Pfizer from Poland directed to young super spreaders

Michelle Grattan, University of CanberraPeople aged 20-39, who were identified by the Doherty Institute modelling as super spreaders of COVID, will be targeted for the one million Pfizer doses the Morrison government has purchased from Poland.

Of these, 530,000 doses will be sent urgently to a dozen Sydney local government areas, where the outbreak remains out of control. They will start being administered in state clinics this week, Scott Morrison said.

He said the allocation to NSW “will give everyone aged 20 to 39 years in the 12 LGAs the opportunity to be vaccinated”.

The Doherty modelling said: “As supply allows, extending vaccinations for adults under 40 years offers the greatest potential to reduce transmission now that a high proportion of vulnerable Australians are vaccinated”.

When the modelling was recently released Professor Jodie McVernon, Director of Epidemiology at the Doherty Institute, said the 20 to 39 year olds were “the peak spreaders” of the virus.

“They will bring COVID home to their children, they will take it home to their own parents, and this is the group now where we’re proposing the reorientation of the strategy,” she said.

In the heartland of the Sydney outbreak many of this age group are necessarily mobile because they are in essential jobs and unable to work from home.

Sunday saw 415 new locally acquired NSW cases announced and four deaths. Late Saturday the state government locked down the whole of regional NSW. Victoria recorded 25 new cases and the ACT two, in Sunday’s announcements.

NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian said:“The experience of Delta is that no other jurisdiction has been able to eliminate it. It’s not possible to eliminate it completely. We have to learn to live with it. But the best chance we have to live with it freely and safely is to get the case numbers down as low as possible.”

A particular concern is the spread of the disease into regional areas of NSW where there are vulnerable Indigenous populations.

The Pfizer doses from Poland were set to begin landing in Australia on Sunday night.

The rest of the vaccines will be distributed on a per capita basis to other parts of the country, to accelerate the vaccination of the under 40s and high risk groups.

“Within days of landing in Australia, these extra Pfizer doses will be available to go into the arms of young Australians in our hardest hit COVID hot-spots,” Morrison said.

“These young Australians are often the backbone of our essential workforce and these doses will not only protect them, but their loved ones, their state and our nation.”

He thanked Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki and the Polish government “for their generous support of Australia’s COVID-19 response, during this challenging time”.

The vaccines were produced at Pfizer’s Belgium facility.

The federal government has been pulling out all stops internationally to try to get more Pfizer.

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The next employment challenge from coronavirus: how to help the young

Icons8 Team on Unsplash, CC BY-NC

Jeff Borland, University of Melbourne

Even before COVID-19, young Australians were doing it hard in the labour market.

Slower economic growth and the increasing employment of older Australians since the global financial crisis had been crowding them out.

In recent research Michael Coelli and I estimate that crowding out reduced the proportion of young Australians aged 15 to 24 years in employment by 4 to 5 percentage points since the global financial crisis.

As a result, more young people have become long-term unemployed or have had to gain full-time work through part-time work. And many of those who have found work have needed to spend extra time and resources (doing things such as unpaid internships) to get it.

Now, young Australians are going to be hardest hit by the COVID-19 recession.

Partly this is because the young are always hardest hit during economic downturns – needing to make the transition from education to work at a time when there are few new jobs on offer.

Young Australians are still reeling from the GFC

Look at what happened after the global financial crisis.

The chart below uses data from the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia survey to show changes in employment to population ratios over time compared to 2008, which was the start of the global financial crisis.

The proportion of the population aged 25 to 54 years in employment fell for several years before bouncing back.

But the decline in the proportion of young who were employed was much larger – almost double the size – and took longer to reverse.

Young Australians went into the global financial crisis doing increasingly better than older Australians and came out of it doing increasingly worse.

---

Change in employment-to-population ratio, by age group

Percentage change from ratio in 2008.
HILDA

---

COVID-19 should be worse

This crisis brings brings with it extra reasons to believe young will be hard hit.

