Sections

Services

Information

UK United Kingdom

Debt and deficit, levies and taxes: let the real debate begin

The prospect of a “debt” tax or some sort of “deficit levy” to assist with the budget bottom line should prompt a clearer debate about the virtues of raising taxes versus cutting expenditure as a means…

Tony Abbott is preparing the electorate for his government’s first budget. Julian Smith/AAP

The prospect of a “debt” tax or some sort of “deficit levy” to assist with the budget bottom line should prompt a clearer debate about the virtues of raising taxes versus cutting expenditure as a means of dealing with budget problems.

Reports have suggested a short-term tax on high incomes is being considered by the government, as a means of reducing the budget deficit.

In the debt and deficit discussion there’s a domineering but intellectually bereft notion which sees any public debt and any structural budget deficit as inherently problematic. This idea has for a long time been like a dead hand weighing on any enlightened debate on this subject.

So too the idea that expenditure cutting must be preferred to tax increases, to the extent that one or other is deemed unavoidable.

How levies work

But if we are to give it serious thought, a good place to start is by thinking about how a levy which raises, let’s say one billion dollars, would compare with an expenditure cut of one billion dollars. On paper, in the first instance, the impact on the budget bottom line is the same.

The tax would mean less disposable income and less expenditure by households. But because households do not spend all of their income in the aggregate, spending by households does not fall by the same amount as the levy.

Indeed, to the extent that the levy is targeted more towards middle and upper income groups, which might be assumed to save a higher proportion of their disposable income, the fall off in household spending from the levy will be smaller.

Government spending cuts are different

The same proposition however does not apply to an equivalent cut in government expenditure. If we’re talking about expenditure by government on goods and services, then spending on goods and services in the first instance falls by exactly that amount – one billion.

In other words, the effect on demand for goods and services in the economy is different between the two cases. The levy would have less negative impact on that demand than an equivalent expenditure cut.

One qualification here is if the cut to government outlays is not wholly in terms of government spending on goods and services but in terms of cuts to unemployment benefits, pensions or other welfare payments. These are income payments (which an economist would refer to as negative taxes). Cutting these would work similar to a levy or tax since it affects household spending via a change to household disposable income.

If all of the cuts to outlays were in this form then it would have an impact on spending much more in line with that resulting from the imposition of a levy. However, the impact on spending would likely be greater than for a levy, if the levy is targeted away from lower income households whereas welfare payments are concentrated in the low income groups, which spend a higher proportion of their income.

But a cutting of outlays to lower income groups in preference to imposing a targeted levy targeted at higher incomes is a proposition presumably no one in their right mind would support, at least one would expect.

This leaves the choice of imposing a levy to raise one billion or cutting government expenditure on goods and services by one billion.

If it is the case that the latter means a greater negative impact on household expenditure this means that the multiplier effect is larger. In other words, the negative impact of this cut in household spending through the economy will be greater.

Everything else being constant, growth in the economy will be slower for a time with the expenditure cut than it would be with the levy. But this means slower growth in tax receipts for a time and hence less benefit to the budget bottom line with the expenditure cut compared with the levy.

As I said above, this is where we should start in considering the pros and cons of a debt tax or debt levy or whatever you wish to call it.

Instead we have predictable shouting about broken promises of no new taxes, and two political parties captive to fear mongering about public finances. I live in hope that at the very least a discussion of a debt/deficit levy might provide the opportunity for both sides to rethink the predilection for lower taxes at the expense of the social wage.

Join the conversation

9 Comments sorted by

  1. Mike Swinbourne

    logged in via Facebook

    ".....But a cutting of outlays to lower income groups in preference to imposing a targeted levy targeted at higher incomes is a proposition presumably no one in their right mind would support, at least one would expect...."

    I agree with you Graham - yet this is exactly what many on the conservative side of politics want to occur. I guess 'the no-one in their right mind' sums it up nicely though.

    report
  2. George Michaelson

    Person

    Thank you for raising a voice in praise of (sensible) debt as a tool of government. If economists can do something to end the dismal, its get us out of this dismally one-sided view that all debt is inherently bad.

    Levy invites the question about tax hypothecation. Medicare is well understood to be a hypothecated, specific use tax. The Ansett levy was a superb bit of finessing, Would it be wrong to accuse the government of making a profit on it?

    Debt reduction by hypothecation is functionally like potlach: its destroying wealth. It has no basis compared to medicare levy, which was purposeful funds to an outcome. Filling in holes other people dig has always been objectified as keynsian, but it begins to look like a debt levy is in the same place..

    report
  3. Susan Nolan

    retired

    Provided that such a levy is targeted to the rich, I support this. Why. It might even be possible to introduce another higher levy on the super-rich. And, maybe, these levies could be left in place after people got used to them.

    report
  4. John Kampert

    aged pensioner

    We're having a debt and deficit discussion; O.K.

    Let's start then by Federal Government Debt owed to whom? To the Reserve Bank, i.e the Commonwealth's bank by law? That is debt owed by the taxpayer's right pocket to its left pocket? Or owing to a private bank for the bank's CEO and perhaps its shareholders to share the profits?

    Let us not forget that we are no longer in the situation of money as a commodity. Money is either notes or coins (made at a cost below nominal value for the Treasury…

    Read more
  5. Peter Ormonde
    Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.

    Farmer

    Tops.

    Rational economics at last.

    Let's hope the Opposition develops a slightly more sensible position than the cheap "broken promise, broken promise" sloganising. A levy on the relatively affluent makes much more sense that reducing the sick, vulnerable and aged to an even more meagre pittance.

    We don't pay enough tax. We don't tax the right things - minerals in particular. And we squander money on economically parasitic state governments.

    Thanks for hurling some sense into this discussion.

    report
  6. Janeen Harris

    chef

    It seems silly to bring in a levy when they have a comprehensive tax report that says the tax system needs an overhaul. Abbot is too much of a lap dog to make the really necessary changes to bring the budget back to surplus. I can't see the liberals raising taxes on enormous profit, or repealing negative gearing or doing anything to close the equality gap.

    report
    1. Jane Middlemist

      citizen

      In reply to Janeen Harris

      "doing anything to close the equality gap." Janeen, I think that's the very last thing 'they' want to do, because it would not suit those people for whose benefit they are running the country.

      report
  7. Mairi Rowan

    Retired

    Thank you for a clear explication.
    It seems the Labor Party is run by fools, still letting Abbott & Co set their self serving agenda. There is no public debate over issues while the ALP fail to offer an alternative vision/philosophy/platform rather than myopic reactivity. I wonder do they have anyone left who is capable of analysing anything besides surveys of voting intentions. The ALP seems focussed on winning office with no clear purpose if they win except that the Liberals are out. Reminds me…

    Read more
  8. Susan Nolan

    retired

    Well, now we know.

    It's not the super-rich- nor the rich - who are being targeted by this levy, but the middle-income people.

    Thought it was too good to be true.

    report