logo
JACKSON HEWETT: Five bold tax ideas that could rebalance the budget and close billion-dollar loopholes

JACKSON HEWETT: Five bold tax ideas that could rebalance the budget and close billion-dollar loopholes

West Australian5 days ago
As the Government gears up for a productivity roundtable, some of Australia's brightest minds were brought together last week in a roundtable convened by independent MP Allegra Spender to put forward suggestions to simplify the tax system.
Here are five that make sense.
Australia's top 5 per cent of income earners contribute around 37 per cent of all income tax revenue. Yet according to economist Greg Kaplan from the e61 Institute, the tax system becomes fundamentally flawed above the $180,000 threshold.
Drawing on anonymised ATO tax return data, Mr Kaplan's research shows that once an individual earns above $180,000, the effective tax rate they pay depends more on how they earn their income than how much they make, with the wage slave the worst off.
'(Above that threshold) the absolute worst case that you could be in is to earn all of your income as an employee working for someone else,' Mr Kaplan said.
Mr Kaplan said Australia's current tax structure becomes inefficient and inequitable beyond that threshold, largely due to distortions introduced by the 50 per cent capital gains tax (CGT) discount.
He found that 10 per cent of Australians earning over $390,000 pay a lower average tax rate than half of those earning $70,000, by exploiting the CGT concession, along with the different treatment of deductions and superannuation contributions.
Income tax avoidance in favour of CGT discount accruing activities risks 'incentivising people to prioritise activities that are rewarded with capital gains over other forms of income even when they have a lower economic return,' he argued. The message it sends to young people is to be rich you should 'choose a career where you can generate capital gains'.
'Strive for property development or funds management, not for engineering that matters for productivity,' he said.
He calls for cuts to income tax on middle and higher earners.
'We need to lower income taxes in the middle and the top of the distribution. We need to think harder about the message we are sending when we tax work as an employee at 47 per cent and passive income from unproductive investments at 23 per cent,' he said.
To lower taxes on middle and higher earners, Mr Kaplan said the capital gains discount should be reduced, something also supported by Luci Ellis, former chief economist at the Reserve Bank and current chief economist at Westpac.
'Reforming CGT will eliminate that incentive to make an income loss today, which you can deduct to the full marginal rate, and then get the capital gains at half marginal rate,' she said.
Miranda Stewart, Professor of Law at the University of Melbourne, argued that both capital gains and income flowing through privately controlled trusts and companies are under-taxed. 'We need to tax capital gains more, and we need to tax privately controlled trusts and companies more,' she said.
Professor Stewart backed a modernised version of the Henry Tax Review's 'discount savings box' model, which would net off income and expenses from investments, then apply a modest discount — far less generous than the current 50 per cent.
'Maybe it should be 30 per cent or 25,' she said, citing the combined benefit of deferral and tax planning that allows many investors to significantly reduce their tax liability.
Grattan Institute's Alison Reeve argues that Australia's century-old fuel tax system is no longer fit for purpose.
Originally introduced as a general revenue measure, fuel excise now delivers declining returns, thanks to improved fuel efficiency and the rise of electric vehicles.
Businesses using diesel face wildly different tax treatments: miners receive a full rebate, trucking companies get partial refunds, and ordinary drivers pay full excise and GST. Ms Reeve says the current system not only weakens incentives to decarbonise — by effectively subsidising diesel — but also fails to support efficient road use.
