Tuesday, October 25, 2022

Jim Chalmers’ 2022-23 budget mantra: whatever you do, don’t fuel inflation

Wes Mountain/The Cartoon, CC BY-ND

Terrified by the prospect of further stoking the worst inflation in three decades, Treasurer Jim Chalmers and Finance Minister Katy Gallagher have delivered a budget that takes out of the economy about as much as it pumps into it.

In the March 2022-23 budget, delivered ahead of the May election, the Coalition gave away most of the extra A$40 billion that was to flow from higher commodity prices and an improved economy in new programs and tax cuts. But this budget has hung on to the bulk of what’s turned out to be an extra $52.5 billion.

Over the four years to 2025-26, Chalmers forecasts $144.6 billion more in tax than was expected in March. Most of this is from much higher company tax flowing from higher mineral and gas prices. This is offset by $92.1 billion in extra spending, mainly necessitated by higher inflation.

Out of the net $52.5 billion he plans to spend only a net $9.8 billion, most of which is $7.4 billion in recovery funding for communities affected by disasters.



Labor has largely paid for its election spending promises (all of which appear to have been implemented in full) by hacking into Coalition programs and spending announced in the March budget that hasn’t yet taken place.

Although the monthly measure of inflation has been falling – to 6.8% for the year to August (with the September update due on Wednesday) – the budget forecasts a reacceleration to a peak of 7.75% by the end of the year.

It expects retail electricity prices to climb by 20% this year and a further 30% in 2023–24. It expects retail gas prices to climb 20% in both years. It says these higher prices should flow through into the cost of almost everything we buy.

Nevertheless, as international price pressures ease and as higher Reserve Bank interest rates squeeze spending, it expects inflation to fall back to 5.75% by mid next year, 3.5% by mid-2024 and (perhaps optimistically) to the middle of the Reserve Bank’s 2-3% target band by mid-2025.

Encouragingly, it expects wage growth to accelerate almost immediately, from its present 2.6% to 3.75% by the middle of next year, taking wages growth back up above prices growth of 3.5% by mid-2024.



Whether or not this slow glide down from higher inflation and quick lift in wages growth is realistic, many of the assumptions in Chalmers’ first budget are more believable than those of his predecessors.

Previous budgets made their forecasts look better by plugging in high productivity growth of 1.5% per year, which has been the average over the past 30 years. But productivity growth hasn’t been anything like that high for two decades. On average it has been 1.2%, which is the much lower number Chalmers has plugged in, cutting forecast economic growth by 1.75% over the next decade.

The previous budget expected the National Disability Insurance Scheme to cost $46 billion per year by 2025-26. This budget expects it to cost $51.7 billion in the light of new actuarial projections, pointing to spending increases of 14% per year.

The previous budget expected net interest payments to amount to 0.8% of gross domestic product by 2032-33. This budget factors in almost double the cost – 1.5% of GDP – as a result of much higher interest rates.

By 2025-26 it expects interest payments to cost $26.5 billion, which is more than it expects to spend that year on family payments, pharmaceutical benefits, or schools. It expects net debt of 31.9% of GDP by June 2033, well up on the 26.9% expected in March.



As is a Treasury tradition, the revenue forecasts are conservative. Whereas the March budget assumed iron ore, coal and gas prices would fall from exceptionally high levels to long-term averages by September 2022, the October budget assumes the same fall, but for March 2023.

In truth it’s hard to tell what will happen six months into the future, let alone the four years for which the budget makes forecasts and the ten years for which it makes projections, as what’s happened since March makes clear.

But taken together, Chalmers’ more cautious assumptions and the enthusiasm with which Gallagher has embraced cost-cutting paint a weak picture of the year. Economic growth is forecast to be 3.25% this financial year, down from 3.5% forecast in March.



Next financial year it is expected to be 1.5% down from 2.5% forecast in March (albeit while countries including the United Kingdom and the United States grapple with recessions).

Unemployment is expected to be much higher than forecast in March – 4.5% instead of the 3.75% by mid 2024, which would mean an extra 100,000 or so people out of work.

It’s a price Chalmers and Gallagher seem prepared to pay if it means getting on top of inflation, although it wasn’t one they were prepared to draw attention to.

The budget papers say employment will climb in each of the next four years, and doubtless it will, because the population will climb, but isn’t a particularly strong claim to make.

The Conversation

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Read more >>

Tuesday, October 18, 2022

Australia needs an honest conversation about tax and budgets – and Jim Chalmers is ready to talk

Jim Chalmers is a wily operator. Ahead of delivering his first budget next Tuesday, he has given himself room to do the things a treasurer needs to do.

