Taxation

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/57114/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
Despite being widely described as a “tax rort for rich investors”, negative gearing is not a tax concession (a tax deduction as opposed to an exemption or rebate). It does, however, encourage over-investment and over-leveraging in Australia’s housing market, as the Financial System Inquiry Murray Report concluded.
Consequently, while not the only reason for increasing house prices and affordability issues in some locations, negative gearing has become a focal point in an election year for tax reform debate and a review of housing policy.
From Waleed Aly to the prime minister on his own blog, negative gearing is generating much talk without context.
<h2>Where does the idea come from?</h2>
Gearing describes the use of borrowing to finance an investment. When the interest costs of servicing that borrowing exceed the net income of the investment, it is said to be negatively geared.
The idea underlying negative gearing is relatively straightforward: when an individual (or business) incurs costs associated with generating income, those costs are tax-deductible from income.
As it is applied to investment properties in Australia, when interest costs of the mortgage exceed the net rental income of the property (that is, it is negatively geared) then the net loss on the investment property may be used by an individual to offset their ordinary wage income.
This is because, under the current rules in Australia, investment property losses are not “quarantined”. That is, the losses on an investment property are not only tax-deductible against the income from the investment property. As a result, the higher your total income, the greater the tax-minimisation benefit of negative gearing.
Quarantining losses is a major point of difference in the application of negative gearing in Australia to the rest of the world, and a key area that previous reforms in Australia have targeted.
<h2>International examples</h2>
Compared to the rest of the world, Australia’s negative gearing policy is one of the most generous to property investors.
Of OECD countries, New Zealand and Japan have the most similar treatment of negative gains to Australia. In these countries, negative gearing is allowed with relatively few restrictions.
On the other hand, the United Kingdom applies strict quarantining rules to loss-making properties. Investment property losses may be applied to the pool of income from investment properties and carried forward, but the losses may not be deducted against wages (i.e. non-passive income).
However, this summary should be treated with extreme caution. An international comparison of negative gearing treatment is incomplete without also examining the rules for capital gains and other housing market distinctions such as owner-occupier versus investment properties and new versus existing developments.
In the United States, while not a system to aspire to, even interest on owner-occupied housing is fully tax-deductible against ordinary income. By contrast, in Sweden, tax deductions from negative gearing of rental properties are permitted (although quarantined with income from other capital assets), but imputed rents from owner-occupied housing are taxed.
The net welfare gains are cumbersome to measure and entwined with government policy.
<h2>Previous attempts at reform</h2>
In 1984-85, major reform to negative gearing policy in Australia took place.
Prior to the Hawke government’s tax reforms, negative gearing rules quarantined investment property losses and allowed investors to carry these losses forward to offset future income when, or if, the property became positively geared.
In the space of six months, investment property losses quarantines were lifted (in order to boost the stock and affordability of rental housing) and then removed.
From property investors’ perspective, this final reform was severe: losses were quarantined on an asset-by-asset basis and could not be carried forward to offset future income.
Though this reform was not retrospective (that is, it would apply only to properties purchased after July 1985), it was largely criticised at the time and arguments that it caused rents to increase dramatically prevailed. While these analyses have been questioned in more recent debates, in September 1987 the reform was repealed and the system largely as it exists today was set.
The one major subsequent attempt at reform to negative gearing came in the 2010 Henry Tax Review. The primary recommendations for a “fairer” and more efficient housing market were for the removal, or reining in, of negative gearing. Specifically, negative gearing losses should be capped at 40 percent.
At the time of the report’s release, then-prime minster Julia Gillard chose to maintain the status quo with respect to negative gearing. Her response on ABC’s Q&amp;A shows that negative gearing is a bilaterally difficult topic.
<h2>Where are we now?</h2>
With calls for negative gearing reform from a range of voters, economists and advocacy groups such as ACOSS, why has no major political party achieved significant reforms to negative gearing?
There is the elephant in the room: the majority of Australian voters have a direct interest in the stability of the housing market.
Beyond that, the added confusion is the conflict between what negative gearing policy aims to achieve and the reality.
It is true that negative gearing distorts the housing market. It encourages over-investment and over-leveraging in Australia’s residential real estate sector. And this is exactly what it was intended to do.
But when combined with the existing progressive income tax structure, the relative benefit to low-income versus high-income earners is easily muddied.
For over 30 years, negative gearing has been untouched under the primary political motivation – that it increases the housing supply and, importantly, the stock of rental housing. It has taken this long to conclude that the stated aim does not appear to have been achieved. Finding a better alternative is not going to happen overnight, no matter how persuasively Waleed Aly puts the case against it.
<h2>So what are the reform options?</h2>
The Turnbull government has ruled out changes to negative gearing in the pre-election budget. The government has walked away from earlier suggestions of capping the losses that may be claimed from negative gearing, or restricting the number of negatively geared properties in an individual’s portfolio.
By contrast, Labor’s policy has been placed on a pedestal by proponents of reform. Labor proposes to restrict the tax benefits of negative gearing to new properties only. In theory this would redirect housing investment (which currently is concentrated in existing properties) to housing construction and help to boost supply.
Labor’s proposal would be a further distortion. Taken to its limit, offering incentives for investment in new properties also encourages speculative developments. The policy risks unoccupied housing investments and the resulting “ghost towns”, without improving housing affordability.
Complicating this analysis, however, is the complexity of the tax system and housing market policy. Negative gearing should not be analysed in isolation from capital gains (on which the Grattan Institute has published a comprehensive report) and other special treatments of housing such as stamp duty, land taxes and first-home-buyer exemptions. Rather than take a sledgehammer to the current policy, a good reform should encapsulate this spectrum of housing market distortions.
Danika Wright is lecturer in Finance, University of Sydney and author for The Conversation. She can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/danika-wright-121868" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