'For most of its life, this has been a tax that we have just had for general revenue,' she said, noting it contributes about 2 per cent of Budget revenue.
She warns that as more Australians switch to electric vehicles, it's becoming increasingly possible to avoid paying the tax altogether — eroding the base and making the system less sustainable.
To modernise the approach, Ms Reeve recommends gradually replacing fuel excise with a road user charge that better reflects how much people actually use and wear down infrastructure. She also argues for reforming road funding to ensure more equitable treatment between urban and regional drivers, who often face longer distances and receive less investment.
Finally, she calls for aligning diesel tax credits with the carbon cost of emissions, saying current settings make it cheaper for businesses to stick with diesel rather than transition to cleaner alternatives.
'The pull away from net zero is stronger than the push towards it,' she said.
Brendan Coates from the Grattan Institute said the case for winding back superannuation tax concessions needs to be 'back on the agenda,' with the cost to the Budget nearing $60 billion a year, more than 2 per cent of GDP, and growing. 'More than two-thirds of those concessions go to the top 20 per cent,' he said.
The current system is not only inequitable, Coates argues but also ineffective at reducing pension costs.
'The cost of those tax breaks far outweighs the age pension savings they produce,' he said.
Worse, many retirees do not spend down their balances.
'One in three dollars coming out of super by 2060 will be in the form of a bequest,' Coates said. 'That's turning the system into a taxpayer-subsidised inheritance scheme.'
To better align super with its original purpose — ensuring income adequacy in retirement — Coates proposes several reforms.
These include reducing the concessional contributions from a flat 15 per cent tax to the marginal tax rate minus 15 per cent.
He also recommends lowering the Division 293 income threshold to $220,000 and increasing the tax rate to 30 per cent for high-income earners, raising a further $1.2 billion annually.
Finally, he recommends scrapping co-contributions and catch-up contributions, noting they are mostly being used by people already saving enough for retirement and looking to minimise tax.
Veteran budget watcher Chris Richardson argues Australia is leaving billions on the table due to outdated or poorly implemented tax settings in three key areas: gas, banking, and tobacco.
On gas, he notes that while Australia has become one of the world's top LNG exporters, the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax (PRRT) has failed to keep up. The tax take has flatlined even as export earnings surged. He attributes this to flaws in the original tax design — particularly generous deductions based on outdated economic assumptions — and successive governments failing to act, especially under political pressure from key Western Australian seats. 'The fault is ours,' Richardson said, pointing to inaction in Canberra despite Treasury offering viable reform options.
On banking, he says Australia has rightly prioritised a safe financial system, but taxpayers effectively insure the big four banks by virtue of their 'too big to fail' status. A levy exists, but Richardson says it's insufficient and should be increased to reflect the true value of that implicit government guarantee.
Finally, he labels the tobacco excise policy as 'one of the dumbest things I have ever seen'. Initially successful in cutting smoking and raising revenue, successive hikes eventually created a thriving black market as enforcement lagged. The result, he says, is that cigarettes are now cheaper on the street than in stores, undermining both health and fiscal outcomes.
Richardson estimates reforms could raise 'a couple of billion a year out of gas, a couple of billion a year out of the banks, (and) potentially $10 billion a year out of cigarettes.'
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

