Budget

Negative Gearing

June 18, 2016 by James J. Morrison W.G. Dupree 1 Comment

Private debt in Australia has escalated beyond the $2 Trillion mark shooting past Australia’s GDP of $1.6 Trillion by 123%. Housing affordability is reaching crisis levels driven beyond the budgets of many Australians, by negative gearing and capital gains concessions.

In fact, we have just bypassed Denmark (the previous first placeholder) to hold the prize for the single largest ratio of household debt to GDP. Our government net deficit/debt is minuscule by comparison at only 17% of GDP. It was only 11% when Labor left Office. At the time, Australia had the third smallest net government debt relative to GDP in the OECD. Unfortunately, the sheer hysteria over government debt expressed by Joe Hockey led many voters to believe this was significant. Ignoring that Australia used to be one of the world’s best-performing economies in 2013. One of the predominant components of any magic act is the art of distraction. Hockey, and later Morrison, frequently shrieked at the “mouse” of Government debt to catch your eye, while allowing the “elephant” of private debt to sneak across the stage. Despite doubling our deficit since then, we are still in an internationally enviable position as far as Government net debt is concerned.

A little perspective on the debts of our nation?

The issue of negative gearing has been confusing for both the Coalition and the public. Kelly O’Dwyer was contradicting Malcolm Turnbull on whether or not the revocation of negative gearing would result in house prices falling or rising, did nothing to assure the public.

ABC’s Lateline hosted a debate between IPA Stalwart, Sinclair Davidson and economist Saul Eslake on the 10^th of May 2016. Saul suggested Negative Gearing (which he has opposed for 30 years) was costly and ineffective for its originally intended goal. Saul referenced the Reserve Bank’s analysis and the Grattan Institute’s research, as supporting his case. Davidson referenced his own personal “number crunching” but mainly appeared to channel his inner apprehensions over losing negative gearing. Curiously he claimed the “poor folks” who earned only $100K a year were not “rich”. (Despite that only 10% of Australian taxpayers can earn more than that.) With that redefinition of “relative poverty” in place, he argued negative gearing was not “a lurk or a rort for the rich”. He provided neither his “modelling” nor independent evidence that the absence of negative gearing would cause housing prices would decline. He was, although, perfectly prepared to disparage the modelling conducted by the Grattan Institute. In fact, pages 30 to 32 of the report go to some length to explain why it is unlikely to do as Davidson feared. These pages explain that a 2% reduction in the normal 7.3% average growth experienced since 1999 is the most its absence would affect the rate of growth.

Negative gearing is designed to compensate for the losses encountered by a borrower for an investment property where the rent and costs of managing the investment exceed the cost of borrowing. In Australia and New Zealand deductions for negatively geared losses on a property can be made against income from any other source. In other countries, this is quarantined. For example, in Canada, losses cannot be offset against wages or salaries. Similar restrictions exist in the UK and Netherlands. Australia has by far the most generous conditions now. Before 1985 it had been quarantined so losses could not be transferred to an individual’s income from labour.

Between July 1985 and 1987, the Hawke government abolished it and rent prices fell everywhere except in Perth and to a lesser extent in Sydney. This price fall was not due to Negative Gearing’s absence, but the meagre “available” vacancy rates and competition from inflated rent prices. (Grattan Report: Page 34-34) After that though, a less quarantined negative gearing was reinstated.

Housing & Rent prices rose but not at the rate they have since 1999. What mitigated the potential effects on the economy of unchecked negative gearing, was the 1985 introduction of a CPI indexed Capital Gains Tax. In 1999, the Howard government removed indexing and introduced a 50% discount for capital gains for individuals. From that point on, housing prices (and rent) skyrocketed an average of 7.3% annually. (Grattan Report: Page 31) The 2010 Henry Tax Review recommended reining it in, and at the very least, capping the deductions. The Labor and subsequent Liberal governments chose to ignore this. In 2013-2014 these features of Negative Gearing & Capital Gains cost the Tax department $11.7B a year in deductions claimed. (Grattan Report: Page 34-34)

Negative Gearing was originally touted as a means to increases the supply of rental property and decreases the rent charged by Landlords. Lobby groups with enormously financially vested interests such as the Taxation Institute of Australia and Real Estate bodies continue to do so. Like bad journalism, they have a dislike for when the facts get in the way of a good story. In fact, precisely the opposite of their claims has occurred.

While housing construction has grown, occupancy or use has not. Sydney, by way of a singular example, is a City of between 90,000 unoccupied homes. There are 83,000 in Melbourne. Notably, we have 45,000 homeless, Australia wide.