jchancellor-FAypfDUnLy

Negative gearing reform has chequered recent history

<html><body>
<h4><a href="https://theconversation.cmail20.com/t/r-l-vkiihjl-qitldhiii-yh/" target="_blank"></a></h4>
GUEST OBSERVER
Much of the current tax debate is mangled by poor analysis and misconceptions. Let’s consider three topics: “bracket creep”; corporate tax rates; and negative gearing.
<h4><a href="https://theconversation.cmail20.com/t/r-l-vkiihjl-qitldhiii-yh/" target="_blank"></a></h4>
The fact that inflation, more precisely wages growth, pushes individuals into higher marginal tax brackets has been advanced as the rationale for a variety of tax proposals. But the unacknowledged elephant in the room is the simple, rational, response to bracket creep – index the tax scales.
<h4><a href="https://theconversation.cmail20.com/t/r-l-vkiihjl-qitldhiii-yh/" target="_blank"></a></h4>
That is, if inflation was 5% over the past year and the 37% marginal tax rate previously started at an income threshold of $80,000, that threshold would be increased to $84,000 (that is, an increase of 5%).
<h4><a href="https://theconversation.cmail20.com/t/r-l-vkiihjl-qitldhiii-yh/" target="_blank"></a></h4>
It is legislatively and administratively simple. A low inflation environment makes this the ideal time to implement such a beneficial change which can counter profligacy of future governments, should high inflation return and induce higher tax revenues from bracket creep.
<h4><a href="https://theconversation.cmail20.com/t/r-l-vkiihjl-qitldhiii-yh/" target="_blank"></a></h4>
That one is simple. The real issues in the corporate tax rate debate, where many advocate lowering the rate, are more subtle – and missed by most of those advocates. Under our dividend imputation tax system, company tax payments are offset by lower investor tax payments when earnings are paid out as franked dividends to Australian investors. For such investors, lowering the company tax rate has (subject to a few caveats) no effect on their after tax returns from investment.
<h4><a href="https://theconversation.cmail20.com/t/r-l-vkiihjl-qitldhiii-yh/" target="_blank"></a></h4>
Who would benefit? Foreign-owned companies for one, for which the after-tax returns from Australian operations are increased (assuming they haven’t structured affairs to avoid tax anyway). That might induce more of them to establish or expand operations in Australia – although it should be stressed that our corporate tax rate, while above that of some Asian neighbours, is below that of a number of advanced countries. So arguments that our corporate tax rate is “uncompetitive” do not obviously cut the mustard.
<h4><a href="https://theconversation.cmail20.com/t/r-l-vkiihjl-qitldhiii-yh/" target="_blank"></a></h4>
Other beneficiaries would include private Australian companies owned by wealthy individuals on (hopefully) high marginal tax rates. For them, there are significant tax benefits from retaining earnings in the company rather than paying franked dividends.
<h4><a href="https://theconversation.cmail20.com/t/r-l-vkiihjl-qitldhiii-yh/" target="_blank"></a></h4>
Doing so avoids the extra tax payable at the personal level (after allowing for franking credits) due to their marginal tax rate exceeding the company rate. Instead retention of earnings (and franking credits) generates capital gains which may eventually be taxed at the concessional capital gains tax rate. So lowering the company tax rate would benefit these wealthy individuals (and does nothing for small private companies struggling to make a taxable profit).
<h4><a href="https://theconversation.cmail20.com/t/r-l-vkiihjl-qitldhiii-yh/" target="_blank"></a></h4>
A third set of beneficiaries might be Australian companies – but the source of any such presumed benefit is subtle. A benefit would arise if the cost of equity capital was reduced through a lower company tax rate.
<h4><a href="https://theconversation.cmail20.com/t/r-l-vkiihjl-qitldhiii-yh/" target="_blank"></a></h4>
As explained above, there is unlikely to be any such effect from a change in the required rate of return of Australian investors. Foreign investors might lower their required rates of return, but that is, at least, debatable.
<h4><a href="https://theconversation.cmail20.com/t/r-l-vkiihjl-qitldhiii-yh/" target="_blank"></a></h4>
Of course, one doesn’t need to lower the company tax rate to achieve this – a rebate of tax on dividends paid to foreign investors would achieve the same outcome. And the political resistance that would undoubtedly occur in response to such a proposal should indicate that relying on this argument for reducing company tax is untenable. And remember, our company tax rate is in the middle of the pack for advanced economies.
<h4><a href="https://theconversation.cmail20.com/t/r-l-vkiihjl-qitldhiii-yh/" target="_blank"></a></h4>
Finally, negative gearing. There is nothing wrong with negative gearing itself (although fraught with risk due to leverage). The problem is that there are undesirable tax benefits associated with it, arising from claiming current tax deductions for interest paid on financing an investment on which tax on returns will be deferred and at a concessional rate.
<h4><a href="https://theconversation.cmail20.com/t/r-l-vkiihjl-qitldhiii-yh/" target="_blank"></a></h4>
The solution? Removing concessional capital gains tax (or at least returning to full taxation of real capital gains) is part of the solution. But it is only part – because deferring tax payments until realisation of the asset sale implies a lower effective tax rate.
<h4><a href="https://theconversation.cmail20.com/t/r-l-vkiihjl-qitldhiii-yh/" target="_blank"></a></h4>
It would not be feasible to tax capital gains as they accrue, given the adverse cash flow consequences for investors. However, we could use a variant of the tax treatment of companies with carry forward tax losses, which are compounded up at the government bond rate to keep their real value until usable.
<h4><a href="https://theconversation.cmail20.com/t/r-l-vkiihjl-qitldhiii-yh/" target="_blank"></a></h4>
Quarantining currently deductible interest costs on negative gearing to offsetting income earned on the investment, plus carry forward of additional unused interest costs is one way to go. When the investment is eventually sold, or when income exceeds interest expense, those accumulated unused costs could be claimed for tax purposes.
<h4><a href="https://theconversation.cmail20.com/t/r-l-vkiihjl-qitldhiii-yh/" target="_blank"></a></h4>
This is not administratively complex, would be fairer for other taxpayers who ultimately pay for the concessions, and might reduce incentives for excessively leveraged investments.
Kevin Davis is research director of Australian Centre for Financial Studies and professor of Finance at Melbourne and Monash Universities, Australian Centre for Financial Studies and author for The Conversation.
He can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/kevin-davis-3497" target="_blank">here</a>.
 
