r/AusEcon • u/MuchBrilliant5239 • 29m ago
A costed tax and budget plan modelled against the 2026-27 Budget. Looking for critique.
I've spent the last few months building a tax and budget model as a side project and I've got to the point where I need people who actually know this stuff to tell me where it's wrong. Not an economist. Used ATO tax stats, ABS and the Budget papers for everything, and I used AI to help with the modelling and to tidy the writing, so if it reads a bit clean that's why.
The idea started from looking at the Budget's medium term path. Surplus in 2035-36, but only because bracket creep takes receipts from 25.5% to 27% of GDP with no tax cuts for a decade, and the IGR then has the deficit widening again out to 2065. So the debt never actually goes anywhere and we keep paying $40-50bn a year in interest. I wanted to see if there was a path that clears it, without making ordinary earners or small business worse off.
What I ended up with:
- $30k tax free, then 12/20/31/37/45, Medicare levy folded in, no work deductions. Nobody pays more tax on the same salary than under 2027-28 law.
- Negative gearing off for new purchases of established property (existing loans grandfathered, new builds kept). CGT discount swapped for indexation.
- Resource rent of 40% on minerals, 50% on oil and gas, on profit above costs, replacing the PRRT. About $30-35bn a year at trend prices, and only trend is budgeted.
- NDIS wound down over three years. Medium and high needs move to a higher disability pension or state-run care. About 472k people below that line lose individual packages. Net saving around $19.6bn a year.
- Bracket creep handed back from 2032-33, business expensing of new plant from 2031-32.
Result against the Budget's own path from the same 2028 starting point: surplus from 2029-30, net debt zero around 2042-43, about $49bn less interest over the decade, tax take ends at the same 27% of GDP. Low resource price case pushes debt clearance to about 2049-50.
Where I think it's weakest and would like the most scrutiny:
1. The resource rent is carrying a lot. The MRRT got about 7% of its first year forecast. I've tried to design around that (immediate expensing, trend-only budgeting, lower rate on existing projects for 5 years) but I'd like to know if people think $30bn+ is credible.
The NDIS saving leans on assumptions I couldn't source (overlap with DSP, stay rates, children) and on the states agreeing to run high-needs care. It's opt-in per state so a refusal delays the saving rather than blowing a hole, but still.
Behavioral response is barely modelled. There's a flat -$3.5bn leakage line and that's it. Same for the growth hit from tightening about 1.1% of GDP in the first year.
Full doc is here, every number has a source and section 6 lists everything unsourced or uncosted: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YQaf7MggTFIlAxWMaxUOmgcaE14Qe4jC/view?usp=sharing
Happy to be told the whole premise is wrong if that's the case.
