{"id":8999,"date":"2013-04-22T10:16:47","date_gmt":"2013-04-22T00:16:47","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.unsw.edu.au\/knowledgetoday\/?p=8999"},"modified":"2013-05-08T08:53:05","modified_gmt":"2013-05-07T22:53:05","slug":"meaningful-tax-reform-only-if-everything-is-on-the-table","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.unsw.edu.au\/BTOpinion\/blog\/2013\/04\/meaningful-tax-reform-only-if-everything-is-on-the-table\/","title":{"rendered":"Meaningful tax reform? Only if everything is on the table"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><strong><a rel=\"attachment wp-att-945\" href=\"http:\/\/blogs.unsw.edu.au\/knowledgetoday\/blog\/2012\/02\/tax-losses\/dale-boccabella-4\/\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"http:\/\/blogs.unsw.edu.au\/knowledgetoday\/files\/2012\/02\/dale-boccabella.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"69\" height=\"66\" \/><\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>Dale Boccabella<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>There can be no dispute with last week\u2019s call from the Business  Council of Australia for meaningful tax reform. This is a larger issue  than both the looming budget and September\u2019s election.<\/p>\n<p>However, it is harder to reach agreement on precisely what areas need reforming, and what that reform should be.<\/p>\n<p>The reason for dispute comes back to two basic things; namely, what  is a fair allocation of the tax burden and how should the tax system  promote economic growth? It\u2019s which of these goals should be the top  priority that is at the centre of substantial tension.<\/p>\n<p>If economic growth is the main criterion, most observers accept the  continued presence of a number of inefficient and highly distortionary  state and territory taxes is unacceptable.<\/p>\n<p>The Henry Review was scathing of many of these. Stamp duties on real  estate are the most damaging, mainly because of their magnitude. But  removing these or reducing their current levels will prove very  difficult because the revenue raised is badly needed by the states.<\/p>\n<p>It needs to be remembered that the poor state of federal-state  financial relations will continue to influence the states\u2019 approach to  their revenue raising. The fiasco around some states increasing their  mining royalties in light of the credit mechanism under the mining tax,  is a recent example.<\/p>\n<p>Addressing this poor relationship is not just about getting a fair  division of the GST revenue between the states. Finding a long-term  solution also requires a fair way of sharing income tax between the  states and the federal government. It should also be remembered that the  parlous financial position of local councils is also a sub-theme of  federal-state financial relations.<\/p>\n<p>A relatively high corporate tax rate is also said to make Australia a  less desirable place for foreign investment, thereby dampening economic  growth. And relatively high personal tax rates are said to discourage  work and effort, and in some cases, lead to a \u201cbrain drain\u201d.<\/p>\n<p>Fairness in the tax system is a major area of focus for many. The  \u201ctax mix\u201d switch is probably the major point of dispute. The GST rate is  set at 10%, and changing this requires rare political consensus across  party lines.<\/p>\n<p>By international standards, the GST rate is relatively low. This  means that Australia\u2019s main consumption tax has reduced capacity for  revenue raising, which in turn means that the income tax has to shoulder  more of the revenue raising burden. The tax base of the GST is also  less than comprehensive, as basic food is excluded.<\/p>\n<p>But many argue we need to keep income taxes down to promote overseas  investment in Australia and provide incentives to work. Our corporate  tax rate is much higher than that of many other countries in our region.<\/p>\n<p>Increasing the GST rate and thereby allowing income taxes to fall  would partly address this. At the same time though, increasing the rate  of the GST compounds the unfairness of the flat consumption tax, and one  can never be certain of the sustainability of compensation measures.<\/p>\n<p>Within our income tax, there are a number of areas that can be seen  as an affront to fairness. The main ones are largely open-ended tax  concessions for superannuation; open-ended exemption for gains on the  family home and the 50% discount for capital gains of individuals.<\/p>\n<p>Also, I would argue you could include in this list the income  splitting of property and business income that is readily available  through the use of family discretionary trusts, and to a lesser extent  through family partnerships and companies.<\/p>\n<p>I welcome the BCA\u2019s call to start with \u201ceverything on the table\u201d.  This is the only way to subject all tax measures to scrutiny so that tax  preferences are justified. I am not so sure though that we need another  \u201ctax review process\u201d; there is sufficient data available through the  numerous tax reviews and other commissioned work to support a genuine  and honest community debate and discussion about our tax system.<\/p>\n<p>The obvious problem is that the \u201ceverything on the table\u201d debate does  not start with a clean tax slate (with the tax system being designed  from scratch). Instead, we have had, and need, a functioning tax regime  in place.<\/p>\n<p>This means we all come to the debate \u201cwith baggage\u201d, and in  particular, aspirations for the continued preferential treatment of an  area and\/or removal of preferences in some areas.<\/p>\n<p>The history of tax reform in Australia is that sectors do not readily  come to an \u201ceverything on the table\u201d debate, and in particular, giving  up preferences previously won.<\/p>\n<p>We do not have to look too hard for examples of this (such as the  unwillingness of the mining and forestry sector to give up accelerated  depreciation for a lower corporate tax rate, or the hysteria whenever  tax on the family home \u2013 or death duties \u2013 are raised).<\/p>\n<p>If organisations like the BCA really want an all-inclusive, open and  honest debate about tax reform, their focus should really be on bringing  divergent sectors to an \u201ceverything on the table\u201d debate.<\/p>\n<p>Part of this is thinking of a way or ways of taking the politics out  of tax, or at least reducing the effect of political operatives on the  debate. This may be asking too much.<\/p>\n<p>But, taking the misinformation and some of the emotion that seems to  necessarily go with taxes out, would increase the chances of an  all-inclusive, open and informed debate on tax reform. This is necessary  for a long-term sustainable and stable tax system.<\/p>\n<p><em><a href=\"http:\/\/www.asb.unsw.edu.au\/schools\/Pages\/DaleBoccabella.aspx\">Dale Boccabella <\/a>is an Associate Professor of Taxation Law at the Australian School of Business.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Dale Boccabella There can be no dispute with last week\u2019s call from the Business Council of Australia for meaningful tax reform. This is a larger issue than both the looming budget and September\u2019s election. However, it is harder to reach agreement on precisely what areas need reforming, and what that reform should be. The reason [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":336,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[12758],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-8999","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-taxation"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.unsw.edu.au\/BTOpinion\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8999","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.unsw.edu.au\/BTOpinion\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.unsw.edu.au\/BTOpinion\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.unsw.edu.au\/BTOpinion\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/336"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.unsw.edu.au\/BTOpinion\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=8999"}],"version-history":[{"count":9,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.unsw.edu.au\/BTOpinion\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8999\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":9006,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.unsw.edu.au\/BTOpinion\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8999\/revisions\/9006"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.unsw.edu.au\/BTOpinion\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8999"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.unsw.edu.au\/BTOpinion\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8999"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.unsw.edu.au\/BTOpinion\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8999"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}