</body></html>

Property 101: Understanding bracket creep, negative gearing and corporate taxation

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
When you are Malcolm Turnbull floundering in the heavy seas of tax reform, it is perhaps unfortunate that the 20th anniversary of the election of the Howard government has come around at this particular moment.
John Howard has reached near demigod status in the Liberal Party, second only to Robert Menzies. His biggest economic reform was the introduction of the GST, which naturally has him seen as the tax guru. At the time the change was fraught, and could easily have taken the government’s life. Looking back, the achievement stands out, the difficulties fade.
In his weekend interviews Howard had two pertinent messages on tax. The first was that the issue of the tax “mix” will eventually have to be revisited.
Turnbull has already retreated from the option of raising the GST to pay for mega tax cuts. But Howard doubted that “it’s snuffed out forever”, saying that for the “medium to longer term” the mix needed to be revisited.
Potentially this can feed into an ALP scare campaign claiming that while the GST might be off the table for now, a re-elected Turnbull government could put it back on.
On negative gearing, Howard was concerned about an escalation of rents and about hitting the nest eggs of people on modest incomes. Coalition backbenchers who are urging Turnbull not to fiddle with negative gearing will seize on Howard’s cautioning – although what the government appears to be considering would probably only affect richer investors.
Turnbull on Sunday said he had had “a long chat with John about negative gearing and other aspects of tax only yesterday. … He’s obviously a great source of advice.”
Turnbull shouldn’t need much advice to know he’ll need to put on the hard hat as the government on Monday goes into another character-building parliamentary week.
As talk swirls about a possible double dissolution for July 2, already skittish Coalition backbenchers are likely to be increasingly anxious about the shape of the tax blueprint.
The inclination, according to some government sources, is now to put out a comprehensive package on tax before the budget.
But other sources are more qualified, saying while something will be released prior to the budget, how much and in what form is not yet clear.
Turnbull told News Corp in a statement: “The government’s approach is to work carefully through all the elements in the tax system … That work will be completed shortly and the results will be announced in the lead-up to the budget."
The expenditure review committee is due to consider the tax package early next week. Rather strangely, considering how much pressure is on, both Treasurer Scott Morrison – who eschewed travel abroad in his first days in the portfolio – and Treasury head John Fraser were overseas in the last few days.
Howard was not the only one out and about in the tax debate at the weekend. Tony Abbott, in an extract of an essay defending his government’s record to be published in the March issue of Quadrant, wrote that he was confident he could have won this year on a program of budget savings and lower tax.
“In September last year, the Abbott government was just beginning the election policy process. The likelihood is that we would have gone to the election seeking a mandate to reduce or eliminate some of the one-off payments that seemed defensible with surpluses of $20bn but not with deficits of $40bn; and further to tighten eligibility for ongoing payments. … With further budget savings in place, I was confident that there could be income tax cuts during the next term of parliament.”
On Wednesday night in Parliament’s Great Hall the Liberal faithful will gather to honour John Howard and his government. Privately, quite a few backbenchers will be making comparisons with his successors. Abbott will be among those on the main table. It will be a night requiring from past and present leaders a certain facility for walking on eggshells. Just like the tax package.
Michelle Grattan is professorial fellow, University of Canberra and author for The Conversation. She can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/michelle-grattan-20316" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