First, a sizable group of older workers are likely to delay retirement to rebuild their superannuation balances. This will make it even harder for young jobseekers to find jobs.

Second, the young account for a disproportionate share of workers in industries being most affected by COVID-19 shutdowns, such as hospitality and retail trade.

Third, the young are also a large proportion of casual employees who have been in their jobs for less than 12 months.

That means they will not be eligible for the JobKeeper payment, making them more likely to be laid off and less likely to be rehired than workers who are.

---

Read more:
JobKeeper payment: how will it work, who will miss out and how to get it?

---

Worryingly, the disadvantaged young are likely to be the hardest hit of all.

To see this, we can again draw on experience from the financial crisis.

The chart below presents the same information on changes in the employment/population ratio as the chart above – this time for groups within the 20 to 24 age group.

Those with bachelor’s degrees were largely unaffected.

Those who were in full-time study at the time suffered a drop in employment, but recovered after a decade.

But those not in full-time study and who do not have a bachelor’s degree saw a massive fall in their likelihood of employment of 11 percentage points, which has only partly been reversed.

---

Change in employment-to-population ratio, 20 to 24 year olds

Percentage change from ratio in 2008.
HILDA

---

Why should we worry about the impact on the young?

We should worry about the impact on the young because it matters for equity today, but also for the long-term consequences.

We know that what happens to people at the start of their time in the labour market will affect what happens to them in the rest of their working lives.

Many international studies have shown that trying to move into employment during a major economic downturn cuts the probability of employment and future earnings for a decade or more.

Why this occurs is less well-established. Reasons suggested include being forced to take lower quality jobs, losing skills and losing psychological well being.

---

Read more:
What we missed while we looked away — the growth of long‐term unemployment

---

The best way to improve the outlook for young Australians is to get back to high rates of job creation as quickly as possible. It is what the government is trying to achieve by keeping jobs open through JobKeeper and other initiatives.

In the meantime, there is a pressing case for programs targeted at the young to improve their prospects of employment when the economy recovers.

Priority should be given to the low skilled and long-term unemployed.

Recommendations made by the Employment Services Expert Advisory Panel on enhanced services to assist job seekers with high barriers to employment would be a good place to start.

New graduates are in great danger

Something also needs to be done for the many young people who will graduate over the next 12 months.

To prevent them having a spell of unemployment, they could be encouraged to undertake further study – with a holiday from Higher Education Loans Scheme loans
and free TAFE courses for 2021.

Allowing young people to build and maintain contact with the labour market through scaled-up and government-funded paid internship programs would be a further valuable step, although its implementation would need to be timed to match the economic recovery.

Jeff Borland, Professor of Economics, University of Melbourne

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Young Australians champion ‘democracy’ and ‘freedom’ in designing constitutional change

Many high school students are politically engaged. But how would they change the preamble to the Constitution?
AAP/Lukas Coch

Benjamin T. Jones, CQUniversity Australia and John Warhurst, Australian National University

When the Australian constitution was written in the 1890s, the authors did not envision an independent nation, but a self-governing dominion of the British empire. As such, the preamble does not contain flowery language about national values. Instead it is a dry, legalistic introduction simply noting that some of her majesty’s “possessions” have federated. One unsuccessful attempt to change it was made in a 1999 referendum.

In March 2019, 120 high school students from around Australia met in Canberra for the 24th National Schools Constitutional Convention. Their mission was to write a new preamble, with the authors of this article serving as facilitators. Over two days of lively debate, sometimes heated but always civil, a final version was drafted.

In a referendum-style vote, a majority of students and a majority from each state ratified the preamble (83 “yes”, 34 “no”, two voted informal, one abstained). The students’ preamble was presented to the federal Senate on April 2 and entered into Hansard.

The referendum result.

The students’ preamble

We the Australian people, united as an indissoluble Commonwealth, commit ourselves to the principles of equality, democracy and freedom for all and pledge to uphold the following values that define our nation.

