gap of 18 months, the Reserve resumed cutting rates, dropping the official rate another notch, and again in May, to reach a new low of just 2 pc. It resumed cutting a year later, in May 2016, and then by another notch in August, taking the cash rate to a new record low of 1.5 per cent. There is little reason to doubt that the total fall of 3.75 percentage points since November 2011 has helped to hasten growth the non-mining sector of the economy. In particular, it prompted the boom in the housing market, causing big increases in house prices and new home building, particularly in Sydney and Melbourne. How much the lower rates contributed to the fall in the exchange rate is debatable.

The further rate cuts in 2016 were made possible by the weakness in inflation and wages growth, with the inflation rate falling short of the target range. It’s doubtful whether the Reserve expects the recent cuts to do much to encourage borrowing and spending. More likely it is hoping that lowering our rates - which are still high relative to rates in the major economies - will exert some downward pressure on our exchange rate, thus improving the international price competitiveness of our export and import-competing industries. In his final speech, retiring Reserve governor Glenn Stevens acknowledged that the effectiveness of monetary has been reduced by the already-high debt level of Australian households, which has limited their willingness to borrow more so as to spend more - the main mechanism by which lower interests stimulate demand. Mr Stevens noted that Australia’s households are far more heavily indebted than our government, arguing that, if further policy stimulus is needed, it should come from fiscal policy: increased public borrowing and spending, provided that spending is on useful infrastructure rather than recurrent expenses.

Fiscal policy

Fiscal policy - the manipulation of government spending and taxation in the budget - is conducted according to the Turnbull government’s medium-term fiscal strategy: “to achieve budget surpluses, on average, over the medium term”. This means the primary role of discretionary fiscal policy is to achieve “fiscal sustainability” - that is, to ensure we don’t build up an unsustainable level of public debt. However, the strategy leaves room for the budget’s automatic stabilisers to be unrestrained in assisting monetary policy in pursuing internal balance. It also leaves room for discretionary fiscal policy to be used to stimulate the economy and thus help monetary policy manage demand, in exceptional circumstances - such as the GFC - provided the stimulus measures are temporary.

The Abbott government’s first budget, in 2014, set out a program of largely delayed measures to return the budget to surplus over a number of years. The measures focused heavily on cutting spending programs of benefit to low and middle-income families, ignoring the many overly generous tax concessions on superannuation, negative gearing and capital gains tax, whose benefits go predominantly to high income-earners. Because many of the spending cuts were contrary to Mr Abbott’s election promises, and many were judged to be unfair, the budget caused a plunge in the Abbott government’s popularity, from which it never recovered. Many of its cuts were blocked in the Senate.

The Abbott government’s second budget, in 2015, made little further attempt to reduce the budget deficit and seemed to focus mainly on measures intended to restore the government’s standing in the opinion polls. The deficit in 2015-16 was twice the size of the deficit in 2012-13.

The Turnbull government’s first budget, in 2016, attempted to do no more than hold the line on the deficit while it introduced a package of tax reform measures. It propose a minor cut in income tax, but its centrepiece was a plan to cut the rate of company tax from 30 to 25 per cent, phased in over 10 years. To help cover the cost of this cut, the budget sought to increase taxes in three main ways: by big increases in the tax on tobacco, a very worthwhile reduction in superannuation tax concessions and a serious crackdown on tax avoidance by multinational companies. The government is likely to have more success in getting these tax increases through the Senate than its cuts in company tax for big business. If so, its budget may end up making a useful contribution to reducing the budget deficit.

Read more >>

There are few "taxed-nots" apart from the elderly

It's a sad day when economic commentators like me have to spend so much time explaining what's wrong or misleading about the things the federal Treasurer says, rather than backing up his efforts to educate the public on economic realities and helping him fight for sensible though unpopular policies.

To be fair, Scott Morrison did have useful points to make in his big speech last week, his first major contribution since the election.