John Howard gives Coalition MPs ammunition about changing negative gearing

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/57114/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
A long-term plan to cut the company tax rate from 30 percent to 25 percent is the centrepiece of the Coalition’s economic plan for jobs and growth.
The Coalition maintains the change will boost GDP by more than 1 percent in the long-term, at a budgetary cost of $48.2 billion over the next 10 years.
But the very Treasury research papers relied on by the Coalition tell a more modest story than the headlines. Using these papers, we show that the net benefit to Australians in the real world will be only about half of the headline benefit, and it will be a long time before we are any better off at all.
<h2>The short story</h2>
The Government has made two claims about the economic impacts of its plan to cut the company tax rate.
On Budget night Treasurer Scott Morrison said that the tax cuts would:
“… mean higher living standards for Australians and an expected permanent increase in the size of the economy of just over one percent in the long term.”
Later last week, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said:
“The Treasury estimated last year…that for every dollar of company tax cut, there was four dollars of additional value created in the overall economy.”
<h2>Sound in theory, but there’s a back story</h2>
In theory, cutting the company tax rate boosts the economy in the long term. All taxes distort choices, and thereby drag on economic activity. Taxes on capital often have especially large economic costs because they discourage investment, which is mobile across borders. By some estimates, roughly half of the economic costs of Australian company tax ultimately fall on workers, as lower company profitability leads to lower investment, and therefore lower wages and higher unemployment.
But while the theoretical argument for company tax cuts is straightforward, the real story is more complicated.
<h2>The twist: a tax cut for foreign investors</h2>
The twist in the tale comes from Australia’s system of dividend imputation, or franking credits. The effect of this system is to make the company tax rate for Australian resident shareholders effectively close to zero. In nearly every other country, company profits are taxed twice: companies pay tax, and then individuals also pay income tax on the dividends, albeit often at a discount to full rates of personal income tax.
But in Australia, the shares of Australian residents in company profits are effectively only taxed once. Investors get franking credits for whatever tax a company has paid, and these credits reduce their personal income tax. Consequently, for Australian investors, the company tax rate doesn’t matter much: they effectively pay tax on corporate profits at their personal rate of income tax.
As a result, although Australia has a relatively high headline corporate tax rate compared to our peers, in practice the comparable tax rate is lower – at least for local investors. As a result, many of the international studies about the impact of cutting corporate tax rates are not readily applicable to Australia.
Local shareholders do get one small benefit from cutting corporate tax rates. If companies pay less tax, then they have more to reinvest, so long as the profits are not paid out to shareholders. Yet in practice, most profits are paid out. Therefore a company tax cut will generate little change in domestic investment.
By contrast, foreign investors do not benefit from franking credits. They pay tax on corporate profits twice: first at the company tax rate, and then as income tax on the dividends. This means that a cut to the company tax rate provides big benefits to them.
This week The Australia Institute pointed out that foreign investors from the United States and other countries that have tax treaties with Australia may not benefit from the company tax cut, because their home governments will collect the gains from any cut to Australia company tax as additional company tax. Yet this would only occur when foreign firms repatriate profits earned in Australia to the home country.
The big reductions in net tax revenue – and therefore the large benefits to companies – are expected when the corporate tax rate is cut from 30% to 25% between 2022 and 2027 for larger companies, including the bulk of businesses that are foreign-owned.
The headline from the Treasury modelling for the 2016-17 Budget is that this cut will ultimately increase GDP by up to 1.2% meaning larger foreign companies are attracted to invest more in Australia. The finding is based on work contained in a Treasury research paper that modelled the long-term impact of a company tax cut.
<h2>Activity is not income</h2>
However, it is a mistake to assume that all the increase in economic activity will make Australians better off. We often use Gross Domestic Product – the sum of all economic activity – as a short-hand measure for prosperity. But when the benefits disproportionately flow to non-residents, GDP can be misleading. It’s much better to look at Gross National Income (GNI), which measures the increase in the resources available to resident Australians.
Treasury expects that cutting corporate tax rates to 25% will only increase the incomes of Australians – GNI – by 0.8%. In other words, about a third of the increase in GDP flows out of the country to foreigners as they pay less tax in Australia. And because most of the additional economic activity is financed by foreigners, the profits on much of the additional activity will also tend to flow out of Australia.
<h2>You don’t get something for nothing</h2>
Yet even this increase in GNI of 0.8% is not the best estimate of the improvement in living standards Australians can expect from the Government’s company tax plan. If company taxes are lower, other taxes have to be higher, all other things being equal. In the modelling discussed so far, Treasury first assumes that these revenues can be collected by a fantasy tax that imposes no costs on the economy.
But that’s not what happens in the real world. So the Treasury research paper also models the scenario in which personal income taxes rise to offset the reduced company tax revenue. On this more realistic assumption, Treasury estimates that GNI will increase by just 0.6% in the long term, or roughly $10 billion a year in today’s dollars.
<a href="https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/122984/width754/image-20160518-13455-yxfw6e.jpg" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<h2><img src="https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/122984/width754/image-20160518-13455-yxfw6e.jpg" alt=""></h2>
<h2>Other wrinkles in the story</h2>
Even this more modest Treasury figure may well over-estimate the long-term boost to GNI. In the real world, progressive income taxes impose higher costs than the hike to a hypothetical flat-rate personal income tax that Treasury modelled. Companies may also not increase investment as much as Treasury expects, and those firms that are part of oligopolies in Australia may not increase wages by as much as Treasury assumes.
While these are reasons to expect that the Treasury modelling overestimates the economic benefits of a company tax cut, they are offset by some more conservative assumptions. Treasury believes that tax cuts modestly change how much firms shift profits overseas; it may overstate how much tax cuts flow into additional profits rather than higher wages in those industries that it does recognise as oligopolies; and it may discount the benefits of investors making less distorted choices between debt and equity funding.
<h2>The verdict on the first claim</h2>
The bottom line is that, on Treasury’s own modelling, a corporate tax cut will increase Australian incomes in the long term by up to 0.6%. The Treasury research paper doesn’t commit itself to a timeframe, but it cites other work that expects the economic benefits of company tax cuts to take 20 years to bear fruit, with half the benefit in 10 years. Given that the important (and expensive) part of the corporate tax cuts only starts to take effect from 2022, Australia will be waiting 25 years for a 0.6% increase in incomes.
This economic benefit needs to be seen in context. If Australian per capita GDP and GNI increase at 1.5% a year (as the budget papers routinely assume), then over 25 years, incomes will rise by 45.1%. Corporate tax cuts mean that instead, incomes will rise by 45.7% – or perhaps a bit less. It may still be worth doing, but it’s not a plot twist that dramatically changes Australia’s story.
Others claim that in the past, company tax cuts have had no measurable effect on the economy. This is disputed – there may well be a link between corporate tax cuts and economic growth. But it’s inevitably hard to see in practice because on Treasury’s own modelling the economic effect of company tax cuts is small relative to other changes.
<h2>Not four-to-one, more like dollar for dollar</h2>
This brings us to the Government’s second claim. Late last week, Mr. Turnbull said that each dollar in company tax revenue cut would deliver an extra four dollars in GDP.
His claim appears to be drawn from an earlier 2015 Treasury research paper that modelled the economic impact of major Australian taxes, including company tax. The more <a href="https://www.treasury.gov.au/PublicationsAndMedia/Publications/2016/working-paper-2016-02">recent</a> Treasury working paper, released in Budget week, implies a slightly larger $4.30 increase to GDP from each $1 in revenue cut.
But again this misses a big part of the story.
First, this claim is about GDP, and therefore includes the disproportionate increase in the income of foreigners. Our analysis of the Treasury modelling shows that the increase to Australian incomes, or GNI, is only $2.80 per dollar of revenue lost from a corporate tax cut.
Second, when corporate tax is replaced by a still hypothetical but marginally more realistic flat rate income tax – rather than a complete fantasy tax that has no impact on the economy – the increase to Australian incomes is less again: only $1.80 per dollar of revenue lost.
Third, the Prime Minister has framed the boost to the economy in terms of the long-term increase to GDP per dollar of company tax cut. Treasury calculates the revenue “dollar” lost after considering the additional tax revenue that the government hopes to collect from all taxes in twenty years time as incomes rise because of greater investment.
<a href="https://www.theaustralian.com.au/federal-election-2016/federal-election-2016-pm-bolstered-by-160bn-reform-promise/news-story/e5fe769c97a196959b6e34e14bcc273d?nk=21bd5293c6c9bf91e73e578611f79538-1463363505&amp;login=1">Many people</a> would interpret the Prime Minister’s statement to compare the ultimate benefit per dollar of tax revenue given up in the shorter term. On this basis, the increase to Australian incomes in the long term is only $1.20 for every dollar given up in the short term as a result of corporate tax cuts.
This story ends the same way. Corporate tax cuts may be worth doing, but the outcome is unlikely to set pulses racing.
<a href="https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/122985/width754/image-20160518-13481-1ugr3e5.jpg" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<h2><img src="https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/122985/width754/image-20160518-13481-1ugr3e5.jpg" alt=""></h2>
<h2>The journey matters</h2>
So far, as the Treasury research paper does, we’ve focused on the long-term economic boost from a company tax cut once the economy has fully adjusted. But the journey to get there also matters.
For a decade, a cut to corporate taxes will reduce national income. Foreigners will pay less tax on the profits from their existing investments in Australia, reducing Australian incomes. Foreigners own about 20% of all capital in the economy, so it’s a big windfall gain for them. We estimate that when a 5 percentage point tax cut for big business is first implemented, national incomes will be reduced by about 0.5%, as a result of the immediate loss in company tax revenues formerly paid by foreign investors.
The benefits to Australians from a corporate tax cut only accumulate slowly as foreigners make additional investments. Treasury cites a paper that estimates that the benefits of corporate tax cuts take 20 years to flow through. Assuming that these benefits increase at a constant rate, Australian income will only be larger than otherwise after about 10 years.
Of course, the upfront costs of a company tax cut over the first decade must be offset against the long-term gains. On our estimates, the loss of income incurred over the first decade will only be offset by higher incomes after about 19 years. If Australians want the modest economic benefits of a corporate tax cut, they will be waiting a long time.
<h2>The moral of the story</h2>
Company tax cuts are not a knight in shining armour to save the Australian economy. On the basis of the modelling that the government uses to support its case, corporate tax cuts can make a modest contribution, and then over the very long term. That story won’t sell as many copies. Truth, on this occasion, is duller than fiction.
John Daley<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/john-daley-1870" rel="author" style="line-height: 1.3em;"> </a>is chief executive officer, Grattan Institute and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/john-daley-1870" target="_blank">here</a>.
Brendan Coates is fellow, Grattan Institute and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/brendan-coates-154644" target="_blank">here</a>.
Both are authors for The Conversation
</body></html>