We stand alongside the traditional custodians of the land and recognise the significance of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures in shaping the Australian identity, their sovereignty was never ceded.

As a nation and indeed community, we are united under the common goal to create a society catered to all, regardless of heritage or identity.

We pledge to champion individual freedom and honour those who have served and continue to serve our nation.

As Australians, we stand for the pursuit of a democratic state that upholds the fundamental principles of human values as set out by this Constitution.

The student’s preamble differs enormously from the one written in the 19th century. It is noteworthy that it includes the words “democratic” and “freedom” twice – neither are in the current preamble or the constitution. From the students’ preamble, three elements emerge that young people want to see enshrined.

Acknowledging First Nations

During the debates, the most contested issue was whether to explicitly recognise First Nations people and if so, how. Ultimately, the students, including a representative group of Indigenous students, voted strongly in favour of constitutional recognition. In particular, the phrase “sovereignty was never ceded” is significant.

It is a rallying cry for many First Nations people and a rejection of assimilation. Indigenous Australians are still fighting for self-determination and the right to be heard. The Voice to Parliament put forward by the Uluru Statement is still being debated. Constitutional recognition that sovereignty was never ceded is a more radical proposal. It suggests that Indigenous justice is important to young Australians.

Egalitarianism is still key

The egalitarian ideal has a long history in Australia. The concept of the “fair go” is mythical in one sense, but a cherished part of the collective imagination.

The first line of the students’ preamble commits the nation to the principle of equality. The third line stresses the importance of a “society catered to all”.

Although not explicitly stated, the word “identity” suggests the LGBT community was in mind. Young Australians overwhelmingly supported the same-sex marriage plebiscite in 2017. The government is currently considering new religious freedom laws in response to the sacking of Israel Folau by Rugby Australia.

It is significant, then, that young Australians place such value on society being catered for all, “regardless of heritage or identity”.

Values matter

What permeates through the students’ preamble is the message that values matter. Unlike the original constitutional writers, young people want their preamble to be a mission statement that articulates the “values that uphold the nation”. The trident of “equality, democracy and freedom” are highlighted.

The preamble also notes the twin priorities of a free state that sit together though sometimes in tension. As the third line notes, Australia is a “nation and indeed community”. But the fourth line tempers this with a commitment to “champion individual freedom”. The ideal democratic state for these young Australians places value on both the individual and the collective.

Dr Benjamin T Jones addresses the convention.

Time for change?

At the 1999 referendum, Prime Minister John Howard, despite being against a republic, campaigned in favour of a new preamble. The one he and republican Les Murray authored did not gain much popularity. But it is significant that even an ardent monarchist like Howard was convinced the preamble needed to be updated.

The authors of the students’ preamble were mainly in Year 11 and too young to vote in the May election. Nevertheless, they are thoughtful, intelligent citizens and the future of our democracy. Their voice is worth listening to.

Benjamin T. Jones, Lecturer in History, CQUniversity Australia and John Warhurst, Emeritus Professor of Political Science, Australian National University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The budget super change that helps the wealthy at the expense of the young

If your’re wealthy you’ll be able to put more money into super without even working.
Shutterstock

Brendan Coates, Grattan Institute

Another federal budget, and yet more tinkering to superannuation tax breaks. But the latest changes will only help older wealthier Australians. The losers are younger workers and taxpayers.

What’s the plan?

From July 1 2020, Australians aged 65 and 66 will be able to make voluntary pre- and post-tax superannuation contributions without having to pass the Work Test, under which they are required to work a minimum of 40 hours over a 30-day period.

About 55,000 Australians aged 65 and 66 will benefit from these changes at a cost of A$75 million over the next four years.

It’s another boost for tax planning

Treasurer Josh Frydenberg says the changes will help Australians save for their retirement.

But most 65- and 66-year-olds still working to top up their superannuation are already eligible to make voluntary super contributions, because they satisfy the Work Test. Working 40 hours over a 30-day period – or little more than one day each week – is hardly onerous.

For every dollar contributed to super that genuinely helps Australians save more for their retirement as a result of these changes, there will be many more dollars funnelled into super to make extra use of superannuation tax concessions.

The biggest winners will be wealthier retired 65- and 66-year-olds with other sources of income, such as from shares or property, which they will now be able to recycle through superannuation.

---

Read more:
View from The Hill: budget tax-upmanship as we head towards polling day

---

They will be able to put up to $25,000 into super from their pre-tax income and then – because super withdrawals are tax-free – take the money back out immediately. Their contributions to super are taxed at only 15%, whereas ordinary dividends or bank interest is taxed at their marginal tax rate. The tax savings can be as high as $5,000 a year.

Such strategies aren’t costless: other taxpayers must pay more, or accept fewer services, to make up the difference.

It will mean larger inheritances

The government is also allowing 65- and 66-year-olds to make three years’ worth of post-tax super contributions, or up to $300,000, in a single year.

These changes will mainly boost inheritances.

Most people who make after-tax contributions already have large super balances and typically contribute from existing pools of savings to minimise their tax.

Grattan Institute’s 2016 report, A Better Super System, found that only about 1% of taxpayers have total super account balances of more than $1 million, yet this tiny cohort makes almost one-third of all post-tax contributions.

These changes will turbo-charge so-called “recontribution strategies” that minimise the tax paid on superannuation fund balances passed on as inheritances. When inherited, super fund balances originally funded by pre-tax contributions can be taxed at 17% (including the Medicare levy), depending on the age of the deceased and the beneficiary.

To avoid this tax on their estate, individuals can withdraw superannuation funds tax-free and contribute them back as a post-tax contribution, up to the annual post-tax contributions cap of $100,000 each year.

It fails the government’s own test

In 2016, the government tried – but failed – to define the purpose of superannuation as providing “income in retirement to supplement or substitute the Age Pension”.

The proposed objective rightly implied that super should not aim to provide limitless support for savings that increase retirement incomes.

The benefits of super changes should always be balanced against the costs of achieving them. The government’s latest changes fail that test.

---

Read more:
Expect a budget that breaks the intergenerational bargain, like the one before it, and before that

---

Brendan Coates, Fellow, Grattan Institute

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Young voters may hold the key to the NSW state election: here’s why

Students march through the University of NSW in Sydney calling on the university to divest from fossil fuels.
AAP/Danny Casey

Philippa Collin, Western Sydney University

Young Australians are more connected, educated and informed than previous generations. They are also more likely to have higher debt and less economic independence into their 30s. Many feel excluded from traditional politics and policy making and are turning to local action and global issues to express their political views.

Young people are also swing voters who have had a significant, but unrecognised, effect on the outcomes of elections since the mid 1990s. In NSW, there are 1.34 million voters aged 18-35 – 25% of all electors. This is a record high number following a 2017 surge in national enrolment when 65,000 new young voters registered in the lead up to the same-sex marriage poll. There are now 140,000 more 18-24-year-old voters than 1.5 years ago.

---

Read more:
Many young people aren’t enrolled to vote – but are we asking them the wrong question?

---

In general, young voters are socially progressive and action-oriented. They are not rusted on to party politics and they want to see leadership on issues. In close elections, like this year’s NSW state poll, winning the youth vote will be key to winning government – especially in marginal seats.

For example, in the 2015 election, Coogee was won by less than 2,500 votes – equivalent to half of the 20-24-year-olds in that electorate. So the issues that matter to young people should matter to NSW electoral candidates.

What matters to young people in NSW?

Safety at entertainment events and school strikes on climate change have already tested the Coalition government’s responses to young people and their concerns. Yet, the diverse experiences and needs of young people still aren’t reflected by political parties. Key issues that matter to young people in the NSW election include:

Heath and mental health

In NSW, mental health is the top priority issue for those aged 15-19. The most frightening aspect of mental health for young people is the growing rate of youth suicide, and 45% of all young people who died by suicide in 2016 were from NSW.

