Showing posts with label Foreign debt. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Foreign debt. Show all posts

Thursday, December 18, 2014

MYEFO – giving the rich a break


Nick G.

The Federal government’s Mid-Year Economic and Financial Outlook (MYEFO) gives the green light to big corporations to keep stuffing their pockets while the government cries poor and attacks the people.

Delivered on the same day as the Sydney Lindt hostage crisis, it essentially says “We will not make the rich pay”.

It says “We are prepared to go further into deficit rather than stand up to the multinationals”.

It says “We will wipe out billions of dollars in revenue from the rich and impose further austerity on the people”.

It represents a massive broken promise by the Abbott government to return the budget to surplus.

Secondary Factors

Hockey blames the downturn in iron ore and coal prices and also blames reduced wage growth.

Both are factors.   Iron ore prices have plummeted by close to 50% this year and not only are wage-earners not keeping up with profits, but unemployment is rising, so revenue from personal income tax is down. 

It has been estimated that dropped iron ore prices and lower wages, however, would account for only $2.3 billion of the $11 billion black hole forecast in the MYEFO.
These are factors which a government might fairly blame on market conditions over which it chooses to exercise no control.

What is within its control is whom it targets for revenue raising.


Toeing The Line

There are a number of measures where the cost of toeing the big end of town’s line is resulting in revenue losses.

For example, the Japan-Australia Economic Partnership Agreement will reduce revenue from tariffs by $110 million next year to a total of $1.59 billion over the four-year forward estimates.  It appears to be too soon for Treasury to estimate the revenue losses from the Korean and Chinese free trade agreements and, of course, the Trans Pacific Partnership FTA is yet to be signed.

The third stage of an Investment Manager Regime, which will “provide a tax exemption on the gains of widely held foreign funds that have invested in certain financial arrangements in Australia” apparently cannot be estimated either, perhaps because there is an option for investors to backdate application of legislation to apply from 2015-16 from the 2011-12 income year.  Wow – they will even make legislation retrospective to give our revenue base to imperialist finance capitalists!  What we are told by Treasury is that this will have “an unquantifiable cost to revenue over the forward estimates period.”  That’s reassuring….NOT!


No Restrictions On Off-shore Avoidance

Maybe the biggest cop-out is walking away from efforts to close down transfer pricing and other arrangements that allow big corporations to shift their profits globally and avoid paying tax in the source country.  The MYEFO baldly states: “The Government will not proceed with a targeted anti-avoidance provision to address certain ‘conduit’ arrangements involving multinational enterprises, first announced in the 2013-14 MYEFO)”.

There was some empty rhetoric in this direction at the Brisbane G20 Summit, but as we pointed out back in May, there was never any serious intention to go after the corporate tax avoiders (see http://vanguard-cpaml.blogspot.com.au/2014/05/rich-tax-avoiders-are-sitting-back-and.html).  We quoted the Deputy Tax Commissioner Mark Konza as assuring the Business Council of Australia that the tax commissioner would not “go crazy with this power” to pursue them.  In fact, he said, the powers would be “rarely implemented” because of associated legal difficulties.

Big business was further assured that Abbott’s decision to slash 3000 jobs at the Tax Office would probably hamper what little effort the ATO may have been planning to put into the task.

So how much is lost by allowing profits to be placed in overseas havens out of reach of the ATO?

Hockey’s MYEFO refuses to put a figure on it, but the previous government, in its 2013-14 Budget had put it at $4.2 billion over the forward estimates, or an average of around $1 billion per year.  Hockey’s MYEFO, giving the nod to further corporate tax avoidance, dismisses this cheating on our revenue base as “unrealisable”.  Where there’s a will there’s a way, but if the servants of the rich are unwilling, let’s just call it “unrealisable”.

Finally, there’s the Minerals Resource Rent Tax.  Remember that this was originally a 20% super-profits tax on all minerals.  It then became a 10% tax on a handful of resources when Gillard deposed Rudd and announced the next day that she had “opened to door to the mining companies”.   Hockey’s MYEFO contradictorily estimates a revenue loss of around $2 billion a year from scrapping this tax (table 3.2 in the MYEFO) to claiming that it would save over $10 billion over the forward estimates!  How it can be simultaneously a loss and a savings is perhaps known to Treasury officials, but they have declined to explain it to the people.

There are other little gems, like the tax exemption for US contractors “working on United States military force posture initiatives in Australia”.  It just wouldn’t do for the Australian tax-payer to have to build bases for a foreign power on our soil, and then expect nationals of that power to pay taxes on income earned in Australia and paid by those same taxpayers.  We are very generous towards our “friends” and overlords.

Don’t expect the Murdoch media to expose any of this.  According to a report by the Tax Justice Network Australia, Murdoch’s companies paid the Australian Tax Office a miserly 1.1% on pre-tax profits of A$5.54 billion over the period 2004-2013, which was helped by complex financial transactions among its 146 subsidiaries, including 25 in the Virgin Islands and 19 in Mauritius.

