The Effectiveness of Investment Stimulus Policies in Australia
Janine Dixon () and
Centre of Policy Studies/IMPACT Centre Working Papers from Victoria University, Centre of Policy Studies/IMPACT Centre
We present the results of three economic modelling simulations of changes to tax policy intended to stimulate investment in Australia. We begin with a comparison of a company tax cut and an investment subsidy, both unfunded and calibrated to yield equivalent Federal Government budget impacts. Our key findings (summarised below) illustrate that an investment subsidy is a more effective policy instrument for stimulating investment and improving domestic welfare: 1. With both policies calibrated to the same budgetary cost, the investment subsidy is more effective in raising the volume of investment; 2. The investment response to a company tax cut is skewed towards foreign investors, while the investment response to an investment subsidy is equitably proportioned across foreign and local investors; 3. The company tax cut induces an increase in net foreign liabilities and associated servicing costs while the investment subsidy has little long-term effect on net foreign liabilities; 4. Both policies lead to increases in gross domestic product (GDP), employment and real pre-tax wages; and 5. The impact on gross national income (GNI), an indicator of domestic material welfare, is positive for the investment subsidy but not for the company tax rate cut. In a final simulation, we revisit the investment subsidy to assess the net impact when the policy is fully funded. While many potential funding models exist, herein we assume partial funding via the denial of cash refunds of franking credits, with the remainder of the funding sourced via a small increase in economy-wide average personal income tax. We find that the investment subsidy still leads to a long-term gain in domestic welfare. When fully funded in this manner: 6. The investment response remains positive but skewed toward foreign investors; 7. Net foreign liabilities fall as a proportion of GNI; 8. The investment subsidy still returns positive results for employment, GDP and the real pre-tax wage; 9. The long-term gain in real post-tax wages is lower than in the unfunded case, but it remains positive; and 10. Fully funded, the investment subsidy still leads to a long-term gain in GNI. Based on these results, we strongly recommend that policy-makers consider an investment subsidy instead of a cut to company tax as a better value-for-money policy initiative to increase both investment and domestic material welfare.
Keywords: Company tax; investment subsidy; CGE modelling (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: H2 O16 E22 C68 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
New Economics Papers: this item is included in nep-cmp and nep-mac
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations Track citations by RSS feed
Downloads: (external link)
http://www.copsmodels.com/ftp/workpapr/g-282.pdf Initial version, 2018-04 (application/pdf)
http://www.copsmodels.com/elecpapr/g-282.htm Local abstract: may link to additional material. (text/html)
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.
Export reference: BibTeX
RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan)
Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:cop:wpaper:g-282
Access Statistics for this paper
More papers in Centre of Policy Studies/IMPACT Centre Working Papers from Victoria University, Centre of Policy Studies/IMPACT Centre Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Mark Horridge ().