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

What’s wrong with churning?

By Nicholas Gruen - posted Friday, 17 February 2006


Still the concern about churning does raise legitimate issues.

The right-leaning CIS wants to reduce churn by extending self-provision - for education, health, unemployment and other hardship. We’ve begun doing so by forcing people to make superannuation contributions. That will lower churn by reducing people’s future dependence on pensions. We should do more, but the CIS underestimates the difficulties in replicating the targeting of our existing system - and the bureaucracy that would be necessary for specific self-provision accounts. Just look at the bureaucracy engulfing super.

From the left of centre, ALP politicians Chris Evans and Craig Emerson proclaim the iniquity of higher taxes for those without children. Now call me old fashioned but if you want to get extra cash to families with children I reckon you’ve got to get it from people without children.

Advertisement

Still as Evans and Emerson point out, among people without children, those earning over $52,000 per year have received much larger tax cuts than those below.

These contributions from the left and right help highlight the need for vigilance in keeping family payments away from wealthy people.

We’ve increased churn and loosened targeting since 1988-89, not least in the 2000 tax package. (Back then churn was called “compensation for the GST”). In 2005 we extended childcare subsidies to rich people. By then we were already paying Family Tax Benefit B to 76 families earning over a million dollars a year and to nearly 40,000 families earning more than $100,000.

So, when they spot real problems, with workable solutions let’s pay attention to the critics of churning.

But let's not churn the baby out with the bath water.

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

First published in The Courier-Mail on February 1, 2006.



Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

15 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

Dr Nicholas Gruen is CEO of Lateral Economics and Chairman of Peach Refund Mortgage Broker. He is working on a book entitled Reimagining Economic Reform.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Nicholas Gruen

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

Photo of Nicholas Gruen
Article Tools
Comment 15 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy