Ending the Churn: A Tax/Welfare Swap

John Humphreys
07 October 2009 | PM100
Ending the Churn: A Tax/Welfare Swap

The Australian welfare system—including health, education and handouts—costs more than $250 billion per year. Some of this is redistribution from the relatively rich to the relatively poor.

However, about half of the welfare is pointless ‘churn,’ where the same person both pays taxes and receives welfare benefits.

Some of this churn is ‘cash churn’ where people both pay tax and receive cash from the government. But the bigger problem is ‘services churn’ where middle- and high-income earners pay tax and receive government-subsidised health and schooling services.

By removing middle-class welfare in exchange for income tax cuts, the government could reduce tax and welfare by about $80 billion without leaving anybody worse off.

At first, churn may seem benign. After all, the benefit ends up with the person who paid the tax, so all is well that ends well. But the costs add up. The direct economic costs include administration, compliance and efficiency costs. The non-economic costs include lower self-esteem and individual responsibility, political rent-seeking and lack of transparency.

However, the biggest arguments against churn are the dynamic costs. Put simply, the current welfare system is unsustainable. Within 40 years, the government will need to massively increase tax, drastically cut services, or reform the system.

By keeping the welfare state for low-income earners but cutting welfare and tax for middle- and high-income earners, the government can create a sustainable welfare system as well as reap the economic and non-economic benefits of less churn.

The easiest way to achieve this is to means-test government benefits, including health and school benefits, and to link the means-test to an increase in the income tax free threshold to ensure that no family is worse off. High-income families would then be responsible for paying for their own health and schooling costs, but they would now be able to afford these costs because they would have ‘saved’ thousands in taxes not paid.

There are many areas of government policy that involve difficult trade-offs between competing goals. Political debates rage about whether we should sacrifice some freedom for security or whether we should trade some efficiency for greater equality. But removing churn does not involve any difficult trade-off. Removing the tax-welfare churn for middle- and high-income families produces economic, non-economic, and dynamic benefits while leaving no family worse off.

John Humphreys is a Research Fellow with the Economics Programme at the CIS. He previously worked as a policy analyst for the Commonwealth Treasury and as a consultant for the Centre for International Economics. He is also the Director of the Human Capital Project, a non-profit that provides financing to Cambodian university students.

Latest Publications

The Kinship Conundrum: The Impact of Aboriginal Self-Determination on Indigenous Child Protection
Jeremy Sammut
08 December 2014 | PM144

This report argues that mainstreaming revolution in Indigenous policy should be extended to Indigenous child protection policy, and that Aboriginal exceptionalism—typified by the operation of Aboriginal Child Placement Principle (ACPP)—must cease. To help ‘Close the Gap’ in social outcomes between Indigenous and other Australians, Indigenous and non-Indigenous children should be treated the same, including by using adoption (or permanent guardianship)…

An Ounce of Prevention? A Toolkit for Evaluating Preventive Health Measures
Helen Andrews
26 November 2014 | PM143

Preventive health is a broad umbrella that includes such disparate services as vaccines for schoolchildren, blood pressure screenings, ad campaigns to discourage binge drinking, and special taxes on tobacco products. What all these programs have in common is an intention to spend money now in order to save money later—catching costly health problems before they arise or when they are…

Regulating for Quality in Childcare: The Evidence Base
Trisha Jha
05 November 2014 | PM142

The National Quality Agenda (NQA) endorsed by all states and territories in 2009 regulates childcare systems across Australia. It mandates increased minimum standards in various aspects provision of care and a ratings system with the goal of improving quality. The NQA mandates substantial and costly reforms to staff-to-child ratios and carer qualifications of care. This report details that the costs…

Complex Family Payments: What it Costs the Village to Raise a Child
Trisha Jha
06 August 2014 | PM141

In 2013–14, $32 billion was spent on family payments, amounting to 7.7% of total federal expenditure in that year, and 22% of total federal spending on social security and welfare. Family Tax Benefits (FTB) and child care fee assistance are the two areas in which spending is the most significant and, in the case of child care assistance, the most…

Lessons from Singapore: Opt-Out Health Savings Accounts for Australia
David Gadiel, Jeremy Sammut
28 July 2014 | PM140

Singapore’s distinctive health funding and service provision arrangements have delivered comparable First World standards of care and health outcomes at much lower cost. A new vision for funding health in Australia based on the Singapore model could be achieved by applying the principle of choice for those who wish for an alternative to Australia’s taxpayer-funded, universal health care system. This…