Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 136

Payroll tax distorts competition and penalises jobs

Imagine a tax payable by Myer, David Jones and JB Hi Fi that doesn’t apply to Harvey Norman. What about charging a tax to Footlocker but not Athlete’s Foot? Most extraordinary of all, what about charging this tax to grocery businesses like Harris Farm on the wages of hundreds of staff who unpack and sell fresh produce grown by Australian farmers but don’t charge that same tax to a Ferrari dealership with a handful of staff selling expensive imported sports cars. Surely Australia doesn’t do that. We’re not that stupid are we?

The not-so-level playing field

Actually, we are that stupid – it’s called payroll tax and it’s charged based on the total wages, above a threshold, of a company. In NSW, the rate is 5.45% of a business’s NSW wages above $750,000. Employers like the Ferrari dealer, with few staff, don’t pay and others providing many jobs, like the grocery shops, do. The grouping provisions of Australia’s payroll tax allow franchised businesses like Harvey Norman and Athlete’s Foot (and many others) to avoid the tax even though via their franchise agreement they are heavily ‘controlled’ by a single entity. In considering whether multiple employers are centrally controlled, the grouping provisions consider only ownership, instead of a wider sense of what entity is actually in control and how. Gerry Harvey has been pushing for a level GST playing field on overseas purchases but he won’t want a similar level playing field on payroll tax.

You can own Australia’s largest and most valuable hotel and not pay any payroll tax on the small staff needed to manage the investment. But the hotel management company who leases the building and runs the hotel has to pay payroll tax on the hundreds of jobs needed to serve the food, clean the rooms, and make the beds. Why do we make it cheaper to be a billionaire owner of a hotel but dearer for the hotel management company to provide these low skill, entry level jobs?

Thousands of entry level jobs were lost some years ago when Starbucks closed 100 of their 120 stores in Australia. No doubt it was partly because they were paying millions in payroll tax but their four-fold bigger direct competitor, Gloria Jeans, with 400 franchised stores, paid no payroll tax on store wages. Payroll tax costs jobs, many jobs.

Why favour capital over labour?

Australia is having a tax debate and supposedly, ‘everything is on the table’. If we are going to reform our tax system, let’s start with this distortionary tax that favours capital intensive business whilst penalising labour intensive business. It favours franchising by distorting competition between similar businesses based on their ownership structure. Providing lots of jobs should be celebrated and encouraged, not taxed and discouraged. Payroll tax should be completely abolished and the revenue replaced in another form that encourages employment and does not distort competition.

Eliminating payroll tax removes seven State taxes with the resultant massive removal of compliance and surveillance issues. Entire departments can be eliminated in every state giving significant savings and removal of duplication. If we are not going to eliminate payroll tax at least change it substantially so that it is not linked to the size of payroll. Link it to turnover, add it to GST, add it to company tax, do anything but don’t penalise job creation and don’t allow it to distort competition.

 

Peter Pitt is a Director at a leading national retailer. These opinions are his personal views and not necessarily those of his company.

 

  •   27 November 2015
  • 5
  •      
  •   
5 Comments
Gary M
November 26, 2015

At a policy level, since small business is the largest aggregate employer, most employees don’t incur payroll tax for their boss, so it encourages small business. This is good since innovation, enterprise, productivity growth, etc generally come from small businesses, not institutions.

Alex Jones
November 26, 2015

Fair comment but payroll tax differences are small when comparing investments in companies within an industry.

Paul Meleng
November 26, 2015

Payroll tax has to go. It blocks efficiencies. For example , in the USA there are labour aggregating services whereby you choose the employee ( not the labour hire firm) , but they are then "employed" by the service and hired to to you. THe service looks after all the payroll and employee benefits with massive efficiencies from the scale.. in admin, compliance, tax processing, IR, reporting, employee benefits, superannuation processing and so on, and the employees get the bulk buying that people in large orgs and unions etc can organise like travel discounts and health care deals. Employers like Doctors and Dentists and millions of others too small to have a professional HR manager don't have to get their head around all the zillions of beaurocratic "one off" knowledge bites. Payroll tax works against such efficiency.