For a while, his predecessor Josh Frydenberg denied himself that room. In his first budget as treasurer under Scott Morrison ahead of the 2019 election, Frydenberg promised to get the budget “back in the black”.

That 2019 budget forecast increasing surpluses as far as the eye could see (which was ten years, the limit of the graphs presented in the budget papers). The Liberal Party began selling “back in the black” celebratory mugs at A$35 each.

Liberal Party of Australia, 2019

The trick was that from then on, government spending would grow more slowly than the rest of the economy. As a proportion of GDP, it would slide from around 25% to 23.6% by 2029-30.

For that to happen, all sorts of government programs would have to become and stay less ambitious for ten years. But instead of details, Frydenberg’s department gave us gobbledegook – such as that lower payment projections had been

driven by lower than expected payments across a range of programs in the forward estimates flowing through to the medium term.

It made substantial extra spending near-impossible.

The 2019 budget assumed that the cost of National Disability Insurance Scheme couldn’t blow out (it has), that governments couldn’t spend more in response to aged care and disability royal commissions (they’ll have to), or pay aged care workers the big rises the Fair Work Commission is about to award, and so on.

COVID changed everything – except the tax cap

Just about every fairly foreseeable crisis couldn’t be responded to, if the assumptions in the 2019 budget were to be believed.

Not even by raising more tax. A separate “tax cap” set out in the budget said the government would never collect more than an arbitrarily chosen 23.9% of GDP.

Frydenberg tied his own hands in a way a treasurer who wanted to take charge of the nation’s finances would not have.

Until COVID. Within a year, Frydenberg junked the “back in the black” pledge and spent big, because he had to.

But he kept in place the bizarre 23.9% tax cap. The Liberal Party campaigned on it in the election, challenging Chalmers to adopt it.

No tax cap – but what comes next?

But here’s how much Chalmers really wanted the job of treasurer. In an election in which Labor repeatedly presented itself as a small target, Chalmers said “no” to the tax cap, over and over again.

Asked on ABC’s 7.30 last month whether next week’s and future budgets would be bound by the tax cap written into Frydenberg’s final budget, he said the cap had been more or less “plucked out of the air”.

And I had the courage, if I can say that, to say that before the election as well as during the election campaign.

His task was to fit the budget to the conditions Australia faced: rising inflation, falling real wages, rising interest rates, and looming recessions worldwide.

The amount he would have to spend, and the amount he would have to raise, would be the result of those deliberations.

And it would be the result of things beyond any government’s control. Unexpectedly, the Coalition almost breached its tax cap in its final year in office because of a flood of revenue flowing from higher commodity prices and a greater than expected number of Australians in jobs. It took in 23.4% of GDP.

What would it have done if it had breached the cap? Given the money back?

Growing demands on the budget

The demands on future budgets will be enormous. Not only paying for the National Disability Insurance Scheme and aged care, but also Medicare, hospitals, defence, education, rent assistance, boosting the scandalously low rate of JobSeeker, and dealing with increasingly frequent floods and climate change.

Australians expect these challenges to be taken seriously.

Labor’s actual election promises aren’t that expensive. The parliamentary budget office found a net impact of $6.9 billion over four years.

In Tuesday’s budget, Chalmers will find much of the money for those promises by cancelling decisions made in Frydenberg’s March budget. An upside of having budgets in both March and October this year is that a lot of the money committed in March hasn’t yet been spent.

How do we pay for what we need most?

But beyond that, Chalmers says he is up for a serious conversation about how we pay for the services we need and have a right to expect.

A former head of the prime minister’s department, Michael Keating, wants an expert committee (“not a royal commission made up of lawyers”) to prepare a bottom-up estimate of the extra revenue we will need to guarantee the essential services we are likely to need.

After the committee has developed the estimate, Keating wants a second inquiry to work out how best to raise it.

Economist Ross Garnaut told September’s jobs summit that as a share of GDP, total federal, state and local government tax revenue was 5.7 percentage points below the developed country average.

On one calculation, that means Australia could raise an extra A$140 billion a year and still be taxed at developed country rates. It needn’t all come from income tax. Most developed countries have much bigger goods and services taxes than we do, and many have windfall profits taxes, and effective taxes on energy exporters.

And it needn’t all be raised now. There’s no point in taxing more for the sake of taxing more. But we are likely to need to raise more in future, to help fix the kinds of problems we’re likely to face in the future.

That’s the overdue conversation we have to have, starting Tuesday.The Conversation

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Read more >>