Company Tax Cuts: Minimal Benefit Expected
The Productivity Commission’s Tax Cut: A Win for Mining, Not Workers
Table of Contents
The Productivity Commission is proposing a change to company tax, arguing it will boost productivity and lift living standards. But a closer look reveals a policy that primarily benefits the mining sector while possibly leaving workers no better off – or even worse. Let’s unpack what’s really going on.
The Illusion of Wage Growth
The core issue lies in how this proposed tax cut impacts real wages. The Commission’s modelling suggests a modest 0.6 per cent increase in real wages before tax under the current system. however, this seemingly positive figure evaporates after tax, resulting in zero real wage increase.
Under the option “Capital Ownership and Profit Sharing” (CoPS) model, things get even more concerning. Wages could actually fall by 0.5 per cent in real terms. is this the path to a higher material standard of living we’ve been promised? It certainly doesn’t look like it. We’re aiming to improve productivity to enhance our lives, but this proposal seems to deliver the opposite for many.
What Does “Productivity” Really Mean?
The Australia Institute’s research throws another wrench into the works. It reveals the Commission’s definition of “productivity” isn’t the traditional measure of output per hour worked. Rather, it’s focusing on “output per worker.” This subtle difference is crucial.
the modelling shows national output per worker increases,not as individual workers become more efficient,but because the company tax cut reduces the cost of capital. This incentivizes expansion in capital-intensive industries – namely, mining. This growth comes at the expense of labour-intensive sectors like health and education.
think about that for a moment. This isn’t about making our workforce more productive; it’s about shifting resources towards an industry that relies more on machines than people.Is that progress?
The Problem with Modelling
This situation highlights a broader issue: economic modelling is often used to justify pre-determined policy decisions, rather than to genuinely inform our understanding of what works. It’s a tool to sell an idea, not necessarily to explore the complexities of the economy and find the best solutions.
We need to be critical of these projections and ask ourselves: who truly benefits from these changes? And are we sacrificing long-term, inclusive growth for short-term gains in a single sector?
The Productivity Commission’s proposal, while presented as a productivity boost, appears to be a policy that prioritizes capital over labour, and mining over essential services. It’s a reminder that economic policy should always be evaluated based on its impact on all Australians, not just a select few.
Ross Gittins is the economics editor.
Ross Gittins unpacks the economy in an exclusive subscriber-only newsletter. Sign up to receive it every Tuesday evening.