Around two-thirds of young Australians who need help don’t get it. In consultations with more than 4,000 children and young people, the NSW Advocate for Children and Young People identified access to health and mental health services and support as a major concern. Young people want the government to ensure there is appropriate help, when they need it – including after hours.

They also want governments to address the “causes of the causes” of poor health and mental health – such as poverty, inequality and violence.

Unemployment

Finding work is becoming more difficult for young Australians. With one in three young people unemployed or underemployed, young people are not benefiting from economic or job growth in the state. The youth unemployment rate is more than twice Australia’s overall unemployment rate and in NSW, 84,900 young people are not in paid work. Despite 60% of young Australians achieving post school qualifications, half of Australia’s 25-year-olds are unable to secure full-time employment.

---

Read more:
High youth unemployment can’t be blamed on wages

---

Housing affordability

As more young people are pushed into perpetual and unaffordable renting because they cannot afford to buy a home, and with the increasing number of youth experiencing homelessness, housing affordability is a clear election priority. The relative cost of purchasing a house in 2016 was four times what it was in 1975, with more than 50% of young people under 24 experiencing housing stress.

For young people in Western Sydney, the situation is especially acute. Rents can be 35-60% of average weekly wages for people over the age of 15. Of immediate concern is the massive increase in youth homelessness over the last decade by 92%. There were 9,048 homeless young people in NSW in 2016: more than in any other state.

Climate change

Climate change remains a key concern for young people: it is one of the top three issues identified by young people for the 2016 election. In 2017, a United Nations Youth Representative Report listed it as the number one concern.

Since then, young people have been calling for politicians to take meaningful action on climate change, spurring a world-wide movement “school strike 4 climate” for which many will demonstrate at an estimated 50 sites around Australia on March 15. Young people have the most at stake when it comes to climate change and they are holding the government to account. Climate change will be a deciding issue until there is clear action made by state and federal governments.

Education

The rising cost of VET, TAFE and university fees, compounded by insecure work and the high cost of living, are making educational access increasingly unequal for young people across NSW.

Young people want education to be free or more affordable, to ensure that everyone has access to a well-funded and relevant education system, according to a survey of 3,400 young people done by Youth Action in 2018.

Young people, especially those from rural and remote areas, those with a disability, and those from low SES backgrounds continue to face disproportionate challenges in our state education system.

Beyond the election

Young people won’t be won over by small, short term measures. Candidates and parties must be genuine, honest, consistent and lead on the key issues that matter to young people. To gain and retain their votes, politicians need to deliver and meaningfully engage with young people in the long term. Much like a Minister for Ageing (which NSW has), a Minister for Youth would ensure this consistently across government.

---

Read more:
How to engage youth in making policies that work for us all

---

In all their diversity, young people care about issues and they want to be involved. Adding their voices and votes to solving big policy problems in NSW will have a beneficial flow-on effect for the rest of society. In extensive consultations by the NSW Advocate for Children and Young People and for Youth Action’s 2019 Election Platform young people have clearly articulated what needs to happen to create a better society for their peers and deliver benefits to the wider community.

Candidates in the upcoming election would be wise to heed and act on the priorities of young people who will be voting in March – and for many decades to come. If you don’t secure their vote, someone else will.

This article was co-authored with Katie Acheson (CEO, Youth Action)

Philippa Collin, Associate Professor, Institute for Culture and Society, Western Sydney University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

What’s behind the increase in bowel cancer among younger Australians?

Bowel cancer was the second most commonly diagnosed cancer in Australia in 2017.
from shutterstock.com

Suzanne Mahady, Monash University; Eleonora Feletto, Cancer Council NSW, and Karen Canfell, UNSW

Bowel cancer mostly affects people over the age of 50, but recent evidence suggests it’s on the rise among younger Australians.

Our study, published recently in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention, found the incidence of bowel cancer, which includes colon and rectal cancer, has increased by up to 9% in people under 50 from the 1990s until now.

