Chart data

2: Australia’s tax system

Chart 2.1 Composition of Australia’s Commonwealth and State and local taxes, 2012-13

Note: Under the Australian System of Government Financial Statistics,6 royalty income is not a form of taxation and is included in the property income category along with interest income and dividends. Federal ‘Taxes on goods, services and activities’ includes the goods and services tax revenue.

Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) 2014, Taxation Revenue, Australia, 2012-13, cat. no. 5506.0, ABS, Canberra.

This chart shows that Commonwealth tax revenue was over four times higher than state and local government tax revenue in 2012-13 (the latest year of data available). Commonwealth Government taxation was largely comprised from income taxes ($242 billion out of $338 billion). State and local government taxation was comprised of property taxes ($36 billion), payroll taxes ($21 billion) and taxes on goods, services and activities ($21 billion).

Composition of Australia’s Commonwealth and State and local taxes, 2012-13
Income, labour and payroll taxes ($billion) Property taxes ($billion) Taxes on goods, services and activities ($billion) Other ($billion)
Australian Government taxes 242 0.01 86 10
State and local taxes 21 36 21 0

Chart 2.2 Total tax revenue as a percentage of GDP, OECD and selected Asian economies, 2012

Note: Tax-to-GDP statistics for China, Hong Kong, Singapore and India have been prepared using the IMF’s Government Finance Statistics and are not directly comparable to OECD statistics. Unlike the OECD, the IMF does not classify social security contributions as a tax. To improve comparability with OECD statistics, tax-to-GDP ratios for China, Hong Kong, Singapore and India are calculated using IMF data but inclusive of social security contributions. Statistics for China are for 2011 and for India are for 2011-12.

Source: OECD 2014, Revenue Statistics 2014, OECD Publications, Paris; OECD 2014, Revenue Statistics in Asian Countries: Trends in Indonesia and Malaysia, OECD Publications, Paris; International Monetary Fund (IMF) 2014, Government Finance Statistics Yearbook, viewed 21 January 2015. IMF 2014, India Country Report No. 14/57, viewed 22 January 2015.

This chart shows total taxation (including social security contributions) as a ratio of GDP across the 34 OECD countries and six other Asian economies (China, Malaysia, India, Singapore, Hong Kong and Indonesia) in 2012. Of the OECD countries, Australia has the equal sixth lowest tax to GDP ratio (27.3 per cent). Mexico, Chile, United States, South Korea and Switzerland had lower tax to GDP ratios than Australia and Ireland had a similar tax to GDP ratio as Australia. The six non-OECD Asian economies listed had a lower tax to GDP ratio than Australia.

Total tax revenue as a percentage of GDP, OECD and selected Asian economies, 2012
Economy Tax-to-GDP ratio
Denmark 47.2
France 44.0
Belgium 44.0
Finland 42.8
Italy 42.7
Sweden 42.3
Norway 42.3
Austria 41.7
Luxembourg 38.5
Hungary 38.5
Slovenia 36.5
Germany 36.5
Netherlands 36.3
Iceland 35.3
Czech Republic 33.8
Greece 33.7
United Kingdom 33.0
New Zealand 33.0
Estonia 32.1
Poland 32.1
Spain 32.1
Portugal 31.2
Canada 30.7
Israel 29.6
Japan 29.5
Slovak Republic 28.1
Turkey 27.6
Australia 27.3
Ireland 27.3
Switzerland 26.9
Korea 24.8
United States 24.4
Chile 21.4
Mexico 19.6
OECD average 33.7
China 24.4
Malaysia 16.7
India 16.1
Singapore 14.1
Hong Kong 13.5
Indonesia 12.9

Chart 2.3 Taxes on corporate and personal income as a percentage of total taxation, OECD and selected Asian economies, 2012

Note: Taxes on income are based on the OECD (series 1000) and IMF classifications (series 11). Estimates for China, Hong Kong and Singapore have been prepared using the IMF’s Government Finance Statistics, while estimates for India have been prepared using the CMIE database. These estimates are not directly comparable to OECD statistics. Unlike the OECD, the IMF does not classify social security contributions as a tax. To improve comparability with OECD statistics, total taxation estimates are prepared using IMF data but inclusive of social security contributions. Statistics for China are for 2011 and for India are for 2011-12.