So the myth of housing scarcity that requires Negative Gearing to support it is not born out of anything other than a fabrication. That isn’t to say that the “scarcity” isn’t artificially maintained by refusing access to these unoccupied properties. These properties are primarily bought by Chinese investors needing to launder illicit funds.

The argument put forward by the Government though is that the majority of negatively gearing taxpayers earn under $80,000 and revoking it would adversely impact these “mum & dad” investors from “getting ahead”.

As Tax earnings go, it’s an interesting choice from which to start. Especially when you consider that the median wage in this country is more accurately $52,000. Only 40% of negatively gearing taxpayers lie below this median income. So why do the Liberals and the IPA spokesman, Sinclair Davidson, begin focusing on $80K? It’s not the average medium wage, so what does it represent? Is it because it is the lowest rounded number figure in which the majority of negative gearing taxpayers exists below? That being 67%. (Cart before horse thinking?) It’s the point at which the Liberals can confidently say the “majority exist”. Taxpayers that earn greater than that $80k demarcation represent only 20% of all taxpayers.

There are three problems with this analysis spoken of in these terms.

The large percentages are a deception because we are talking about a minimal subset of all taxpayers.
We are using taxable income as the measure after they are adjusted for negative gearing.
The undeclared interest these politicians have in maintaining the status quo.

Notice the use of the term “negatively gearing taxpayers” because the reality on the larger scale is, that “negatively gearing taxpayers” represent just under 10% of ALL taxpayers. So regarding total taxpayers it is 6.7% of all taxpayers that negatively gear and earn less than $80,000. Conversely only 4% of all taxpayers therefore negatively gear and earn less than the median wage of $52K. More than 90% of taxpayers don’t negatively gear and just want an affordable home in which to live.

The level of “earning” is based on declared income to the Tax department after negative gearing losses have been deducted. As many corporate figures and recent tax avoidance scandals do suggest, there must be a lot of individuals pulling in very, very large incomes but whose “declared” income is so modest that they pay negligible tax. The whole purpose of negative gearing is to lower your “taxable income”. (Grattan report: Pages 27&28) So using a measure of “Taxable income” as a valuation is a smart statistical deception. “The typical tax savings for negatively geared individuals is $1,800 per year”, although it may be as much as $11,800. An individual could conceivably be earning the pre-gearing taxable income of $90K a year and still fall into the category of being “below $80K of taxable income”. If you take out rental losses from negative gearing from taxable income then only 56% of people who negatively gear are in reality earning less than a disposable income of $80K (or 5.6% of all taxpayers). A similar adjustment for the median average taxable income is 33% (or 3.3% of all taxpayers). Negative gearing mainly benefits those on higher incomes as the top 10% of taxpayers receive almost 50% of the benefits from it. (Grattan report: Pages 27-29) The suggestion that it doesn’t, borders on hallucinatory ideology or deceit. This is the realms of magicians and conjurers.

Even before becoming Prime Minister as a high-profile Communications Minister, Malcolm Turnbull owned an impressive portfolio of seven properties, and many of his ministers have similar conflicts of interest. Interestingly it is Turnbull’s electorate who are the biggest negative gearers in the country. It is no wonder the Government resists any action to repair the economic damage done by this facility.

Warnings about housing bubbles bursting have appeared for a while. As Jessica Irvine wrote in the SMH, Sydney houses now cost “12 times the annual income”, up from four times from Gough Whitlam’s time. Jessica went on to describe it as a “classic Ponzi scheme” which is even how Liberal Backbenchers like John Alexander have described it. Walled Aly discussed these faults on “The Project” on the Coalitions negative gearing claims, which may engage from the perspective of the graphics, the numbers quoted and the nonpolitical research provided.

If economic rationalism, the deterioration of wages, rising living costs and housing & rent price explosions hadn’t caused as much damage as it has to our economy, negative gearing could have been easily dismissed. It has become a much more complex and entrenched mechanism. Labor’s grandfathering negative gearing strategy is one safer way to ease out of the problem. Affordable housing will continue to evade the grasp of average Australian in pursuit of the “great Australian dream” of home ownership while the current system is maintained. The only hope many Australian’s have for affording to buy a home in the future is if negative gearing and the capital gains concessions are dismantled. (Grattan report: Pages 46-47)