But then he veered off onto reinforcing the mythology of the greedy well-off, who resent being taxed to help those less fortunate than themselves.

He announced there was a new divide in the community – "the taxed and the taxed-nots".

"A generation has grown up in an environment where receiving payments from the government is not seen as the reserve of those who unfortunately will be forever dependent on support or in need of a hand up, but a common and expected component of their income over their entire life cycle," he said.

"On current settings, more Australians today are likely to go through their entire lives without ever paying tax, than for generations.

"More Australians are also likely today to be net beneficiaries of the government than contributors – never paying more tax than they receive in government payments."

Get it? Here are you and I, working hard all our lives, having far too much of that income taken off us in tax. Yet out there somewhere, living in suburbs we rarely visit, is a growing army of bludgers who don't bother working, but find some way of conning the government into paying their way.

Now, apparently, a lot more of them will go their entire lives without paying more in tax than they get back in benefits.

This is self-pitying fantasy. It's not the disadvantaged we should feel sorry for, it's you, slaving away in Mosman or Brighton.

It's an imaginary picture of the world. It's the conspiracy theory you'd expect from One Nation, not the federal Treasurer.

It's built on a few simple tricks. It hopes you won't remember that Australia's social security system is the most tightly means tested among the developed countries, paying flat amounts that aren't at all generous – which is the main reason we pay less tax than most.

And it hopes you won't remember that we pay many more taxes than income tax. Personal income tax accounts for only a little over half the federal taxes we pay. Add in state and local taxes, and income tax accounts for 40 per cent of all taxes.

So the notion that people who don't work don't pay tax is silly. Even taking account of benefits received, next to no one goes through their life being "taxed-not".

It's true we spend almost $160 billion a year on social security – most of it going on pensions and benefits – which accounts for more than a third of all federal spending.

Official figures show there are about 5.2 million recipients of federal "income support". So who are these bludgers? People on the dole? They account for just 13 per cent.

Sole parents? They're 5 per cent. People at home being "carers"? Just 4 per cent.

I know, all those people faking bad backs on the disability support pension. Sorry, that's only 16 per cent.

So where are the rest of the people not pulling their weight and expecting us to support them? Well, half the people on income support are people on age or service pensions.

Oh. You mean the people who keep saying they're entitled to the pension because they "paid taxes all their lives". The people whose investment advisers helped them have lots of other income, but still get the pension.

And that doesn't count all the retired people paying no income tax on their income from superannuation, at present no matter how huge.

Nor does it count all those bludging parents getting the family tax benefit or those bludging mothers expecting us to help with the cost of childcare so they can go to work.

Family benefits and childcare subsidies account for more than a quarter of federal spending on pensions and benefits.

What, not quite so many lazy loafers as you expected?

The Australian Bureau of Statistics conducts a study where it attempts to allocate as many taxes as possible from all levels of government to each of Australia's 8 million-plus households, while also allocating as many cash and in-kind benefits as possible from all governments.

Morrison ought to look at the most recent study, for 2009-10, particularly page 41. It shows that whether we pay more to the government than we get back in benefits changes as we move through the life cycle.

It shows that, on average, single people of working age pay a lot more than they get back, as do couples without dependent kids.

Couples with a few kids pretty much break even or get back a bit more than they pay, but the people who really clean up are the retired.

Elderly couples are ahead to the tune of about $690 a week, on average, with elderly singles getting $475 a week, mainly because they pay little income tax but get huge health benefits along with the pension.

ScoMo isn't smart enough to know it, but in disparaging the "taxed-nots" he's really attacking the old.

Read more >>

Our other problem: xenophilia towards foreign investment

There are few topics on which there's more irrational thinking than foreign investment. Trouble is, the illogic comes as much from economists and policy makers as it does from uncomprehending punters.

Sometimes I think the wonky thinking by the economic literates is an overreaction to the crazy prejudices of the economic illiterates.