The full story on company tax cuts and your hip pocket

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/81551/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-advanced" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
There is very little, if anything, to commend discretionary trusts. The benefits they bring, and it’s hard to see many, are dwarfed by their destructive and damaging features.
Trusts are usually used to allocate money to members of a group, usually a family. Under a discretionary trust, the only way a beneficiary will get income or capital from the trust, is if the trustee chooses to give them something. Family companies are often included as beneficiaries to minimise tax.
The Labor party’s current focus on trusts is warranted because overwhelmingly, trusts are used to minimise tax, avoid paying creditors and to avoid the fair division of property after a relationship breakdown.
Due to a lack of data, it’s hard to estimate the amount of lost tax revenue from the current regime. However, on conservative assumptions, I estimate we are easily losing A$2 billion per year in income tax through discretionary trusts. 
If a discretionary trust elects to be a “family trust” under the tax law, it can also access a number of other concessional tax rules. These tax concessions aren’t available to any other entities or taxpayers.
How trusts are used
There are a few other ways discretionary trusts are used. They are also used to frustrate creditors, people who are owed money by the beneficiaries of trusts. 
Someone who is owed money by a beneficiary of a trust can’t go to the trust to settle their debt. This is the case even if the beneficiary has received money from the trust in the past and is likely to receive money in the future, after release from bankruptcy (having not paid their debts).
Unsecured creditors, such as suppliers of businesses dealing with a trustee, also cannot settle their debts with a trust if the trustee doesn’t have sufficient assets. Often the trustee will be a company paid to manage the trust, with only a few dollars of share capital. 
According to data used in my research from the Australian Taxation Office, a lot of family wealth (aside from the family home) is held in discretionary trusts. On relationship breakdown, one spouse will often argue that because the assets are in a discretionary trust, they are not owned by anyone, and therefore won’t be divided with the rest of the couples’ assets.
The Family Court has wide powers to decide what can be divided, and generally the court included assets in the discretionary trust to be divided, where a spouse is a trustee, or has the means to appoint or remove a trustee. However, if the spouse is “removed” or “distanced” from the discretionary trust, it becomes harder and harder for the court to include these assets to be divided.
Discretionary trusts are also used in succession planning. Where a person has property to give away and wants the flexibility to do it over time. It also allows the payments to change with needs and circumstances. For example, if a trust beneficiary landed a high-paying job, they could be given less. Conversely, they could be given more if they lost their job.
There may be a case for these arrangements when a person has died. By putting assets into a discretionary trust, a deceased person may be able to “tie up assets” for around 80 years (the maximum period permitted). But this sort of flexibility is available to anyone when they are alive; there is no need for a discretionary trust. 
So can we just get rid of trusts? Legally, it could be done. But outright abolition is not practically achievable, at least in the short-term.
What to do with trusts
There are broadly two options for tax reform when it comes to trusts. These measures can be implemented while leaving users of discretionary trusts free to enjoy all other legitimate features and benefits.
The first option, which many still seem to favour, is to impose the company taxation system on the discretionary trust (that is, tax them as companies). Due to the presence of the <a href="https://www.ato.gov.au/Business/Imputation/In-detail/Utilising-franking-tax-offsets-and-effect-on-losses---corporate-tax-entities/">refundable franking credit tax offset rule</a>, taxing trusts as companies would not really address the central issue of tax minimisation. 
Trusts would still be able to manipulate allocations of money across low-rate beneficiaries and change allocations from year-to-year to avoid tax. However, it would remove the availability of the capital gains tax discount to discretionary trusts.
Another option is to use an attribution approach to trusts, just as the social security system does and as family law effectively does. Under the attribution model, the person who contributed the assets to the discretionary trust and/or the person who controls the assets in the trust are deemed to own the income and the assets. This would largely reflect general law entitlements of each spouse and very often reflect the economic contributions to building up those assets.
Of course, this model has challenges in design and in enforcement. However, given the complexity of rules in Australia’s income tax and the enforcement issues that confront the Australian Taxation Office in numerous areas, any difficulties with the attribution model are easily overcome. And of course, it’s already part of the social security regime for assets and income tests.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/dale-boccabella-15706" target="_blank">Dale Boccabella</a> is Associate Professor of Taxation Law, UNSW and author for <a href="https://theconversation.com/au" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>.
</body></html>

