Business Daily Media

What will the fuel excise cut save you? Not as much as the Treasurer says

  • Written by John Hawkins, Senior Lecturer, Canberra School of Politics, Economics and Society and NATSEM, University of Canberra
What will the fuel excise cut save you? Not as much as the Treasurer says

As an appeal to middle Australia, to the voters politicians routinely describe as working families or battlers, the Morrison government’s centrepiece budget move[1] to halve the fuel excise for six months has obvious attractions.

“A family with two cars who fill up once a week could save around $30 a week or around $700 over the next six months,” declared Treasurer Josh Frydenberg on budget night[2], a point he’s repeated many times since[3].

But our calculations show most households, particularly those on lower incomes, won’t gain anything near the amount touted by Frydenberg.

At a cost of about $3 billion, cutting 22 cents in tax from every litre of petrol for six months will disproportionately help wealthy households. The economic gain is doubtful. Depending on what happens with the global oil prices, it may even contribute to inflationary pressures.

Who benefits most?

We’ve calculated the effects of the fuel excise cut on household budgets using a computer model[4] developed by the National Centre For Social And Economic Modelling[5].

Our results show the six-month cut to the fuel excise will save the average household in inner-urban areas of Sydney and Melbourne about $132. The average households in outer suburbs will save about $242. Those in the outer suburbs of smaller cities will save less as they need to drive shorter distances. The average household in rural and remote areas will save $194.

Author provided/The Conversation, CC BY-ND[6] These amounts reflect average outcomes across all households, including those with just one vehicle, or no vehicle. It’s possible some two-car households will save the $700 cited by Frydenberg, but not many. That would require a household spending well over $10,000 a year on petrol, buying about 150 litres a week. The budget papers themselves say the cut will “deliver an average benefit of around $300 to households with at least one vehicle”. Why economists oppose the cut In The Conversation’s pre-budget survey of 46 leading economists selected by the Economic Society of Australia, not one thought cutting the fuel excise a good idea. About a third rated it among the worst possible policies. Read more: Cut emissions, not petrol tax; fund childcare, not beer. What economists want from next week's budget[7] Their reasons are the uncertain economic benefit and inconsistency with important long-term policy goals to reduce dependence on oil-based imports, lower greenhouse gas emissions and cut government debt. Frydenberg has promoted[8] the cut as anti-inflationary, reducing consumer prices by 0.25 percentage points in the June quarter. But prices will simply rise by the same amount in the December quarter. Global fuel prices may fall long before the end of six months. Last week benchmark oil prices fell 13%[9] on news the US will release more from its strategic reserves[10] as well as a truce in the long-running civil war in Yemen. The United States will be releasing a million barrels of crude oil every day for the next six months from its Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
The United States will be releasing a million barrels of crude oil every day for the next six months from its Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Eli Hartman/Odessa American/AP

If oil prices drop the government will be adding billions of dollars to the deficit for no real economic gain. It could even be adding to underlying inflationary pressures by increasing household spending, pushing the Reserve Bank to increase interest rates[11] sooner or by more.

Furthermore, while the fuel excise cut is legislated to be in place just six months, history shows governments find it hard to reverse cuts once implemented. In 2001, for example, the government of John Howard was panicked by poor opinion polls to suspend indexation of the petrol excise when prices reached $1 a litre. Indexation was not restored for 14 years, at a cost of more than $40 billion[12] in forgone tax revenue.

Well distributed?

Economists prefer targeted measures, and the problem with cutting the fuel excise is that lot of the benefit will go to sustaining the driving habits of wealthier households.

On average those in the most affluent 40% of households drive about 50% more kilometres[13] than those in the poorest 40%.

Read more: 5 maps that show why free public transport benefits the affluent most[14]

Wealthier households are more likely to have second or third cars, and to have larger cars – such as SUVs – that use more petrol. They also have the money for leisure pursuits such as weekend getaways.

A better approach would be target help to businesses that must buy fuel and to those on low incomes, such as through a cash bonus, leaving it to them to decide if they want to spend on petrol or other things.

This would also help those without a car, those who do not drive much and those with electric vehicles, who all face cost pressures as petrol prices feed into prices at the supermarket.

References

  1. ^ budget move (theconversation.com)
  2. ^ on budget night (joshfrydenberg.com.au)
  3. ^ many times since (www.abc.net.au)
  4. ^ computer model (www.sciencedirect.com)
  5. ^ National Centre For Social And Economic Modelling (www.governanceinstitute.edu.au)
  6. ^ CC BY-ND (creativecommons.org)
  7. ^ Cut emissions, not petrol tax; fund childcare, not beer. What economists want from next week's budget (theconversation.com)
  8. ^ promoted (www.theguardian.com)
  9. ^ benchmark oil prices fell 13% (www.aljazeera.com)
  10. ^ its strategic reserves (theconversation.com)
  11. ^ the Reserve Bank to increase interest rates (www.afr.com)
  12. ^ more than $40 billion (australiainstitute.org.au)
  13. ^ 50% more kilometres (www.sciencedirect.com)
  14. ^ 5 maps that show why free public transport benefits the affluent most (theconversation.com)

Authors: John Hawkins, Senior Lecturer, Canberra School of Politics, Economics and Society and NATSEM, University of Canberra

Read more https://theconversation.com/what-will-the-fuel-excise-cut-save-you-not-as-much-as-the-treasurer-says-180330

Business Reports

Six reasons why it pays to automate billing in your business

Harnessing the power of technology to improve the efficiency and accuracy of your billing process can supercharge productivity and profitability. Is your enterprise plagued by billing errors, or struggling to get invoices out...

How Sport4 is changing the way you watch sports

Forget about pay-per-view or checking the score at half time – Sport4 is changing the way Australians watch sports.  Fresh from their national debut at the Judo Australia National Championships, Sport4’s automated sports...

Advantages of Vacation Rental Management Software

The first vacation rental management software systems were launched in the early 1980s. At the time, they were majorly used by hotel owners to manage their properties online. The main functions included hotel reservations and ...

TIP Group grows; appoints new senior executives

Teaminvest Private Group Limited (ASX:TIP) has appointed two new senior executives to further accelerate the company’s growth. Timothy Wong has been appointed Head of TIP Equity (the company’s private equity division) and...

What to Look for in a Point of Sale System

When you're looking for a point of sale system for your business, there are a lot of things to consider. What type of business do you have? How many employees do you have? What features are important to you? In this blog post...

Why Roe v. Wade's demise – unlike gay rights or Ukraine – isn't getting corporate America to speak up

Many Americans reacted with outrage to the Supreme Court's decision to dismantle the constitutional right to abortion.AP Photo/Rick BowmerCorporate America – once known for carefully avoiding public stances on hot button iss...



NewsServices.com

Content & Technology Connecting Global Audiences

More Information - Less Opinion