With the Coalition rejecting the stimulus package, it might seem like it has moved from policy to politics but I suspect that it was always there and it is ambiguous who to blame. The problem is that we now have uncertainty and no one is going to think that is a good idea.
[DDET Read more]
But I’ll reiterate again that the notion of bringing forward tax cuts is not a change in permanent income. It does nothing to change incentives as those incentives were coming up anyway. All it does is bring an additional average $1,700 payment forward now. It is broadbased as compared with the low-middle income targetting of the Government and depending on who you are you can take your pick. My guess is that the targetted approach is better as that is more likely to hit the liquidity constrained.
The Coalition is putting forward other ideas. For instance,
One proposal the Coalition is seeking to discuss with the Government is the Commonwealth paying a portion of the Superannuation Guarantee Levy on behalf of small employers (those with 20 or fewer staff) for the next two years. This measure will directly improve the cash position of small firms, directly reduce the costs of employment, and so directly contribute to preserving jobs.
But surely that is just more saving. A variant might be better — cut the superannuation requirement now or provide a mechanism to defer it. That would provide assistance to small business but allow workers to recoup it later on. I’m not sure about the details but it does highlight something I have been stressing: we need to work on credit policy.