Family trusts often cause more harm than good

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
The Howard government, when flush with revenue, made a bad tax decisions which continue to haunt current policy makers. 
It removed the tax on the retirement phase of superannuation, this has been partly resolved by current government’s recent changes. But the Howard government also replaced the full taxation of real capital gains with concessional treatment of capital gains (only 50% of gains taxed). This remains as a tax avoidance loophole which both parties acknowledge but are reluctant to act upon.
The reason is straightforward. Assets put into superannuation in the accumulation phase and held until the retirement phase, can then be sold with no, or minimal, capital gains tax payable. This a major incentive to put assets into super and hold them until the retirement phase.
Without further changes to superannuation taxation, this is simply going to worsen the social problem of the well-off adopting tax minimisation strategies by piling as many assets into super as possible. Remember, it will still be possible to contribute up to A$100,000 per annum as non-concessional contributions.
Consequently, the well-off could easily build up a pool of assets of several million dollars or more, which when sold in retirement will still get very, very, favourable capital gains tax treatment under super.
If superannuation assets in retirement are under the A$1.6 million cap, no tax will be payable on capital gains from sales of assets. If assets are above the cap, the tax rate applied to capital gains is 10%.
For example, an asset costing $100,000 and held for 15 years, increasing in price at an average of 7% per annum would be sold for $276,000. If in super, tax payable would be $17,600. If outside of super, on the top marginal tax rate (including levies) of 49%, the tax payable would be $43,096.
If the concession on capital gains tax was reduced (without addressing the concessionary rate in super), the incentive would be even bigger. For example, if the concession was reduced to 25%, tax payable on the capital gain outside of super would be $64,644, an even larger gap to the tax payable in super of $17,600.
Putting $100,000 per annum into super for 15 years with an average 7% capital gain per annum generates a portfolio worth $2.7 million. The capital gains tax savings on this being in super, rather than outside, are more than $1 million!
So, what are the consequences if a brave government elects to reduce the concession applied to capital gains tax? If they make no changes to super tax arrangements there are at least two likely consequences.
First, there is increased incentive for individuals to set up self managed super funds to exploit these tax arbitrage or minimisation loopholes.
Second, despite taxation of earnings on retirement income balances over the A$1.6 million cap, maximising non-concessional contributions into self managed super funds will remain attractive, to take advantage of the difference in capital gains tax rates on assets inside versus outside super – to the detriment of future government budgets.
The consequences for self managed super funds incentives to borrow (via non-recourse arrangements involving trusts) to purchase assets such as property are unclear. As described on one adviser’s website:
Such borrowing will enable trustees to acquire assets over and above the assets that can be obtained from contributions. The caps on contributions can therefore be “overcome” by such borrowings.
However, it is doubtful that there are tax arbitrage benefits from using leverage to purchase assets via super (because higher marginal tax rates mean higher tax deductions for interest on borrowings outside of super).
For reasons of social equity, any general changes to the capital gains tax rate will also need to address capital gains tax within super. Admittedly there is already a lower concession in the case of super (two-thirds of gains are taxed versus one-half).
But that means taxing capital gains in super at only a 10% rate, leaving strong incentives to thwart higher capital gains tax by locating assets within super. Failing to reduce the capital gains tax concession in super would be likely to undo a substantial part of the effectiveness of any general changes the government has already made.
Kevin Davis is research director of Australian Centre for Financial Studies and Professor of Finance at Melbourne and Monash Universities, Australian Centre for Financial Studies. He is an author for The Conversation and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/kevin-davis-3497" target="_blank">here</a>.
 
</body></html>

Despite superannuation changes, one tax loophole remains: Kevin Davis

<html><body>
Curtis Pitt, Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations and for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Partnerships, supports an efficient fairer tax system.
In the submission to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics he said Queensland government policies offer significant advantages to owner-occupiers over investors and investors receive tax advantages through the income tax and transfer system.
The Queensland Government has promised to introduce a new planning bill into parliament by October 2015.
"It is anticipated the new planning system will reduce development costs by reducing complexity and duplication and providing greater certainty, both to the community and industry.
"This includes simplifying the state planning hierarchy from four state instruments to two; simplifying the rules for assessment decisions; better processes for plan making, removing step by step detail from the legislation, allowing local government to be more flexible and innovative in their processes and engagement; and replacing the planning provisions with more focused standard requirements for planning schemes, improving consistency and reducing complexity."
The new planning system promises to be more transparent by removing Ministerial discretion, enhancing public reporting and by ensuring that all publicly notified application continue to attract third party appeal rights.
"The Department of Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning is currently undertaking a review of the South East Queensland (SEQ) Regional Plan in concert with local government. A key focus of this plan will be ensuring sufficient sites are identified to ensure the supply of housing can expand to meet the needs of a growing population.
"The Queensland government has committed to establishing an independent statutory body Building Queensland, to provide the government with expert advice on infrastructure projects, based on rigorous business cases including cost-benefit analysis and assessment of community benefits.
"This should enable more efficient land use and reduce the costs of providing new housing and the associated economic and social infrastructure.
"The Queensland government has identified housing affordability as one of the priority issues for analysis by the new Queensland Productivity Commission. The issue will be added to the forward work program so that a comprehensive analysis of the Queensland-specific factors can be made."
The MP also encouraged the inquiry to look into Indigenous home ownership. 
"In Australia only 29% of Indigenous people owned their own home in 2008. Ownership rates for Indigenous people were significantly lower in remote and very remote areas (8%) than in major cities (38%)."
In the submission to the Inquiry into Home Ownership, Curtis Pitt has observed that home ownership in Queensland has decreased from approximately 70% in 1994-95 to 65% in 2011-12.
"Total dwelling approvals have increased significantly in Queensland in recent years. They have risen by 64% between December 2011 and April 2015. However this is still below the levels reached in 2007-08.
"In recent years Brisbane residential prices have not increased as strongly as other markets, with house prices in the last five years increasing on average less than inflation. Brisbane house prices have become relatively more affordable.
The Queensland Government asserted it will work with the Federal Government to implement policies, which will improve housing outcomes in Queensland. 
</body></html>