‘An absolute disgrace': NSW turbine proposal sends Australians ‘up in arms'
‘An absolute disgrace': NSW turbine proposal sends Australians ‘up in arms'

Sky News AU

timean hour ago

  • Sky News AU

‘An absolute disgrace': NSW turbine proposal sends Australians ‘up in arms'

Sky News host James Morrow discusses a proposal to build turbines in New South Wales which has Australians 'up in arms'. 'This just goes to prove, guys, that the environmental movement is really not about the environment anymore; it is vandalism in the name of making money,' he said. 'There is now a proposal – and it has got everybody up in arms ... some European wind farm builders want to throw up 250 wind towers, some of them as high as 300 metres. 'Totally destroying the environment, the ambience, the amenity of this beautiful, beautiful region ... it's just an absolute disgrace – it's vandalism. This stuff has to stop.'

Vote counting done, the deal-making begins for Tasmania's next government
Vote counting done, the deal-making begins for Tasmania's next government

ABC News

time2 hours ago

  • ABC News

Vote counting done, the deal-making begins for Tasmania's next government

So here it is. The final seat chart for Tasmania's parliament: Liberals with 14, Labor with 10, five Greens and six other members of the crossbench. Sound familiar? Well, aside from some shuffling of the deckchairs, the 2025 Tasmanian election — not to be confused with the 2024 one (although you'd be forgiven for doing so) — ended up almost exactly where it was before Premier Jeremy Rockliff pulled the trigger. We can get to the whole what was the point later, but there is one rather vital question that has yet to be answered — who will be the government? Gone are the days when who would form government was known on election night. And, apparently, gone are the days when knowing the final makeup of parliament means we know which party will be leading the state at the end of the year. That answer may not be known for over a month. But at least the players are known, because the pathways to government or a no-confidence motion have become slightly clearer. Let's start with the Liberals on 14 seats. That may seem, on the face of things, to be a better chance. Whichever party hopes to form government will need 18 votes on their side. Finding four votes from a crossbench of 11 does not sound that hard in theory — until you start to break down who is in the crossbench. The Greens won't be offering up their five. Craig Garland is so infuriated by the way the Liberals have handled Marinus Link that he would be willing to vote for a no-confidence motion. Kristie Johnston voted for the last no-confidence motion and, while she hasn't ruled out offering supply and confidence, it may not be encouraging. That's six, maybe seven votes down, leaving four for the Liberals to truly court, with three of them newbies. The Shooters, Fishers and Farmers' Carlo Di Falco and former Launceston Councillor George Razay have both said they are open to working with either side. For the record, so has anti-salmon campaigner Peter George, but his progressive values don't mesh particularly well with either major party. The easiest person for the Liberals get, or in this case keep onside, is independent David O'Byrne. Mr O'Byrne offered support in the last parliament, voted against the no-confidence motion in Premier Jeremy Rockliff and has spoken about how difficult it was for Labor to govern with 10 when there were just 25 members of the lower house as opposed to the 35 they now have. Mind you, last election Labor ruled out trying to form government, so Mr O'Byrne had no other option. As a former Labor leader with those values, he has to entertain the idea. Labor's rather mammoth effort of securing eight votes is made so much easier by the fact the Greens want to engage with it. Greens Leader Rosalie Woodruff gave Labor Leader Dean Winter the opportunity to work together during that weird time between the no-confidence motion and the election. Mr Winter flat-out refused. But things look very different from the other side of this election. The party is out of options, down on votes, and staring down four years of opposition, assuming this parliament makes it that long. The very fact that Mr Winter is playing phone tag with Dr Woodruff says it all. But the two clearly have some different ideas about how a minority Labor government might work. Labor is continuing to insist it will not do a deal with the Greens, while Dr Woodruff maintains there must be an agreement for it to work. She may not be sure what that looks like, but has said "there is no possibility of any minority government without some movement". That suggests compromise. So, is Labor just playing semantics with the word deal? Will it accept a so-called agreement with the Greens? They will be roasted by the Liberals if they do, but how much does that matter if the Libs are the ones sitting on the Opposition benches? Perhaps, Labor thinks it can avoid doing any sort of agreement with The Greens. After all, the Greens seem very determined to kick out the Rockliff Government — even more so post Marinus drama — and Labor is their only path to do so. Maybe that is all Labor has to offer up. Be it on the Greens if they want to be the key reason the Liberals stay in power. But there is a middle ground. The parties' values overlap, why not lean into that? After all, it was the Greens and Labor, with others on the crossbench, that banded together last parliament to lower the political donation disclosure threshold to $1,000, introduce industrial manslaughter laws and decriminalise begging. Surely working together could be about finding the middle space in the Venn diagram where no one compromises their values. Banning conversion therapy, working towards a treaty for First Nations peoples and strengthening the Integrity Commission are a few commonalities that spring to mind. If Labor gets the Greens on board, and with Craig Garland's vote, the party is only crossbenchers away from seizing power through a vote of no confidence. Of course, it may not come to that, but the backup plan is looking viable. And how wild would that be? Labor, which recorded its lowest ever primary vote, taking government and installing a premier that could not even pull a quota in his own right. If it pulls this off, Labor MPs will make up just over half of the 18 votes that they need in the lower house. What mandate do they really have? Then again, Tasmanians voted for 11 MPs that are neither Labor nor Liberal and the vast majority of those 11 MPs hold values that are far closer to Labor than the Liberals. Whether it can be called a progressive parliament is debatable. Winter's 'jobs jobs jobs' Labor is big on industries like mining, forestry and aquaculture and rarely delves into social issues. In fact, some have observed Mr Rockliff appears more socially progressive. But it certainly is not a Liberal friendly parliament either. They may have seen an uptick in their primary vote of more than three per cent and Mr Rockliff's 22,000 first preference votes, but their right-wing values do not appear to have won over the vast majority of Tasmanians. If the result was a true endorsement of the Liberals, wouldn't they have gained a single seat? In the end, all of this pondering does not matter, because both parties want government. One is trying to keep it, the other trying to claim it — and that means it is going to take a while. It is unclear exactly when Tasmanians will know who is going the lead the state. But while the parties play their power games, parliament is paused. No legislation is being passed, no big brave decisions (save Marinus) are being made — and the state is effectively left on standby.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store