The punters think we can decide not to sell off the farm – not to allow foreigners to buy Australian businesses – without that having any economic consequences. Without the decline in foreign capital inflow leading to slower economic growth and a slower-rising material standard of living.

Of course, there's no reason the electorate shouldn't decide to trade off less foreign ownership for a standard of living that's lower than it could be, provided people understand the price they're paying.

The econocrats go the other way, exaggerating our dependence on foreign investment and other capital inflow.

Econocrats have the knowledge that we're a "capital-importing country" burnt into their brains. They live in eternal fear that one wrong move could reduce the inflow to a trickle, stuffing us completely.

They preach the need for us to attract more foreign investment even while they worry that the dollar's too high – another example of how long it's taking economists to adjust their "priors" (long-held beliefs) to a world of floating exchange rates.

I can't think of a time when we've had too little foreign investment. Even when the dollar briefly fell below US50¢ in 2000 there was no obvious problem.

Another silliness about the econocrats' conviction that we can never have enough foreign investment is their assumption that prices – specifically, the rates at which various taxes are set – will be the overwhelming factor determining how much we get.

Treasury continually lectures us on how globalisation has made it easier to move financial capital between tax jurisdictions, thus making the quest for foreign investment far more "competitive".

This, we're assured, makes it imperative we have tax rates that are competitive with far less attractive investment destinations, including developing countries a fraction of our size, where cronyism and corruption are rife, and you can't be sure of getting fair treatment in the courts.

Only economists, mesmerised by their model – which ignores all factors that can't be measured in dollars – would be silly enough to imagine that decisions about where in the world to set up business would be made without reference to non-quantifiable factors.

That global companies such as Google or Apple would refuse to do business in Australia because our company tax rate is higher than Singapore's.

Yet the need to be more price-competitive in the quest for foreign investment is advanced as almost the only argument needed to justify a cut in company tax. That there'd be nothing in it for domestic shareholders is treated as beside the point.

John Howard's decision in 1999 to discount by half the rate of tax on capital gains was justified on the grounds that it would attract lots of investment by foreign fund managers. Never mentioned again.

In their revulsion against the public's "economic nationalism", the econocrats have gone to the opposite extreme of assuming all foreign investment is good and we can never get enough.

When it suited the world's big mining companies to come to Oz and engage in a decade-long frenzy to build more mines before China went off the boil, it never occurred to our policy makers to make the miners form an orderly queue.

Rather, we let them turn our economy upside down. We saw our job as ensuring the miners' frenzy didn't cause an inflation surge, using high interest rates and tolerating a hugely overvalued exchange rate to suppress the non-mining economy and allow the miners to get all the resources they wanted.

We did lasting damage to our manufacturing and tourism industries to allow the miners to have their rowdy party.

We're left with a huge, capital-intensive, 80 per cent foreign-owned mining industry that employs just a handful of Australians.

Its foreign ownership wouldn't matter so much if it was paying its fair whack of tax. But we let the miners con us out of imposing a sensible resource rent tax, and now we discover they're turning legal somersaults to minimise the company tax they pay.

The econocrats have become so defensive towards foreign investment they've forgotten the most basic reason for having and managing an economy: self-interest.

Foreign investment is a means, not an end. It's not our job to make our economy a playground for foreign companies.

We should welcome them and tolerate their self-interested, rent-seeking behaviour only to the extent that it leaves us better off.

Read more >>

Foreign investment helped to make us rich

If foreign investment in Australian businesses is so unpopular with so many people and such a hot potato for Malcolm Turnbull and his government, why do we persist with it?

Short answer: because we prefer our material standard of living to go up, not down.

This week an Essential poll revealed the full extent of the public's reservations about foreign investment. Foreign investment in mining was regarded as "bad for the economy" by 28 per cent of respondents.

For investment in ports it was 37 per cent and for investment in agriculture it was 44 per cent. For investment in infrastructure such as electricity it was 45 per cent and for investment in real estate it was 54 per cent.