Source: OECD 2014, Revenue Statistics 2014, OECD Publications, Paris; OECD 2014, Revenue Statistics in Asian Countries: Trends in Indonesia and Malaysia, OECD Publications, Paris; IMF 2014, Government Finance Statistics Yearbook, viewed 21 January 2014; IMF 2014, Government Finance Statistics, Mimas, University of Manchester, viewed 21 January 2015; Treasury calculations using CMIE 2014, viewed 23 January 2015.

This chart shows income taxation as a share of total taxation across 34 OECD countries and six other Asian economies (Malaysia, Hong Kong, Singapore, Indonesia, India and China) in 2012. Of the 34 OECD countries, income taxation as a share of total taxation is highest in Denmark and second highest in Australia. This chart also disaggregates income taxation into the taxes on corporate income, personal income and other (not able to be allocated between corporate and personal income) across these countries. Compared to the six non-OECD economies, Australia has higher income taxation as a share of total taxation than Singapore, Indonesia, India and China.

Taxes on corporate and personal income as a percentage of total taxation, OECD and selected Asian economies, 2012
Economy Corporate tax Personal tax Unallocable or total taxes on income profit and capital gains
Denmark 6.3 50.7 4.9
Australia 18.9 39.2 0.0
New Zealand 14.1 37.7 3.7
Norway 24.8 23.4 0.0
United States 10.2 37.7 0.0
Canada 9.5 36.6 1.1
Switzerland 10.5 31.7 3.4
Iceland 5.4 37.4 2.4
Ireland 8.4 33.2 0
Chile 39
United Kingdom 8.1 27.5 0
Luxembourg 13.4 21.9 0
Belgium 6.8 27.8 0
Sweden 6.1 28.2 0
Finland 4.9 29.3 0
Italy 6.5 27.2
OECD average 33.6
Japan 12.5 18.6 0
Israel 8.9 18.4 3.4
Germany 4.8 25.6 0
Spain 6.4 22.6 0.9
Korea 14.9 15 0
Austria 5.3 22.9 1.1
Portugal 8.7 18.5 0
Mexico 26.3
Netherlands 5.1 20.2 0
Greece 3.3 20.6 0.4
France 5.6 18 0
Turkey 7.4 14.4 0
Estonia 4.5 16.4 0
Poland 6.6 14.1 0
Czech Republic 9.9 10.6 0
Slovenia 3.4 15.5 0
Slovak Republic 8.4 9.2 0.8
Hungary 3.4 13.8 0
Malaysia 54.8 14.3 2
Hong Kong 45.1 19.7 0
Singapore 29.3 15.4 0
Indonesia 30.2 13.5 0
India 22 11.2 0.3
China 19.8

Chart 2.4 Direct taxes as a percentage of total taxation, OECD and selected Asian economies, 2012

Note: Direct taxes include personal and corporate income taxes (OECD series 1000), social security contributions (OECD series 2000) and payroll and workforce taxes (OECD series 3000), but does not include other compulsory non-tax payments (such as the Superannuation Guarantee). Estimates for China, Hong Kong and Singapore have been prepared using the IMF’s Government Finance Statistics, while estimates for India have been prepared using the CMIE database. These estimates are not directly comparable to OECD statistics. Unlike the OECD, the IMF does not classify social security contributions as a tax. To improve comparability with OECD statistics, direct and total taxation estimates are prepared using IMF data but inclusive of social security contributions. Statistics for China are for 2011 and for India are for 2011-12.

Source: OECD 2014, Revenue Statistics 2014, OECD Publications, Paris; OECD 2014, Revenue Statistics in Asian Countries: Trends in Indonesia and Malaysia, OECD Publications, Paris; IMF 2014, Government Finance Statistics Yearbook, viewed 21 January 2014; IMF 2014, Government Finance Statistics, Mimas, University of Manchester, viewed 12 March 2015; Treasury calculations using CMIE 2014, viewed 23 January 2015.