Our research examined all recorded cases of bowel cancer from the past 40 years in Australians aged 20 and over. Previous studies assessing bowel cancer incidence in young Australians have also documented an increase in the younger age group.

---

Read more:
Interactive body map: what really gives you cancer?

---

Bowel cancer includes cancer of the colon and rectum.
Wikimedia Commons

This trend is also being seen internationally. A study from the United States suggests an increase in bowel cancer incidence in people aged 54 and younger. The research shows rectal cancer incidence increased by 3.2% annually from 1974 to 2013 among those aged age 20-29.

Bowel cancers are predicted to be the third most commonly diagnosed cancer in Australia this year. In 2018, Australians have a one in 13 chance of being diagnosed with bowel cancer by their 85th birthday.

Our study also found bowel cancer incidence is falling in older Australians. This is likely, in part, to reflect the efficacy of the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program, targeted at those aged 50-74. Bowel cancer screening acts to reduce cancer incidence, by detecting and removing precancerous lesions, as well as reducing mortality by detecting existing cancers early.

This is important, as bowel cancer has a good cure rate if discovered early. In 2010 to 2014, a person diagnosed with bowel cancer had a nearly 70% chance of surviving the next five years. Survival is more than 90% for people who have bowel cancer detected at an early stage.

That is why screening is so effective – and we have previously predicted that if coverage rates in the National Bowel Screening Program can be increased to 60%, around 84,000 lives could be saved by 2040. This would represent an extraordinary success. In fact, bowel screening has potential to be one of the greatest public health successes ever achieved in Australia.

Why the increase in young people?

Our study wasn’t designed to identify why bowel cancer is increasing among young people. However, there are some factors that could underpin our findings.

The increase in obesity parallels that of bowel cancer, and large population based studies have linked obesity to increased cancer risk.

---

Read more:
How obesity causes cancer, and may make screening and treatment harder

---

Unhealthy lifestyle behaviours, such as increased intake of highly processed foods (including meats), have also been associated with increased bowel cancer risk. High quality studies are needed to explore this role further.

Alcohol is also thought to be a contributor to increasing the risk of bowel cancer.

Alcohol is thought to contribute to an increased risk of bowel cancer.
from shutterstock.com

So, should we be lowering the screening age in Australia to people under the age of 50?

Evaluating a cancer screening program for the general population requires a careful analysis of the potential benefits, harms, and costs.

A recent Australian study modelled the trade-offs of lowering the screening age to 45. It showed more cancers would potentially be detected. But there would also be more colonoscopy-related harms such as perforation (tearing) in an extremely small proportion of people who require further evaluation after screening.

A lower screening age would also increase the number of colonoscopies to be performed in the overstretched public health system and therefore could have the unintended consequence of lengthening colonoscopy waiting times for people at high risk.

---

Read more:
Needless procedures: when is a colonoscopy necessary?

---

How to reduce bowel cancer risk

One of the most common symptoms of bowel cancer is rectal bleeding. So if you notice blood when you go to the toilet, see your doctor to have it checked out.

A healthy lifestyle including adequate exercise, avoiding smoking, limiting alcohol intake and eating well, remains most important to reducing cancer risk.

Aspirin may also lower risk of cancer, but should be discussed with your doctor because of the potential for side effects including major bleeding.

Most importantly, we need to ensure eligible Australians participate in the current evidence-based screening program. Only 41% of the population in the target 50-74 age range completed their poo tests in 2015-2016. The test is free, delivered by post and able to be self-administered.

Suzanne Mahady, Gastroenterologist & Clinical Epidemiologist, Senior Lecturer, Monash University; Eleonora Feletto, Research fellow, Cancer Council NSW, and Karen Canfell, Adjunct professor, UNSW

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Young Australians will wear the costs of Turnbull’s middle income tax cut

Danielle Wood, Grattan Institute and Hugh Parsonage, Grattan Institute

Malcom Turnbull has promised tax cuts for middle-income earners in the next budget or even earlier. The short-term political benefits of pre-election tax cuts are not in doubt. But unless the government is willing to increase taxes elsewhere to pay for these sweeteners, there will be longer-term costs for the budget and the economy. And younger Australians will wear these costs.