The most opposed to foreign investment were voters for minor parties such as One Nation and the Xenophones​, but Greens voters weren't far behind. Then came Labor voters and, finally, voters for the Coalition.

But even among Coalition supporters there were almost always more saying it was bad than saying it was good.

When you remember that our level of material prosperity has been dependent on foreign investment since the arrival of the First Fleet, it's a wonder so few punters can join the dots.

Viewed through economic eyes, the First Fleet was just the arrival in this country of its first foreign investor, in boats laden with labour, materials and supplies, intent on getting a new subsidiary going.

There were a lot of imports with, on the other side of the transaction, an inflow of foreign capital owned by the British government.

The term's gone out of fashion, but since white settlement Australia has always been a "capital-importing country".

To develop a country economically you need lots of money - known here as financial capital - to pay for all the construction and equipment, known as physical capital. Where does this money come from? Someone has to save it by not consuming all their income.

Ideally, all the savings necessary to finance the economic development of our country would come from Australians. Then we'd own everything ourselves and all the profits would belong to us.

But we've always had a small population relative to the huge opportunities to farm our land, exploit our untold mineral wealth and develop our economy in many other respects, such as making ourselves an attractive destination for tourists and university students.

So, from the beginning, we've always invited foreigners to bring their savings to Australia and help us develop our economy much faster than we could if we relied solely on our own savings. That's what makes us a capital-importing country.

The attraction to the foreigners is that they own the businesses they build and keep the profits they make.

The attraction to us is we get a bigger economy than we otherwise would. The foreign firms provide a lot of employment for Aussies, buy a lot of their supplies from local businesses and, of course, pay tax to our government on their profits.

That's always been the deal. Had we kept the foreigners out, our economy and population would now be much smaller than they are and, in consequence, our standard of living would be much lower than it is.

At first the foreigners most willing to invest in Oz were the Brits. Then it was the Americans, then for a few decades the Japanese, and now the Chinese.

I'm old enough to remember when it was American investment that people objected to when we first started worrying about "selling off the farm".

But when the Japanese economy was riding high in the 1970s and '80s, and Japan began looking for profitable investments here, I remember how much the farmers carried on. They thought Japanese feed lots were the beginning of the end of Oz.

The Japanese came and stayed and eventually the farmers realised they were no threat. But now it's the Chinese, and farmers are back to manning the barricades. They're going to dig up our farms and take them back to China.

You know they will because their skin's a different colour. Or maybe they'll sabotage the communications and power networks they now own, just before they invade us.

The globalisation of financial markets has made it much easier for money to move between countries and thus complicated the picture I've just described.

These days, we can borrow foreigners' savings, not just let them set up new businesses here. And it's easier to sell them existing businesses.

It's easier for foreigners to buy some shares in listed Australian companies (known as "portfolio investment") rather than acquiring a controlling interest in a new or existing business ("foreign direct investment").

Before globalisation, countries tended to be either owners of many foreign businesses ("equity capital") or to have a lot of their businesses owned by foreigners. They either owed a lot of money ("debt capital") to foreigners or foreigners owed them a lot of money.

These days, every country does a lot of both. At March this year, we owed $2126 billion to foreigners, while foreigners owed us $1098 billion, leaving us with net foreign debt of $1028 billion.

Foreigners had equity investments in Oz worth $996 billion, while we had equity investments in other countries worth $1012 billion, leaving us with net foreign equity assets of $16 billion. You read that right.

But if this makes you think we'd be better off borrowing all the savings we need rather than selling off the farm, remember this final complication: foreign direct investors in Australian businesses don't just bring their savings, they also bring their managerial skills and often their more advanced technology, which Australian workers learn to use and then take on to local businesses.

And in this ever more integrated world, foreign investment and international trade tend to go together. Going for trade without investment is another way to be poorer than necessary.