Queensland policy favouring owner occupiers, investors

<html><body>
 GUEST OBSERVER
As is custom, there were a number of official announcements and an abundance of rumours and unofficial ‘leaks’ in the lead up to the release of the 2016-17 federal budget.
As widely anticipated, there was very little in terms of budget measures specifically aimed at housing. However, the significance of the tax reform contained within this budget was arguably underestimated, particularly if you consider the changes projected for the out-years. In the near term, small businesses are the main beneficiaries of the announced reforms. 
The key areas addressed in the budget: 
The Government has held firm on their commitment not to make any changes to capital gains tax or negative gearing provisions. Furthermore, comments within the Treasurer’s budget speech suggest the coalition have solidified this position ahead of the upcoming election.
The plan to lower the company tax rate to 25 percent through a staged implementation over the next decade, with a number of changes for small businesses to take effect in this budget period.
A modest change to the personal income threshold for the second highest marginal income tax rate which was increased from $80,000 to $87,000 (slightly higher than expected) in order to ameliorate concern about bracket creep; Commitment to the Smart Cities Plan; A Youth Employment Package; significant reforms to the superannuation system; the ATO has been provided with additional resources to bolster enforcement activity, primarily aimed at addressing multi-national tax avoidance. 
In the sections below we discuss the overall economic and fiscal outlook presented in the 2016/17 Budget along with some of the key forecasts. This is followed by additional explanatory detail regarding the key announcements most relevant to the residential building industry. 
Economic Backdrop &amp; Fiscal Position 
The Budget presents a “steady as she goes” outlook for economic growth over its forecast horizon. The key economic assumptions on which the Budget was developed are summarised in the table below.
<a href="/images/2016/05/06/Screen%20Shot%202016-05-06%20at%2010.20.14%20AM.png" target="_blank">Click to enlarg</a>e
<img src="/images/2016/05/06/Screen%20Shot%202016-05-06%20at%2010.20.14%20AM.png" alt="">
In terms of the economic assumptions underlying the Budget projections, the Treasury foresees the rate of economic growth returning to 3.0 in 2017/18 and remaining at this level over the forecast horizon. The acceleration of economic growth will help drive a reduction in the unemployment rate to 5.5 per cent by the end of the forecast horizon, a little lower than the 5.75 average rate expected for 2015-16. Against this backdrop, inflation is expected to pick up a little but remain in the relatively comfortable 2 per cent to 3 per cent range. Stronger GDP growth, and the decline in the cash value of the budget deficit over time means that the relative size of the deficit is expected to fall from 2.4 per cent of GDP in 2015/16 to 1.4 per cent of GDP in 2017/18. 
Of note are the estimates of the contribution that dwelling investment will make to economic growth in the years ahead. HIA’s projections are for dwelling investment to fall by 5.4 per cent next financial year and by 6.7 per cent in 2017/18. The HIA’s forecasts are based on the assumption that new home commencements will decline from about 214,300 in 2014/15 to 160,100 in 2017/18, while renovations activity is projected to recover modestly over the same period. Realising the outcomes expected by Treasury will require a continuation of the current record levels of new housing activity and strong growth in the renovation market. 
While the changes to superannuation and the lowering of the Official Cash Rate will encourage more investment in other avenues like rental investment, it is unlikely that this will be sufficient to deliver the continued growth in residential investment that Treasury is anticipating. 
In terms of the projections contained in yesterday’s budget, the size of expected future deficits has increased since the forecasts in December 2015’s Mid-Year Economic &amp; Financial Outlook. In 2015/16, the underlying cash balance is expected to reach $39.9 billion followed by $37.1 billion in 2016/17. Thereafter, the deficit is projected to decline significantly, falling to just $6.0 billion by 2019/20, the latest year for which Treasury forecasts have been prepared.
<a href="/images/2016/05/06/Screen%20Shot%202016-05-06%20at%2010.21.31%20AM.png" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="/images/2016/05/06/Screen%20Shot%202016-05-06%20at%2010.21.31%20AM.png" alt="">
Extension of the provision enabling small businesses to immediately depreciate assets valued up to $20,000 to the end of June 2017, and making this provision accessible to businesses with revenue up to $10 million. 
A ‘Ten Year enterprise Tax Plan’ aims to incrementally lower the company tax rate to achieve a 25 per cent rate for all companies by 2026/27. Over time, the size of companies eligible for the 27.5 per cent tax rate will be lifted each year until all companies are taxed at this rate in 2023/24. The rate for all companies will then be incrementally lowered over the ensuing four years to reach 25 per cent by 2026/27. 
The government will extend the unincorporated small business tax discount. From 2016-17, the discount will be available to businesses with annual turnover of less than $5 million, up from the current threshold of $2 million, and will be increased to 8 per cent. The maximum discount available will remain at $1,000. Over the next decade, the discount will be further expanded in phases, to a final discount of 16 per cent. 
The Youth Employment Package 
This program, Youth Jobs PaTH (Prepare, Trial, Hire), has three components: the first provides pre-employment skills training for young job seekers; the second provides a $1,000 inducement to businesses to provide a 4-12 week internship for program participants along with an income supplement for the participant; and the third is $6,500 ‘Youth Bonus’ wage subsidy payment for employers who take on a young worker who has been in employment services for longer than six months. 
Reforms to superannuation 
The purpose of the superannuation system is to be enshrined in legislation in line with a recommendation of the Murray Review. This will define the purpose as: providing an income in retirement to substitute or supplement the Age Pension. This provides legislative basis the government of the day to target the superannuation tax concessions at those who would otherwise be likely to be remain dependent on the Age Pension, this is likely to come at the expense of tax concessions currently available to those likely to be self-funded in retirement. 
Those with combined incomes and superannuation contributions greater than $250,000 will pay 30 per cent tax on their concessional contributions, up from 15 per cent. This represents a lowering of the previous income threshold of $300,000. 
The superannuation concessional contributions (ie pre-tax contributions or contributions where a deduction is claimed) cap has been lowered to $25,000 per annum, down from $30,000 for those under 50 and $35,000 for those over 50. 
This has been partially balanced by enabling unused concessional contribution caps to be carried forward on a rolling basis for up to five years for those with account balances of $500,000 or less. 
The government have introduced a $500,000 lifetime cap for non-concessional contributions (ie contributions made from savings for which no deduction is claimed). 
The Government will introduce the Low Income Superannuation Tax Offset to replace the Low Income Superannuation Contribution when it expires on 30 June 2017. 
From 1 July 2017, the Government will lift current restrictions and allow individuals under the age of 75 to claim tax deductions for personal superannuation contributions to eligible superannuation funds. 
The current spouse tax offset has been broadened. The income threshold for the receiving spouse (whether married or de facto) will be lifted from $10,800 to $37,000 
2016-17 Federal Budget 
‘Tax Integrity Package’ – additional resources for the ATO 
The government have provided additional resources to the Australian Tax Office to establish the Tax Avoidance Taskforce. The key focus will be pursuing tax avoidance by multinationals and high wealth individuals. 
The government will introduce a new ‘Diverted Profits Tax’ targeting multi-nationals shifting profits earned in Australia to lower taxing jurisdictions 
Warwick Temby is executive director, HIA and Shane Garrett is senior economist. They can be contacted <a href="https://hia.com.au" target="_blank">here</a>.
<a href="https://hia.com.au" target="_blank"></a>
</body></html>