ALL taxes on real productivity, income, work, innovation, trade , eduction, health care, food etc should go. According to the Henry report some 250 of the bloody things, gumming up the works and sapping the mental energy of the best and brightest. Almost all can be replaced easily with the appropriate level of land rent paid to the government of the people for the use of their common wealth. Add resource royalties, proper payment for environmental damage, user pays for government to business or not social services and the whole system would start to make sense. Good accounting would be used for business to business and management purposes and not for playing endless games with the nonsense ATO. And you cant shift land to a tax haven.

When you've paid your rent you've paid your tax.! I'd like to see that !

Warren Bird
November 26, 2015

The economic incidence of payroll tax is identical to that of a value added tax like the GST. This is why Ken Henry's tax review back in 2010 discussed in the chapter on taxes on consumption.

The labour substitution effect that so many fear is a fallacy. It is not a tax on jobs!

All these arguments arise from confusing the legal incidence of payroll tax with its actual economic impact.

One of the best analyses of these matters was written by the NSW Treasury back in 1999. Here's a link to their paper, which is worth a read. http://www.treasury.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/6650/TRP99-3_Pay_Roll_Tax.pdf

SP
December 15, 2018

It is how payroll tax is computed that does not make any sense. Some companies outsourced entire call centers overseas and paid zero payroll tax on these payroll costs. Payroll costs should be based on overseas payroll costs and not local payroll costs so that companies will hire locals and not all wanting to outsource to cheaper countries.

 

Leave a Comment:

RELATED ARTICLES

Budget tax changes only scratch the surface. Here are 4 reforms Australia needs next

The lesser-known effects of changed property taxes

Reforming the taxation of wealth and wealth transfers

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

The strange effect of the 30% minimum capital gains tax

The 30% minimum tax on capital gains sits at the heart of the budget's proposed reforms. Yet the mechanics reveal anomalies that introduce unexpected distortions that raise questions about its design.

High quality businesses are on sale

Beneath the dominance of the ASX's largest stocks, much of the market has been left behind. High-quality companies are now trading at levels rarely seen, offering opportunities for investors willing to look deeper.

Does your will qualify for the discretionary testamentary trust exemption?

Treasury has confirmed the exemption many families were hoping for. But buried in the fine print are two conditions that could leave some wills on the wrong side of the exemption, despite years of careful planning.

Ranking three common retirement strategies

The defining challenge of retirement isn't just about building wealth, it's about converting your lifetime savings into sustainable income. A holistic understanding of different strategies can improve long-term outcomes.

Welcome to Firstlinks Edition 667 with weekend update

The downfall of the giant and three lessons for investors.

  • 18 June 2026

Are you making these SMSF mistakes?

After four decades advising investors, there are a few common mistakes I've seen SMSF investors make. From holding too much cash and chasing yield to overtrading and trusting tips. Are these errors costing you?

Latest Updates

Superannuation

Are you making these SMSF mistakes?

After four decades advising investors, there are a few common mistakes I've seen SMSF investors make. From holding too much cash and chasing yield to overtrading and trusting tips. Are these errors costing you?

Retirement

Retirement spending is not one-size-fits-all

New data challenges the idea that Australians are underspending their super. The bigger issue may be helping retirees navigate complexity, make confident decisions and use their savings to support security, wellbeing and choice.

Taxation

The missing link in the CGT debate

A little-noticed consequence of Labor’s tax changes could have implications well beyond investors’ tax bills. The issue raises bigger questions about incentives, capital allocation and the drivers of long-term economic growth.

Investment strategies

The surprising beneficiaries of the AI boom

While markets obsess over AI winners, a larger, more predictable growth engine is forming. A surge in electricity demand and infrastructure build‑out reveals the quiet, durable assets evolving beneath the AI story.

Superannuation

When losses in super become irreplaceable

The notion of 'you can afford more risk' assumes that losses can be replaced. Above a $2.1 million super balance the law says otherwise, and a worked example shows the refill takes decades, or never happens.

Retirement

Why I object to ‘hitting a number’ for retirement

Many investors dream of “hitting their number” and walking into retirement. But what if reaching that milestone is the moment they should be asking the tough questions? After all, there's a lot more to life than a high portfolio value. 

Planning

Does your will qualify for the discretionary testamentary trust exemption?

Treasury has confirmed the exemption many families were hoping for. But buried in the fine print are two conditions that could leave some wills on the wrong side of the exemption, despite years of careful planning.

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2026 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer
The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third-party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use. To the extent any content is general advice, it has been prepared for clients of Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892), without reference to your financial objectives, situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide. You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.