commission on fiscal imbalance 合集

The march 2000 press release however did not produce

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: ent) 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 Source: Costello (2000), page 9; Budget Paper No. 3, 2000-01, Table 5; and Budget Paper No.3, 2001-02, Tables 5 and 6. The original agreement specified that it would be necessary for the Commonwealth to top up funds to the States’ Guaranteed Minimum Amounts for a relatively short period of time, up to June 2003. However, the Democrat Amendments now mean that budget balancing assistance is predicted to be necessary up to June 2007, although not for all States. For Queensland, the GST revenue is predicted to exceed the GMA from 2002-3. For Western Australia, the ACT and the Northern Territory GMAs will be exceeded in 2004-5. For South Australia and Tasmania GMAs are exceeded in 2006-7, while in NSW and Victoria they are not exceeded until 2007-8. Forecasts of GST revenue and of the level of GMAs for the period up to and including 2003-04 are published in the 2000-01 Budget Papers, but no breakdown is available for the post 2003-04 estimates contained in Costello (2000) and reproduced in Table 8. Nor has any information been published concerning the composition, in years after 2000-01, of GMAs (particularly forgone State revenues, RRPs and FAGs). Thus it is not possible to comment on the estimated size of these GMAs, even though their levels are crucial to the financial outcomes of the States. The original document A New Tax System (ANTS, Costello 1998) did provide some longer term forward estimates but the Democrat Amendments rendered these forward estimates largely invalid. However, it is possible to use these original estimates as a basis for the production of some more up-to-date forecasts. Costello (1998, page 103) presented a summary of the revenue and outlay impacts of the IGA on the States and Territories for the year 2000-01 to 2002-03 inclusive. The March 2000 press release, however, did not produce such forward estimates. Table 9 presents this author’s own attempt to provide revised estimates in the light of the information provided in Costello (2000) and subsequent budget documents. 122 Commission on Fiscal Imbalance TABLE 9 ESTIMATED IMPACT OF THE IGA ON THE STATES AND TERRITORIES (in billion of dollars) 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 24.18 0.10 24.28 27.48 0.14 27.62 28.87 0.21 29.08 -1.21 0.00 0.00 -0.08 -6.63 -7.92 -1.37 -1.20 -0.68 -0.08 -7.36 -10.69 -1.43 -1.46 -0.75 -0.05 -7.54 -11.24 -18.02 3.00 -15.02 -18.73 2.44 -16.29 -19.23 1.63 -17.60 -1.00 0.45 0.45 -1.00 -1.10 -1.00 0.48 0.52 -0.52 -0.52 -0.80 0.50 0.59 -0.34 -0.05 0.24 0.12 0.20 Increases in Revenue GST revenue Growth dividend - States' share Total Reductions in Revenues Reduced gambling taxes Abolition of FID/debits tax Abolition of business stamp duties Abolition of accommodation taxes Abolition of business franchise fee replacement taxes Total Changes in Other Payments to the States Abolition of FAGs Commonwealth grants to balance State budgets Total Changes in Outlays First Home Owners' Scheme Reduced costs to government from indirect tax reform State rebates for off-road...
View Full Document

Ask a homework question - tutors are online