Young people will pay the price

If the government goes ahead with tax cuts and nothing else changes, we can look forward to the announcement in the 2021 budget of Australia’s 13th successive budget deficit. This is despite the fact Australia is in the midst of the longest period of uninterrupted economic growth anywhere in the developed world. And the unlucky recipients of this legacy of poor budget management are the young.

Grattan Institute research shows that each year the government runs a A$40 billion deficit, it increases the lifetime tax burden for households headed by a person aged 25 to 34 by A$10,000. This is based on the share of debt they would have to repay – with interest – over time. With each successive budget deficit, the tab grows for today’s young Australians.

And the government is magnifying the cost of future economic downturns. Australia was well placed to respond to the global financial crisis because of its healthy fiscal position. But with net debt now sitting at A$322 billion (18.4% of GDP), the government has less room to respond if there is another serious downturn.

Middle-income earners are hit by bracket creep

In the 2017-18 budget, the government was clear: if the senate won’t support spending cuts, then tax increases will have to do the “heavy lifting” on budget repair. And this heavy lifting is largely happening through bracket creep – growth in income taxes as a share of wages.

Middle-income earners are particularly hurt by bracket creep. Based on the wages growth projected in the 2017 budget, the average tax rates for people in middle-income groups will increase by between 1.9 and 2.9 percentage points by 2021. For example, a person earning A$50,000 a year will go from paying an average tax rate of 17.1% in 2017 to 19.5 % in 2021 – and that’s before the government’s proposed increase in the Medicare levy.

https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/Bo9GS/2/

No government likes to go to an election with taxes going up, so the temptation to “give back” bracket creep was always going to prove irresistible in next year’s pre-election budget. And as the prime minister flagged, there is also an economic case for such tax cuts. High marginal tax rates for middle income earners can significantly affect incentives to participate in the workforce, particularly for for women with children in childcare.

Tax cuts will blow the surplus

But the kicker is the effect of the promised tax cuts on the budget bottom line. The Australian government has been running budget deficits since 2009. In the last budget, the treasurer promised a return to surplus in 2021.

That promised surplus always relied on optimistic assumptions: strong wages growth, healthy growth in profits, government spending restraint, and, importantly, no cuts to income taxes. The government’s proposal is light on details, but even modest cuts to tax rates could eliminate the forecast surplus.

For example, if the government was to reduce the tax rate only in the middle bracket (A$37,000-$80,000) from 32.5% to 30%, the cost to the budget bottom line would be about A$7.3 billion in 2021, almost wiping out the promised A$7.8 billion surplus.

https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/BTw0Z/1/

If Malcolm Turnbull wants to cut income taxes but is still serious about delivering on his commitment to return the budget to surplus, then he will need to look elsewhere for revenue. Winding back the capital gains tax discount or negative gearing, better targeting of superannuation tax concessions and tax breaks for older Australians, or increasing or broadening the GST are just a few policies we could suggest.

But if the PM pursues the sugar hit of tax cuts without the difficult work on paying for them, then politics will once again have trumped policy and the economic future of today’s young Australians.

Danielle Wood, Program Director, Budget Policy and Institutions, Grattan Institute and Hugh Parsonage, Associate, Grattan Institute

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Can 130,000 online supporters get this young woman access to life extending drugs?

Syrian Atrocity

The link below is to an article reporting on the terrible treatment of a young woman in Syria by an Islamist group known as ‘Jabhat al-Nusra.’

For more visit:
http://www.fides.org/en/news/33906-ASIA_SYRIA_Rape_and_atrocities_on_a_young_Christian_in_Qusair

Pakistan & Canada: Persecution News Update

The link below is to an article reporting on persecution news from Pakistan and how a young girl has now found peace in Canada.

For more visit:
http://www.worldwatchmonitor.org/2013/06/article_2587134.html/