Emerson's lower taxing spin as a % of GDP

[IQS.RLOW]

Sinclair Davidson dissects the Tax vs GDP lie and show how this govt is about nothing but spend and spin

http://catallaxyfiles.com/2012/12/29/se ... -is-going/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It was first sent out by Possum AFAIK, but it has been sent to me a few times – usually with abusive comments (one such individual had a huge night and seems to have gotten his account suspended).

Anyway that graph shows two things. First it refers to a promise made by the current government that it would maintain tax revenues at or below the 2007-08 level. It also shows the decline in revenue that the current government has experienced – making life so difficult for poor old Wayne Swan. Others might argue that it proves that we have a low-taxing government.

That got me thinking – what else could be shown in this way? So I grabbed data from the latest MYEFO and got graphing. Well first thing let’s have a look at the dollar amounts of taxation revenue.

[IQS.RLOW]

I see Monk is embarrassing himself over there after reading it here and trying to make excuses for the massive increase in spending over and above the massive increase in tax receipts

Update: In comments Political Animal opines:
How much of the 2011/12 and projected revenue is from the Carbon Price? Because that goes out as compensation. I suspect all of the increase is. I bet you are also counting the compensation as expenditure.

I suspect he may be trying to make the point that the carbon tax shouldn’t be counted at all because it is a giant churn. I’m not buying that argument – it is similar to the argument that the Howard government pulled on the GST; that it shouldn’t be included in the budget papers as a Commonwealth tax because all the money went to the States. That was a bad argument then and remains so today. But what about the argument that the increase in Taxation Receipts is being driven by the carbon tax? So I pulled out the forecast carbon tax revenue from the Budget Papers (assuming they are correct – as we have seen from the MRRT that is a somewhat heroic assumption) and then adjusted the Taxation Receipt data accordingly and re-graphed the data. The black dotted line is Taxation Receipts net the carbon

tax – so it looks like Political Animal’s initial expectation is not supported by the data.

[freediver]

What was the original claim? If tax levels were reported as a percentage of GDP, that would account for the lower revenues due to the GFC. It sounds like this 'disection' has missed the point. Howard's was the highest taxing government in Australia's history.

[IQS.RLOW]

You could always go and actually read the link, or does your computer and head explode when you visit something other than Crikey?

[IQS.RLOW]

Funny how your claim that Howard was the highest taxing govt yet...

[Aussie]

the highest taxing government

What does that mean? Surely, many things, and therefore, a useless expression.

[IQS.RLOW]

the highest taxing government

What does that mean? Surely, many things, and therefore, a useless expression.

Exactly. Glad you agree

[Aussie]

You obviously thought it had a meaning NOIQ, which is the only explanation for you bunging up this equally meaningless crap.

Funny how your claim that Howard was the highest taxing govt yet...

[IQS.RLOW]

You mean the graph that shows...
Howard govt collected ~ $275bn in 2007-2008 tax receipts
Gillard govt collected ~ $325bn in 2011-2012 tax receipts

[Aussie]

You mean the graph that shows...
Howard govt collected ~ $275bn in 2007-2008 tax receipts
Gillard govt collected ~ $325bn in 2011-2012 tax receipts

...and that is all it shows......with nil relevance to whatever the expression 'highest taxing government' mean, which I thought might be conditioned on rates of taxation, and the taxation base.