This chart shows direct taxation as a share of total taxation across 34 OECD countries and six other Asian economies (Malaysia, Hong Kong, Singapore, Indonesia, India and China) in 2012. Direct forms of taxation – individuals and corporate income taxes, compulsory social security contributions plus payroll taxes – comprised around 63 per cent of taxation in Australia, compared to an OECD average of 61 per cent. Compared to the six non-OECD economies, Australia has higher direct taxation as a share of total taxation than China, India, Indonesia and Singapore.

Direct taxes as a percentage of total taxation, OECD and selected Asian economies
Economy 2012
Japan 72.7
Norway 70.9
Switzerland 70.5
Austria 70.3
United States 70.2
Germany 68.7
Sweden 68.1
Belgium 66.8
Netherlands 66.4
Spain 65.7
Canada 64.8
Luxembourg 64.6
Denmark 64.4
France 64.3
Czech Republic 64.1
Finland 63.9
Australia 63.3
Italy 63.2
Slovak Republic 62.4
OECD average 61.0
Slovenia 59.9
Poland 59.2
Ireland 57.5
Iceland 56.4
Greece 56.3
Estonia 56.2
Portugal 55.5
New Zealand 55.5
Korea 54.8
United Kingdom 54.7
Hungary 52.4
Israel 51.8
Turkey 49.0
Chile 45.5
Mexico 42.8
Malaysia 72.6
Hong Kong 64.8
Singapore 44.7
Indonesia 43.8
China 36.7
India 33.5

Chart 2.5 Consumption taxes as a percentage of total taxation, OECD and selected Asian economies, 2012

Note: Taxes on goods and services are based on the OECD (series 5000) and IMF classifications (series 14). Estimates for China, Hong Kong and Singapore have been prepared using the IMF’s Government Finance Statistics, while estimates for India have been prepared using the CMIE database. These estimates are not directly comparable to OECD statistics. Unlike the OECD, the IMF does not classify social security contributions as a tax. To improve comparability with OECD statistics, total taxation estimates are prepared using IMF data but inclusive of social security contributions. Statistics for China are for 2011 and for India are for 2011-12.

Source: OECD 2014, Revenue Statistics 2014, OECD Publications, Paris; OECD 2014, Revenue Statistics in Asian Countries: Trends in Indonesia and Malaysia, OECD Publications, Paris; IMF 2014, Government Finance Statistics Yearbook, viewed 21 January 2014; IMF 2014, Government Finance Statistics, Mimas, University of Manchester, viewed 21 January 2014; Treasury calculations using CMIE 2014, viewed 23 January 2015.

This chart shows consumption taxation as a share of total taxation across the 34 OECD countries and six other Asian economies in 2012. Consumption taxes comprised 28.1 per cent of total taxation in Australia, which was higher than ten OECD countries (such as the United States, Japan and Canada) and two non-OECD Asian economies (Malaysia and Hong Kong), but lower than the OECD average of 32.8 per cent.

Consumption taxes as a percentage of total taxation, OECD and selected Asian economies
Economy 2012
Mexico 54.5
Chile 50.1
Turkey 45.0
Hungary 43.7
Estonia 42.2
Portugal 39.7
Israel 39.2
New Zealand 38.3
Slovenia 37.9
Greece 37.8
Poland 36.2
Slovak Republic 35.4
Iceland 35.1
Ireland 34.9
Czech Republic 33.9
Finland 33.1
United Kingdom 32.9
OECD average 32.8
Denmark 31.4
Korea 31.2
Netherlands 29.3
Sweden 29.1
Germany 28.4
Australia 28.1
Luxembourg 28.1
Austria 27.6
Spain 26.6
Norway 26.3
Italy 25.5
Belgium 24.9
France 24.5
Canada 24.5
Switzerland 22.9
Japan 18.0
United States 17.9
India 60.9
China 52.1
Indonesia 45.4
Singapore 30.5
Malaysia 23.8
Hong Kong 13.8

Chart 2.6 Composition of Commonwealth taxes over time

This chart shows the shares of Commonwealth taxes in the 1950s, 2000-01, 2013-14 and 2024-25. It is projected individuals tax will increase its share by 2024-25. This chart shows the shares of Commonwealth taxes in the 1950s, 2000-01, 2013-14 and 2024-25. It is projected individuals tax will increase its share by 2024-25.

