Tax concessions for Australia’s wealthiest 20 per cent are costing more than $68 billion a year, while the bottom 20 per cent of Australians receive just $6.1 billion in concessions, according to new analysis from Anglicare.
The Cost of Privilege report was released on Monday, commissioned by Anglicare Australia and prepared by Per Capita.
It found that the cost of foregone tax revenue from the richest 20 per cent of Australians was more than $68 billion a year, costing taxpayers $37 a week.
This compares to just $6.1 billion in concessions for the bottom 20 per cent.
“A staggering $68 billion in taxpayer dollars is spent keeping the wealthiest households wealthy. That is greater than the cost of Newstart, disability support, or any other benefit,” Anglicare Australia executive director Kasy Chambers said.
“The Cost of Privilege report finds that tax exemptions on private healthcare and education for the wealthiest 20 per cent cost over $3 billion a year, superannuation concessions to them cost over $20 billion a year, and their capital gains tax exemptions cost a staggering $40 billion a year.
“Compare that to the annual cost of Newstart, which costs just under $11 billion a year. Following the latest round of welfare cuts, these numbers tell us that something has gone badly wrong – we have become a country that cuts from the poorest to give to the richest.”
The amount we spend keeping the richest Australians rich is more than the cost of Newstart, disability support, or any social security benefit #therichcostmore
— Anglicare Australia (@anglicare_aust) March 25, 2018
The report said that rhetoric demonising welfare recipients as a burden on the economy was unfair.
“The modelling presented in this report clearly demonstrates that the benefits provided to high-income earners through tax concessions easily outweigh the benefits of direct income support payments to welfare recipients,” it said.
“Our report shows that characterisations of the poorest Australians as a burden on the economy are inaccurate and, if we are to worry about unnecessary imposts on the budget, there is a very strong case for reducing tax concessions and other direct benefits to our wealthiest citizens.”
Chambers told Pro Bono News that she hoped the report’s findings would open up the conversation about the cost of welfare.
“It seems disingenuous to have that conversation if we’re not also having a conversation about what benefits are flowing to other people,” Chambers said.
“One of the things that surprised me was that when we look at those taxation concessions and how they flow, the top 20 per cent gets $68 billion, which is more than the bottom 80 per cent put together.”
Examining the annual cost of tax concessions provided to the richest 20 per cent of Australians, the analysis revealed that capital gains tax concessions cost $40.2 billion, superannuation tax concessions cost $20.85 billion, discretionary trust benefits cost $2 billion and negative gearing benefits cost $2.26 billion.
Case studies from the report compared a couple living in outer Melbourne with two children and a total household income of $59,541.69 per year to an inner Sydney couple with two children and a combined family income after tax of $208,421 per year.
The Melbourne household – with a father on the Disability Support Payment and a mother working part-time as a retail assistant and full-time as a carer for her husband and children – would receive $36,824.32 in taxpayer funded income support a year.
The Sydney household meanwhile – with two negatively geared investment properties, a discretionary trust and GST tax exemptions on their private health and education costs – receive $99,708 from taxpayer funded concessions per year.
So now we know that #TheRichCostMore, but how? We developed some simple case studies of Australian families to show what the free ride for the rich looks like in real life. Meet Kevin and Andrea…and then meet Tim and Michelle. https://t.co/wMfaiso4oW #auspol #ausecon pic.twitter.com/ZMqciEdgTl
— Per Capita (@percapita) March 26, 2018
In light of these figures, Chambers said the government needed to consider where it wanted to direct its money towards.
“Often groups like us will talk with government ministers about the need for more money in out-of-home care for young people or the need for more packages for older people and we’ll be told that there’s no money and that it can’t be afforded,” she said.
“What we’re hoping that this report will do is [show] there is money, it just depends whether you would rather spend it on a superannuation tax concessions or whether you’d rather spend it on [welfare].
“Do you want to spend $100 million on 3,300 more high-level aged care packages or do you want to spend that $100 million on negative gearing concessions or on a GST exemption for private health. We’re hoping that this report will give the sector some evidence to have those conversations about where we choose to spend money as a country.”
The release of the report comes after 12 major charity leaders signed a letter calling on Senate crossbenchers to reject the Turnbull government’s corporate tax cut plan.
“We believe that a company tax cut is a mistake while almost 3 million people live in poverty,” the letter said.
“It is unconscionable to pursue company tax cuts while refusing to raise the rate of Newstart and other allowances.”
Joint statement to Senate from 12 Charity Leaders: “It’s unconscionable to pursue company tax cuts while refusing to raise the rate of Newstart and other allowances. Read the statement at: https://t.co/93Vbf2rxLT #auspol #tax pic.twitter.com/1fPIU9EEuY
— ACOSS (@ACOSS) March 24, 2018
Finance Minister Mathias Cormann said on Sunday that the tax cuts were necessary to keep Australian businesses competitive and would grow employment and wage growth.
“If the Senate were not to pass our business tax cuts in full, it would be a deliberate move to put our businesses here in Australia at a competitive disadvantage compared to businesses in other parts of the world,” Cormann said.
“That would mean less investment, fewer jobs, which would mean over time higher unemployment, which would mean less competition for workers here across Australia, which would mean a drop in wages over time.”
Big business will have to pay more to secure people’s services if there is more competition for workers. More businesses being more profitable & investing more into their future growth, employing more people increases competition for workers, which is the engine driving up wages. https://t.co/4E9nnyhCsP
— Mathias Cormann (@MathiasCormann) March 22, 2018
But Chambers said the government’s argument relied on the “disproved” theory of trickle-down economics.
“What we’re showing in this report is that it’s not so much trickle-down economics as trickle up or gushing up,” she said.
“And we just argue that trickle-down theory is disproved, it’s outdated and it’s unconscionable to think about why we would be cutting taxes to large corporations at a time when we are also trying to cut money to the poorest in our community.”
Shadow treasurer Chris Bowen and shadow assistant treasurer Andrew Leigh released a joint-statement which said Labor would introduce tax reforms to make the system fairer.
Labor [will limit] negative gearing to new housing and fully grandfathering arrangements for current homeowners. Labor will halve the capital gains tax discount and to restrict negative gearing to new homes only for future investors,” they said.
“Labor will even the playing field by introducing a standard minimum 30 per cent tax rate for discretionary trust distributions to adult beneficiaries.
“This policy will tackle the use of income splitting to minimise tax – making the tax system fairer and improving the budget bottom line.”