Save

Internships and Growth

May 18, 2016 by James J. Morrison W.G. Dupree Leave a Comment

Scott Morrison the magician, illusionist extraordinaire, has made all Australia’s failing job & economic growth problems vanish in a puff of smoke and mirrors (with apologies to John Passant for stealing his phrase). He has created a grand facade of jobs springing miraculously from the presumption of Australia’s economically fertile soil. Drought resistant and immune to the emerging heat of anthropomorphic climate change (which was provided with no new solution in the 2016 Budget) our economy is expected to blossom with “-Jobs and Growth”. Prosperity is forthcoming to the families of Australia, except for those who are too lazy to earn over $80K a year! To cheers of “Hear! Hear!” amongst his colleagues, Morrison & Turnbull supercharged the great Australian dream of owning your own home. It is now, apparently, attainable by one year’s olds and children of financially well-endowed parents throughout the land. Not earning enough, then fret not! Our unregulated “scandal-free” banks will inflate your income on their paperwork. Hence your appearance as a newly minted millionaire will allow you access to funds you never dreamed you could have, much less pay back. Foreign investors looking at the bank’s books will loan us cheap money because they are too addled by the theatrics of our slight of hand. So hoodwinked that they fail to recognise a proliferation of highly leveraged loans. They barely acknowledge that countries where much smaller housing price to personal income ratios than Australia’s, have been characterised by collapsing economies. (Australian repayment rates in Sydney are 12.2 times the median salary) These lessons from history are nothing but smoky memories. Their amnesia over housing crises that have collapsed economies previously makes these investors inept at recognising our negatively geared Ponzi scheme. Certainly, no one pays attention to the fact that Australian mortgage debt is equivalent in value to 123% of Australian GDP. In the next term under the Liberals, we will all have jobs producing wealth enough for us to continue to support this mountain of debt? Wow! Welcome to Australia, a land of magic, miracles and illusion. Let us dazzle your senses, while we pick your pocket in search of some way to raise our revenue to maintain helicopter riding politicians’ out of pocket expenses.

Budget 2016 was a menagerie of shameless self-promoting political aggrandisement and back slapping. All designed to create an illusion they have a magically restorative budget that will provide jobs for us all. But as any pundit watching a magic show wants to know, “how do they do that?” So let the revelation begin.

ABS V Roy Morgan - size matters — ABS V Roy Morgan – size matters

The unemployed begins the illusion. That much maligned 10.4% of the workforce (April Roy Morgan stats) that the ABS desperately tries to sell you like 5.7%, so you don’t understand how significant the issue is. If a Newstart recipient works for so much as an hour (paid or unpaid) in four weeks, they are no longer registered as unemployed by the ABS. They still, although, may retain dole payments because they have earned little to nothing. Unemployed people who cannot declare they are ready to work immediately, whether because of other commitments or because they are so completely in a state of dysfunction that they cannot respond, are also eliminated. Hence single parents with responsibilities to children or disabled persons moved across to Newstart, simply don’t count and are not counted. The ABS’s methodology hides the real size of the “rabbit” the Government is trying to keep under their hat.

But as Michaleia Cash would intimate, all you had to do is follow the golden Liberal “PaTH”! Announcing the unemployment solution of “internships”! That government conjuration that pays businesses $1000 to accept unemployed people to perform 25 hours of tasks for them a week. The government funds interns at below minimum wage rates. They are compensating “interns” with a surplus $100 a week. To redress that, the government cut the “newstart” base support rate in the 2016 budget. Despite the Business Council of Australia arguing “the Newstart Allowance is so low it may be bad for the economy as it prevents people finding work and risks entrenching poverty.”

Contrary to some hysteria of $4/hr that social media is alarmed about; that is the $100 incremental rate change. Given the current single person’s dole rate of $263.30 a week after adding $100, the aggregate rate represents around $14.53/hr. That valuation is nothing about which to boast. It is still well below the poverty line. It is certainly less than the legislated minimum wage that was of concern to the Business Council. All for the aspirations of the unemployed who crave a chance at ongoing work for a fair wage.

Why would not businesses take advantage of “PaTH” interns as free labour and simply churn through them? Michaelia Cash’s claim, to be able to block companies from doing that, outlines no viable strategy to accomplish this? Why might I suggest businesses will exploit interns? Because businesses already have!!

The Monthly’s Richard Cook points out: “An Interns Australia report in 2015 found 86.4% of interns surveyed were not paid or were paid below minimum wage, and 78.92% reported that their internship did not lead to paid work with the same company. This unpaid precariat accept it as part of the price (or lack of price) for this brave new world of workplace flexibility and personal entrepreneurship.”