This chart shows the shares of Commonwealth taxes in the 1950s, 2000-01, 2013-14 and 2024-25. It is projected individuals tax will increase its share by 2024-25. This chart shows the shares of Commonwealth taxes in the 1950s, 2000-01, 2013-14 and 2024-25. It is projected individuals tax will increase its share by 2024-25.

Note 1: On average in the 1950s, customs duties made up around 25 per cent of indirect tax compared with 10 per cent in 2013-14.

Note 2: For the 1950s, ‘Other’ includes payroll tax, land tax, estate duty, entertainments tax, gift duty and gold tax.

Source: Reserve Bank of Australia 1997, Australian Economic Statistics 1949-50 to 1994-95, Occasional Paper Number 8, viewed 10 December 2014; Australian Government 2014, Budget 2014-15 — online supplementary tables, Australian Government, Canberra, viewed 10 December 2014; and Australian Government 2014, 2013-14 Final Budget Outcome, Australian Government, Canberra; and Treasury estimates.

This chart shows the shares of Commonwealth taxes in the 1950s, 2000-01, 2013-14 and 2024-25. It is projected individuals tax will increase its share by 2024-25.

Composition of Commonwealth taxes over time
1950’s %
Personal income tax 40%
Other 6%
Corporate income taxes 18%
Indirect tax 36%
2000-01 %
Personal income tax 47%
Corporate income taxes 23%
Indirect tax (excl. GST) 16%
GST 14%
2013-14 %
Personal income tax 50%
Corporate income taxes 22%
Indirect tax (excl. GST) 13%
GST 15%
2024-25 %
Personal income tax 56%
Corporate income taxes 21%
Indirect tax (excl. GST) 9%
GST 14%

Chart 2.7 Estimated cumulative increase in taxpayers in third and fourth tax brackets, relative to 2014-15

Note: Tax rates exclude Medicare Levy and Temporary Budget Repair Levy.

Source: Treasury estimates.

This chart shows the cumulative increase in the number of taxpayers in the highest and second highest tax brackets over the next 10 years, relative to 2014-15.

Estimated cumulative increase in taxpayers in third and fourth tax brackets, relative to 2014-15
2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25
Cumulative increase in taxpayers in highest tax bracket (45% tax rate) 43,000 79,000 133,000 195,000 263,000 348,000 441,000 535,000 639,000 751,000
Cumulative increase in taxpayers in second highest tax bracket (37% tax rate) 202,000 338,000 562,000 792,000 1,028,000 1,296,000 1,553,000 1,793,000 2,034,000 2,268,000

Chart 2.8 Personal income tax rates and the effects of bracket creep

Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) 2014, Average Weekly Earnings, Australia, May 2014, cat. no. 6302.0, ABS, Canberra and Treasury calculations.

This chart shows the historical and projected impact of bracket creep on taxpayers. The chart shows the individual income tax thresholds for each year from 1994-95 to 2023-24. The chart also shows the historical and expected change in average weekly ordinary time earnings over the same period. Put together, the chart shows that the people earning average weekly ordinary time earnings generally face the second marginal individual income tax rate. The exceptions to this historically were 1998-99 and 1999-00, when people earning average weekly ordinary time earnings (around $39,000 and $40,000 respectively) faced the third marginal individual income tax rate. Based on the current individuals’ income tax thresholds, people earning average weekly ordinary time earnings from 2016-17 are expected to have income upwards of $80,000 and face the third marginal individual income tax rate.