Read more >>

We shouldn't feel bad about leaving public debt to our kids

There are a lot of nice people in the world, people who worry about all the debt we're leaving to our kids and grandkids. I know this from the letters I get from people.

I got an email from a retired couple who said they'd be happy to pay more – a 15 per cent goods and services tax, medical co-payments or even a 10 per cent increase in income tax – if only it was guaranteed that the money was spent "to pay down debt, not rack up more with populist promises".

Unfortunately, there are no nice people in politics. Or, if a few start out that way, they soon get it beaten out of them.

Last week, in his first big speech since he was re-elected – the one so rudely interrupted by some woman who thought the mistreatment of asylum seekers on remote islands was something worth drawing to our attention – Malcolm Turnbull decided to tug on the heartstrings of nice people everywhere.

"We sing Advance Australia Fair," he said, "but there's nothing more unfair than saddling our children and our grandchildren with mountains of debt that we have created because our generation could not live within its means.

"If we aren't prepared to make the tough choices today – younger Australians, future generations, will be forced to pay back the debt through a combination of higher taxes and a lower quantity or diminished quality of government services. In short, through lower living standards than they would otherwise have enjoyed."

Sorry, but that's not true. It's roughly the opposite of the truth. And I don't believe someone as smart as Turnbull actually believes it.

But before we go on, how's this for one of the "tough choices" about fairness Turnbull wants our elected representatives to agree to in this year's budget: cutting the dole – which is a princely $38 a day – and other welfare payments by $4.40 a week, while agreeing to tax cuts of $6 a week for people earning more than $87,000 a year.

The justification for the cut in benefits is that it represents the belated removal of the "energy allowance" originally paid in compensation for the carbon tax. Since Tony Abbott abolished that tax, the allowance is no longer needed.

Now that is a tough choice. Is it fair to cut the benefits of low income-earners because we're "living beyond our means" while we cut the taxes of high income-earners?

But are we living beyond our means? What does that phrase mean, anyway?

Is any person or government that's borrowing money living beyond their means? That's what the politicians who keep repeating that line hope we'll assume.

A moment's reflection reveals its weakness. Say your offspring borrow a frighteningly large amount so they can live in a home of their own. Does that mean they're living beyond their means?

No, of course not. Not if they can afford the repayments. And not when you remember that the house they've bought will deliver them a flow of services for as long as they own it.

What service? It's providing them with somewhere to live – and thus relieving them of the expense of renting.

If I told you of a couple with a debt of $600,000, would you automatically assume they had nothing to show for that debt? No, you'd assume they must have bought a house and may well have made a sound investment.

But when politicians tell us the government owes many billions of dollars, many of us assume there's nothing to show for all that spending and borrowing. Which is just what game-playing politicians hope we'll assume.

But it's usually not true. What do governments have to show for all their borrowing? Public infrastructure – roads and motorways, bridges, railways and bus fleets, hospitals and schools, prisons and police stations and all manner of other facilities.

All those things contribute to our standard of living and to the efficiency of our economy. Do you think we'd be better off had the money not been borrowed and those things not been built?

Since we worry about our children and grandchildren, what kind of physical Australia do we want them to inherit? One with rundown and inadequate public facilities – one where it's really hard to get around, where roads and trains and hospitals and schools are grossly overcrowded?

If we continue letting our politicians demonise public debt, that's the world we'll be leaving for our descendants.

It's true we'll be leaving debt to our children. But we'll also be leaving them a better equipped, better educated and healthier Australia. Does this add up to something to worry about or feel guilty over?

According to the federal budget papers, almost all of the expected underlying cash deficit of $37 billion this financial year will be spent on infrastructure.

Most infrastructure spending is done by the state governments. Much of what they spend each year building facilities that will serve the community for 30 or 40 years or more is covered by that year's tax revenue (including federal grants), the rest is borrowed – to be serviced and repaid by the people who'll still be using those facilities.

It's the self-same bargain that was made with our generation. Sounds a fair and sensible way to keep building a better future.

Read more >>