Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Is the answer hypothecated?

By Graham Young - posted Monday, 18 February 2013


Is there a way that the government can meet voter expectations about fiscal policy while funding its two big programs – Gonski and the NDIS?

Our qualitative polling of 1266 Australians balanced by voting intention suggests that there might be.

In the first place the government ought not to worry too much about budget surpluses. Not because they don't matter, but because there are two kinds of voters – those that will, or might, vote for the government, and those that won't.

Advertisement

The second kind thinks that surpluses do matter, but their expectations of the government and its past fiscal management are so low, Wayne Swan is merely meeting those expectations by abandoning his surplus pledge.

They aren't going to vote for the government, and they have a long list of complaints, and not posting a surplus this year is not at the top of it.

The first kind is either well-disposed towards the government or the policies. In this case they see the promises and the benefits they bring as being more important than the transient pleasure of a positive national bottom line.

They are also convinced that the economy is in bad shape. This is bad for the treasurer's reputation as a good manager, but it convinces many that a counter-cyclical budget deficit is a responsible policy option.

However, while tolerant to a budget deficit this year, voters generally don't support continuing deficits and overwhelmingly think that taxes are either about right, or too high.

Even amongst those who are prepared to pay more tax themselves, 59% would cap that amount at $20 a week or less, which wouldn't fund much.

Advertisement

The government appears to agree, and it is whispered that they might tax superannuation more highly.

This wouldn't be popular with our respondents who placed increased taxation of superannuation dead last on their list of acceptable tax increases, behind even increases to personal income tax. Seems we're all worried about the future post-GFC.

Outside of Liberal voters there is also little support for increasing the GST, thus ruling out an increase in the indirect taxation base.

It seems to be the corporates who have most to fear with increases in the MRRT gaining approval across the board, followed by company tax, and then capital gains tax.

Yet with the mining boom moderating, profit margins squeezed, and changes in capital gains needing to be phased in, none of these looks to be too prospective in the near future.

When we tested respondents on funding the NDIS and Gonski reforms their overwhelming preference was for neither deficits nor taxes, but for savings.

This is a characteristic choice of voters the world over in similar situations, even though savings are unlikely to be sufficient on their own.

However a promise to make savings combined with a hypothecated tax might just do the trick.

Previous research shows voters more willing to accept a tax increase if they agree with the purpose. The flood levy two years ago barely upset anyone, and with bipartisan support for the National Disability Insurance Scheme, a levy dressed up as a "premium" would probably be acceptable.

And if the savings didn't accrue, then see point one – voters wouldn't be concerned any more than they were to start with if this government runs a deficit this year, or probably any other.

Which just leaves Gonski.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All

This article was first published in The Australian.



Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

6 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Graham Young is chief editor and the publisher of On Line Opinion. He is executive director of the Australian Institute for Progress, an Australian think tank based in Brisbane, and the publisher of On Line Opinion.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Graham Young

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Graham Young
Article Tools
Comment 6 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy