commission on fiscal imbalance 合集

7 2244 37193 31 52 584 180 47 17 28 60 1000 present

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: here is whether GST revenues will eventually exceed the revenue sources which the GST replaces –FID, stamp duties on marketable securities, bed taxes, debits tax (from 2005), gambling taxes, FAGs and RRPs. The available published forward GST revenue estimates are presented in Table 2 above. Table 11 summarises the overall impact of the IGA, including the transitional arrangements, on the States. TABLE 11 GST REVENUES AND GUARANTEED MINIMUM AMOUNTS (in million of dollars) 2000-01 GST revenue less Guaranteed Minimum Amount All States (1) -2957.5 2001-02 -2443.6 0.0 2002-03 -1547.4 85.4 2003-04 -804.4 239.3 2004-05 66.7 544.4 2005-06 -174.4 426.5 2006-07 633.5 801.1 1622.6 1622.6 2007-08 Source: Table 8. Total impact on the States post-guarantee All States (2) 0.0 125 Commission on Fiscal Imbalance Column (1) indicates that GST revenues accruing to the States as a whole are not forecast to exceed total Guaranteed Minimum Amounts until the financial year 2006-07. While the net figure is forecast to be briefly positive in 2004-05 it slides back into deficit in the following year as a result of the abolition in that year of the debits tax. Column (2) shows that, as a result of budget balancing assistance payments, the States are fully compensated up to 2001-02 and, in total, move into increasing surplus from 2002-03. Table 12 presents details of the distribution of the All State surplus between the individual States. TABLE 12 THE DISTRIBUTION OF GST REVENUE BENEFITS DURING THE TRANSITION PERIOD NSW First year of excess GST revenue Total undiscounted benefit to 2007-08 ($m) Percentage of total undiscounted benefit Vic Qld WA SA Tas ACT NT All States 2007-08 2007-08 2002-03 2004-05 2006-07 2006-07 2004-05 2004-05 n.a. 114.0 195.2 2172.6 671.1 173.6 62.7 105.7 224.4 3719.3 3.1 5.2 58.4 18.0 4.7 1.7 2.8 6.0 100.0 Present value (2000-01) of future benefits ($m) Percentage of total present value 71.5 122.5 1513.3 445.8 110.5 39.9 70.1 145.9 2519.5 2.8 4.9 60.1 17.7 4.4 1.6 2.8 5.8 100.0 Present value per capita ($) 10.9 25.5 421.5 233.6 72.7 83.7 222.2 737.1 130.1 Sources: Table 3.8 and Budget Paper No. 3 1999-2000, Table 1. Notes: n.a. denotes not applicable. Present values calculated using a discount rate of 6%. It is clear from Table 12 that the period of time during which States need to wait before experiencing GST net revenue benefits varies substantially between States. NSW and Victoria experience revenue gains for the first time in 2007-08, but Queensland needs only to wait until 2002-03. This arises from the combined effects of three influences: ♦ ♦ ♦ GST revenue is from the start to be distributed on fiscal equalisation principles; If a State’s GST revenue assessment exceeds its GMA, the State keeps the excess, even if other States are still in deficit; and Some States apply much lower tax rates than others to State tax bases which are affected by the IGA. Thus, even in per capita terms, they are forgoing less revenue from the reduced or abolished taxes. It is not possible to present a sim...
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Ask a homework question - tutors are online