Perhaps MYEFO should stand for Manipulating Your Economy For Ourselves.

Tuesday, April 17, 2012

Ballooning foreign debt ties Australia to imperialism

Vanguard August 2011 p. 6
Alex M.

Over the years a number of articles have appeared in this paper about Australia’s foreign indebtedness. Continuing this fine tradition, selected information from a 2009 Australian Parliamentary Library Research Paper detailing the data and trends associated with Australia’s foreign debt, give us some insights into Australia’s financial ‘state of play’.

For the period 1976 to 2008 in Australia, “the level of gross foreign debt increased from $8 billion, to $1,072 billion.” Such an increase represented a jump from 9% to 95% of gross domestic product (GDP) over that time frame. The report’s author, Tony Kryger, states that at 95% of GDP, the 2008 level of gross foreign debt was “its highest level ever.”

Gross foreign debt is defined as the total of non-equity (equities = shares) liabilities accrued by Australian residents from overseas sources. Included in gross foreign debt are such things as bonds, “loans, advances, deposits, debentures and overdrafts”. Foreign debt is distinct from capital inflow connected with foreign investment, as the former carries with it “the obligation to pay interest” as well as the principal.

Subtracting the lending of Australian based entities to overseas entities from the gross foreign debt gives the net foreign debt. Comparing the annual growth in gross and net foreign debt in the period 1976 to 2008, we see that gross foreign debt rose 16.7% on average each year, whilst net foreign debt rose 17.8% on average during the period in question. What this means is that Australian lending overseas has not risen as fast as Australian borrowing from overseas.

Who is doing the borrowing?
Since the late 1990s there has been a marked decline in total public sector borrowing as a percentage of gross foreign debt. From 1980, when public sector borrowing accounted for 44.3% of the foreign debt, the downward trend really kicked in when public sector borrowing dropped from 31.8% in 1997 to 25% in 1998. In 2008, the public sector accounted for just 8% of Australia’s total foreign debt.

By way of contrast, private sector debt (which has made up the lion’s share of gross foreign debt for decades), has ballooned out from 55.7% in 1980 to 92% in 2008.

Since 1992, financial corporations have been the major borrowers, such that, of the total Australian gross foreign debt of $1, 072 billion, 74% of that figure was attributable to financial corporations, with the share of non-financial corporations at 18.1%. Clear from the figures presented here is the absolute rise of Australia’s gross foreign debt and the pivotal role that finance capital has played in continuing this trend.

The cost to Australia is enormous. The interest that has to be paid on the overseas borrowings was $42.7 billion in 2007-08 (bearing in mind that the interest liability fluctuates according to the rise and fall of interest rates). This interest liability represented 3.8 % of GDP. So 3.8% of the value of all goods and services produced within Australia was required to meet the interest commitment on the gross foreign debt.

Moreover, most of the debt has been initiated by finance capital and therefore would not necessarily be earmarked for productive investment. A proportion of the borrowings would be used speculatively in such things as currency trading, share and bond trading, for instance.

Australia’s chief creditors
For much of the period 2001 to 2007, the chief creditors of Australia by country were: the United States and the UK, with Hong Kong, Singapore and Japan as lesser lights. The composition by country of Australia’s gross foreign debt in 2007 breaks down to 22.2% ($226 billion) held by US based entities; 23.4% ($239 billion) held by UK based entities, with 32.4% ($330 billion) held by ‘Unallocated’ which in this instance means international institutions and international capital markets which have not been allocated a country of origin.

Compare this with the situation in 2001. Then the leading creditor was the US, with 26% ($127 billion) out of a total of $498 billion gross foreign debt. The UK in 2001 held 17% of Australia’s gross foreign debt and Japan 7% ($86 billion and $32 billion respectively).

What such levels of debt do is put an incredible amount of political and economic power into the hands of overseas based financial corporations; ‘who pays the piper, calls the tune’. The increased levels of Australia’s gross foreign debt are in large part a consequence of neoliberal policies adopted by the mainstream political parties in this country.

The role of ideology
Neoliberalism, the ideology of late twentieth, early twenty-first century capitalism, has been disseminated as the ‘commonsense’ approach to the systemic problems of contemporary capitalism.

An integral part of the process of disseminating this ideology is that played by the mass corporate media. As we have seen with the unfolding of the ‘Hackgate’ scandal in the UK, the intimate connections between big business (which in this case includes media conglomerates such as Murdoch’s) and the State and the mainstream political parties not only promotes corruption, but also, amongst other things, acts to establish an ideological consensus.

What is needed to overcome Australia’s increasing level of indebtedness and the vicissitudes of neoliberalism is a more just and equitable society. One based on an independent, socialist Australia.