So “internship” solves everybody’s problem! Satisfies those “communists” on the left wing of the Business Council of Australia, who want to pay unemployed youth more. The true believers on the right wing of the BCA are granted free labour for 12 weeks. All participating businesses get $1000 for each unemployed person they consume. Unemployment plummets because they have “worked” for more than one hour. The jobless vanish from the ABS’s books. Workers compensation is not required as technically; interns are branded as volunteers. The government has solved everyone’s issues in one single policy. Well except for the unemployed, that crave a real job. But then they don’t matter, as they don’t have the financial capacity to bequeath wealth as political party donations. The Rabbit has vanished, and the black hat is empty!

Magic performed! The unemployed vanish beneath the ABS cloak of invisibility. Business’s unskilled, manual labour workload disappears as the unpaid fairies at the bottom of the garden do all the work. The government has apparently found more people work as they are less unemployed. Businesses are booming as costs are down, and CEOs can award themselves higher wages. Prosperity lavished on all. The last vanishing act will be the business profits as they are stashed overseas in Panama or the Virgin Islands. And that, dear reader, is how job’s growth is performed.

The IGR

March 17, 2015 by James J. Morrison W.G. Dupree 1 Comment

The intergenerational report (IGR) produced by the government is another fraud like the “Budget Emergency” (which they seem far less panicked about since they doubled the deficit – which if you have read the main page you will realise means little). The prospect of not achieving a surplus is merely because their ideology prevents it, not because it’s unachievable. It is beyond their ideological capacity of thinking of retracting the massive subsidies to Mining, huge defence spending, huge “subsidies” to Super, huge “subsidies” to investors but not beyond them to cut subsidies to tuition in Universities. Instead, there were the cuts suffered by everything from the ABC, CSIRO, Trade Cadetships, Health, Hospital, Climate management, ATO, and even our children’s education (i.e. Gonski). Then the removal of major revenue streams (mining & carbon taxes – minimally over 6.5 billion), the 8.8 Billion Hockey gave away to the Reserve Bank – they said they didn’t need – and let’s also include the failure to collect taxes from 30% of the country’s largest companies. If achieving a surplus was such an urgent consideration, there are billions recoverable from the list above which would result in Australia having that (were it even an important factor in our economy). Add to this the fraudulent nature of our claiming national poverty for the 14 wealthiest nation (regarding gross domestic product per capita in IMF$,) in the world (Yes, Australia) with the third lowest gross debt to GDP of any country in the OECD.

Budgetary deterioration under the "Adults". — Budgetary deterioration under the “Adults”.

If a deficit is supposedly a measure of financial progress in a sovereign economy (which it isn’t) then doubling that Deficit under Joe’s administration surely is a poor indicator. If anything it merely exemplifies that what Australia can not afford is to continue to subsidise our wealthiest individuals and companies. It is purely about “political will” to act to redistribute the economy fairly, not an incapacity to bring in revenue.

The IGR has no allocation for disaster relief because of increasing natural disasters triggered by Climate change, in fact, Climate change is only mentioned in relation to the Direct Action policy (which a long list of experts believe will be completely ineffective anyhow). A slow economic growth (consistent with current) will result in a budget shortfall for Hockey alone. [Note: the mining boom contributed nothing/zero/zip/nada to economic growth in the last quarter – dropping from 5.6% in 6 mths – and professional/scientific/technical contracted by 1% – (ABS stats – look them up yourself)]. As jobs growth contracts and unemployment expands [i.e. as jobs disappeared from mining the expected pickup in Construction has not occurred and has fallen from 7.9% contribution to GDP to 5.6% in 6 mths], our prospects are grim. A ratio of jobs to the unemployed is 1:5 – although moving thru to 1:6 and that is only if you accept Govt Stats on employment & unemployment. (If you look at more realistic stats such as Roy Morgans then the prospect is far worse at 1:8.) ACOSS has noted that the IGR report is silent on what poverty would result by full implementation of government policies. No indicator of the Gini coefficient (an standard reporting indicator for the socio-economic impact of policies) has been provided. I wonder why Hockey forgot that? The value of the all ordinaries on the Australian Stock Exchange has fallen, consumer & business confidence is collapsing, the Aussie dollar is at the lowest level since 2010 and inflation went up from 2.4% to 3.0% last year. (Yes, it has fallen this year, along with everything else too.) BUT the Adults are in Charge of our economy! Bejesus, Hockey, give us a break!