Personal income tax rates and the effects of bracket creep Average tax rate of full time employee earning Average Weekly Ordinary Time Earnings (AWOTE)
Year Average annual ordinary full-time earnings (from AWOTE)
1994-95 33000
1995-96 35000
1996-97 36000
1997-98 37000
1998-99 39000
1999-2000 40000
2000-01 42000
2001-02 44000
2002-03 47000
2003-04 49000
2004-05 51000
2005-06 53000
2006-07 55000
2007-08 58000
2008-09 61000
2009-10 65000
2010-11 67000
2011-12 70000
2012-13 73000
2013-14 75000
2014-15 77000
2015-16 79000
2016-17 81000
2017-18 84000
2018-19 86000
2019-20 89000
2020-21 93000
2021-22 96000
2022-23 100000
2023-24 104000
Personal income tax rates and the effects of bracket creep Full time employee earning (AWOTE) relative to personal income tax thresholds
1st threshold 2nd threshold 3rd threshold 4th threshold
1994-95 5400 20700 38000 50000
1995-96 5400 20700 38000 50000
1996-97 5400 20700 38000 50000
1997-98 5400 20700 38000 50000
1998-99 5400 20700 38000 50000
1999-2000 5400 20700 38000 50000
2000-01 6000 20000 50000 60000
2001-02 6000 20000 50000 60000
2002-03 6000 20000 50000 60000
2003-04 6000 21600 52000 62500
2004-05 6000 21600 58000 70000
2005-06 6000 21600 63000 95000
2006-07 6000 25000 75000 150000
2007-08 6000 30000 75000 150000
2008-09 6000 34000 80000 180000
2009-10 6000 35000 80000 180000
2010-11 6000 37000 80000 180000
2011-12 6000 37000 80000 180000
2012-13 18200 37000 80000 180000
2013-14 18200 37000 80000 180000
2014-15 18200 37000 80000 180000
2015-16 18200 37000 80000 180000
2016-17 18200 37000 80000 180000
2017-18 18200 37000 80000 180000
2018-19 18200 37000 80000 180000
2019-20 18200 37000 80000 180000
2020-21 18200 37000 80000 180000
2021-22 18200 37000 80000 180000
2022-23 18200 37000 80000 180000
2023-24 18200 37000 80000 180000

Chart 2.9 Long-run modelling estimates of the marginal excess burden of some of Australia’s taxes

Note: Marginal excess burdens were estimated using a long-run CGE model of the Australian economy and tax system. Australian households are captured as a single economic unit in this model. The labour income tax is modelled as a stylised flat tax on labour income only. An out-of-model calculation for a marginal tax rate (MTR) of 25 per cent is presented as an illustration of an average taxpayer in 2011-12. Transfer payments are not captured in this model. For more information on this modelling, as well as analysis of a stylised capital component of individuals taxation, see the Australian Treasury working paper forthcoming, Understanding the economy-wide efficiency and incidence of major Australian taxes.

Source: Treasury estimates.

This chart plots the marginal excess burdens of stamp duties on conveyances, company income tax, flat rate labour income tax, goods and services tax, broad based goods and services tax and municipal rates and land tax, as well as an illustrative marginal excess burden for the progressive labour income tax.

Long-run modelling estimates of the marginal excess burden of some of Australia’s taxes
Baseline model Broad based GST Illustrative labour income tax (MTR=25%)
Stamp duties on
conveyances
0.72
Company income tax 0.50
Flat rate labour income tax 0.21 0.32
GST 0.19 0.17
Municipal rates and land tax -0.10

Chart 2.10 Trends in corporate income tax rates, selected countries

Source: OECD 2014, Tax Database — Taxation of Corporate and Capital Income, OECD, Paris, viewed 5 December 2014; KPMG 2014, Corporate tax rates table, viewed 5 December 2014; and KPMG 2007, Hong Kong Tax Competiveness Series: Corporate Tax Rates, viewed 5 December 2014; KPMG 2006, KPMG’s Corporate Tax Rate Survey, An international analysis of corporate tax rates from 1993 to 2006, viewed on 21 January 2015.

This chart shows the trend in corporate tax rates in Australia, Canada, Singapore, the United Kingdom, the United States of America, China and the OECD, from 2000-2014. It shows that the corporate tax rate in Australia and the United States has remained the same since 2001, while the corporate tax rate in the United Kingdom, Canada, Singapore, China and the OECD has fallen over this period.

Trends in corporate income tax rates, selected countries
Country 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Australia 34 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30
Singapore 26 26 25 22 22 20 20 20 18 18 17 17 17 17 17
Canada 42 40 38 36 34 34 34 34 31 31 29 28 26 26 26
China 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 25 25 25 25 25 25 25
United Kingdom 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 28 28 28 26 24 23 21
OECD – average 33 32 31 30 29 28 28 27 26 26 26 25 25 25 25
United States 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39

Chart 2.11 Transfer payments and taxes as a percentage of gross income by household income quintile, Australia, 2009-10

Note: Taxes on income include individuals income tax plus the Medicare levy and Medicare levy surcharge. Taxes on production include taxes payable on goods and services; taxes and duties on imports; and taxes on the ownership or use of land, buildings or other assets used in production or on labour (but not taxes on corporate profits or other business income). Transfer payments and taxes are expressed as a percentage of household gross income, which is before income tax and includes social assistance benefits received in cash. Household quintiles are defined according to equivalised disposable household income.