HIA's Federal Budget Report Card

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/74545/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-advanced" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
Is “value capture” a wonderful untapped opportunity to fulfil all our infrastructure dreams? Or is it just a new way to sting the taxpayer? Our new report casts a cold, hard gaze over value capture, and finds that it’s a good tax in theory, but will prove very hard to put into practice.
Value capture is the name given to a policy whereby governments capture some of the increased value of land that results from building a new piece of infrastructure. Typically, the money the government “captures” is used to help fund the project.
At first glance, value capture seems marvellously fair, because it applies only to those who benefit from the particular project. So the people of western Sydney do not help fund a new railway station on the North Shore. But look a little closer: it also means that affluent inner-city residents don’t help fund a better railway station in Melbourne’s outer northern suburbs.
Federal ministers from the prime minister down are enthusiastic about value capture and are pushing the states to embrace it. Only last week, Urban Infrastructure Minister Paul Fletcher reiterated that the Commonwealth does not want to be “just an ATM” for the states. But if the federal ministers face up to some home truths, they may find value capture less to their liking.
Value capture is a tax
Home Truth No. 1 is that a value-capture scheme is a tax. That’s how it raises revenue. Politicians tend to shun the “T word”. They prefer to present value capture as an innovative financing mechanism. Sorry, it’s a tax.
Some advocates point to Hong Kong, where a private company builds and operates the rail lines, in return for cheap access to development rights around the new stations – a non-cash subsidy. Yes, integrating new infrastructure with rezoning and other planning changes is a great idea. But a similar model in Australia would have to be much smaller in scale.
That’s because in Hong Kong the government owns all the land. In addition, the city is dramatically denser than Australian cities: more than 7 million people live in a built-up area of around 285 square kilometres, compared with Sydney’s population of about 5 million in around 2,000 square kilometres. In a very dense city, good access to mass transit is highly valued.
Others in the value-capture camp point to tax increment financing (TIF) schemes. These have been used in the US with mixed success.
TIF schemes don’t involve a new tax, or indeed a funding source of any kind. Instead, they are financing schemes that earmark an expected increase in future revenue from existing taxes, such as land taxes, which can be attributed to a new piece of infrastructure. This increase is then used to repay special-purpose bonds.
But TIF schemes are of little value in the Australian context, since Australian governments have strong credit ratings and can borrow at extremely low rates of interest – more cheaply than private sector financiers can. Not only this, but TIF schemes generally do not offload project risk. They may instead come with a hidden government guarantee.
Family home would be captured
Which brings us to Home Truth No. 2: to raise a reasonable amount, a value-capture tax would need to include the family home. Owner-occupied housing accounts for around 65 percent of total land values in Australia, and increases in its value are taxed very lightly (see the chart below).
<a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/images/2017/03/20/image-20170316-20491-1fsjall.png" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="https://www.urban.com.au/images/2017/03/20/image-20170316-20491-1fsjall.png" alt="">
To minimise the distortions value capture could have on the economy, it should be charged on unimproved land value, as a flat proportion of the land-value uplift attributable to the new infrastructure, with no exemptions.
A tricky question of who’s in and who’s out
Home Truth No. 3 is that many taxpayers are likely to feel aggrieved. Property prices go up – and down – for many reasons.
Drawing a boundary around a new piece of infrastructure to distinguish between those who must pay the new tax and those too far away to benefit is bound to involve rough justice.
Also, it won’t be easy for governments to convince people that their new tax bill still leaves them better off. Homeowners get the benefit of the new project on paper, but have to pay the tax bill in cash. Is this sounding like a political nightmare yet?
A way to reduce the political heat
There is, however, a way to implement value capture that could take a bit of the political heat out of individual decisions. Governments could pass general legislation that applies value capture to every transport infrastructure project with certain characteristics:
an identifiable beneficiary catchment
a project that’s expected to makes an area significantly more accessible
the amount of revenue to be raised far outweighs the cost of administering the scheme. 
So, for example, value capture might apply to all urban passenger rail projects costing over A$50 million. The tax might then be levied on all properties within 800 metres (i.e. walking distance) of a new station.
Once such legislation is in place, each value-capture tax may be slightly less politically fraught. This approach will minimise the opportunities for rent-seeking or corruption that arise from designing bespoke schemes for every individual project.
Broad-based land tax is better still
A better answer still could be a broad-based land tax. Such a tax is highly efficient, because land is an immobile tax base (see the chart below).
<a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/images/2017/03/20/image-20170316-20523-5e9xex.png" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="https://www.urban.com.au/images/2017/03/20/image-20170316-20523-5e9xex.png" alt="">
While it would not zero in on the beneficiaries of new infrastructure, a land tax would capture the effects of all infrastructure, old and new, as these translated into land values, making it scrupulously fair. A broad-based land tax would also be simpler to administer than a value-capture tax. That’s because there would be no requirement to police the geographic boundary of the catchment area.
So a broad-based land tax has some distinct advantages over a value-capture tax.
Some will say our conclusions are pessimistic, that a little more creativity could devise a way to design value capture so it painlessly funds public infrastructure. To which we would say: there’s no magic pudding when it comes to public money – the only sources of funding for public infrastructure are user charges or a tax. Value capture may involve taxing beneficiaries more than the general taxpayer, but it’s not a bucket of free money.
Yes, if value capture is done the right way, as a tax that embraces the principles of equity, efficiency and simplicity, it could make a positive contribution to infrastructure funding in Australia. But the truth is, there is nothing easy about capturing value.
 
Marion Terrill is<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/marion-terrill-169480"> </a>Transport Program Director, Grattan Institute and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/marion-terrill-169480" target="_blank">here</a>.
Owain Emslie is<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/owain-emslie-250445"> </a>associate, Grattan Institute and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/owain-emslie-250445" target="_blank">here</a>.
Both are authors for The Conversation.
 
</body></html>

Value capture: a good idea to fund infrastructure but not easy in practice

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
When considering changes to negative gearing, commentary about the potential to wind back negative gearing benefits on a retrospective basis is concerning.
People make medium to long term economic decisions based on the law at the time, and while some may argue the environment has changed to warrant the wind back of negative gearing benefits, doing so retrospectively and applying it to people who have already bought properties on which negative gearing benefits are claimed would be tantamount to penalising them for planning ahead and being financial responsible.
These people should not be penalised for choosing an option that would make themselves financially self-sufficient, rather than having to rely on the Government for assistance when they retire.
Shifting the goal posts by way of retrospective application is blatantly inequitable.
It could undermine the stability of the economic environment, which may have a far reaching impact on market confidence and therefore the stability of the economy.
It is akin to telling people who have been saving for years through their superannuation funds the environment has now changed and the Government will seize all superannuation benefits to balance the budget.
You simply don't tinker with people's medium to long term plans because these plans need political and economic certainty to achieve their intended outcome, which underwrites the economic future of this country.
Even if negative gearing changes are to be entertained, allowing these changes to apply retrospectively must not be an option.
Eddie Chung is tax partner, BDO and can be contacted <a href="https://www.bdo.com.au/en-au/our-people/eddie-chung" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

Taxation

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Taxation

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News