Source: Treasury calculations using ABS 2012, Government benefits, taxes and household income, Australia, 2009-10, cat. no. 6537.0, ABS, Canberra.

This chart shows transfer payments (received as cash), income taxes and production taxes as a proportion of gross household income by income quintiles for Australia in 2009-10. Taxes on income rise across the five household income quintiles, from around 0.4 per cent for the lowest income quintile to 20 per cent for the highest income quintile. In contrast, the taxes on production decline across the five household income quintiles, from 8 per cent for the highest income quintile to 19 per cent for the lowest income quintile. Transfer payments as a proportion of gross household income decline across the five income quintiles, from 59 per cent for the lower income quintile to 1 per cent for the highest income quintile.

Transfer payments and taxes as a percentage of gross income by household income quintile, Australia, 2009-10
Lowest Second Third Fourth Highest
Social assistance in cash benefits as per cent gross income 54.8 29.5 11.2 3.3 0.6
Taxes on production as percent of gross income -19.4 -13.3 -11.6 -10.2 -7.5
Taxes on income as percent of gross income -2.5 -6.4 -10.8 -14.5 -20

Chart 2.12 Average tax wedge progression, OECD countries, 2013

Note: The average tax wedge progression is the percentage point difference between the average tax wedge of an individual (or family) earning 250 per cent of average wages and the average tax wedge of an individual (or family) earning 50 per cent of average wages. The average tax wedge progression includes the effect of employee and employer social security contributions, payroll taxes and cash benefits.

Source: Treasury calculations using OECD 2014, Taxing Wages, OECD, Paris, viewed 3 December 2014.

There are two charts, each of which shows the change in the average tax wedge for 34 OECD countries as a household’s income increases from 50 per cent of average wages to 250 per cent of average wages for 2013. The first chart applies to the change in the tax wedge for a single person with no children, and shows that Australia has the sixth largest tax wedge progression. The second chart applies to the change in the tax wedge for a single-income family with two children, and shows that Australia has the third largest tax wedge progression.

Average tax wedge progression, OECD countries, 2013 Single individual without children
Country Per cent
Ireland 34.1
Israel 27.8
Portugal 23.3
France 22.5
Belgium 21.5
Australia 20.5
Luxembourg 20.1
Finland 19.6
United Kingdom 19.3
Greece 18.6
Iceland 17.4
Slovenia 17.4
Sweden 16.9
Netherlands 16.5
Norway 15.6
Italy 14.5
New Zealand 14.3
OECD average 14.2
Canada 13.5
Switzerland 13.2
Denmark 13.1
Mexico 12.4
Spain 11.6
United States 11.0
Austria 10.3
Czech Rep 9.9
Slovak Rep 9.0
Turkey 9.0
Korea 8.1
Germany 7.1
Japan 5.7
Estonia 3.7
Poland 2.9
Chile 1.6
Hungary 0.9
Average tax wedge progression, OECD countries, 2013 Single-income family with two children
Country Per cent
Ireland 96.7
Canada 61.5
Australia 60.9
United Kingdom 59.9
New Zealand 54.8
Iceland 43.8
Belgium 42.1
Czech Rep 40.9
Italy 39.2
Slovenia 38.6
United States 38.3
Israel 37.8
Luxembourg 37.7
Netherlands 32.1
OECD average 32.0
Denmark 30.1
Slovak Rep 30.1
Finland 27.7
Austria 27.0
Norway 25.4
Sweden 25.3
France 25.1
Hungary 24.9
Portugal 24.8
Switzerland 23.1
Germany 20.0
Greece 19.9
Spain 15.9
Japan 15.9
Estonia 15.9
Poland 15.1
Mexico 12.4
Turkey 10.9
Korea 7.4
Chile 5.5

PRINT Twitter Facebook  Like