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

Reforming the taxation of wealth and wealth transfers

3 ways to defuse intergenerational anger

Meg on SMSFs: First glimpse of revised Division 296 tax

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

Indexation implications – key changes to 2026/27 super thresholds

Stay on top of the latest changes to superannuation rates and thresholds for 2026, including increases to transfer balance cap, concessional contributions cap, and non-concessional contributions cap.

The refinery problem: A different kind of energy crisis in 2026

The Strait of Hormuz closure due to US-Iran conflict severely disrupted global energy supply chains. While various emergency measures mitigated the crude impact, the refined product market faces unprecedented stress.

The missing 30%: how LIC returns are understated, and why it matters

The perceived underperformance of LICs compared to ETFs is due to existing comparison data excluding crucial information, highlighting the need for proper assessment and transparent reporting.

Little‑known government scheme can help retirees tap into $3 trillion of housing wealth

The Home Equity Access Scheme in Australia allows older homeowners to tap into their home equity for retirement income, yet remains underused due to lack of awareness and its perceived complexity.

Origins of the mislabeled capital gains tax ‘discount’

Debate over the CGT discount is intensifying amid concerns about intergenerational equity and housing affordability. This analysis shows that the 'discount' does not necessarily favor property investors.

2 billion reasons to fix retirement income

A proposal to address Australia's 'stranded balances' in retirement by requiring super funds to transition members to pension phase at 65, boosting retirement income and reframing super as a source of income.

Latest Updates

The ultimate superannuation EOFY checklist 2026

Here is a checklist of 28 important issues you should address before June 30 to ensure your SMSF or other super fund is in order and that you are making the most of the strategies available.

Retirement

Two months into retirement

A retirement researcher's take on retirement and her focus on each of her six resource buckets to stay engaged during the transition and beyond.

Superannuation

Markets have always delivered for super fund members. What if they don’t?

What happens if market resilience in the face of ongoing geopolitical tensions ends? Potential decade-long market weakness shows the need for contingency planning.

Retirement

We tend to spend less in retirement …

Studies show that a drop in expenditure during retirement leads to a happier retirement. But when costs ramp up again later in life, it's a guaranteed income that makes spending more hurt less.

Shares

Can you value a share just using dividends?

A cow for her milk, a stock for her dividends. Investors are too quick to dismiss this valuation technique. 

Property

The 25-year property trust default is being questioned

The 33% CGT discount rate being floated isn’t random. It sits at the structural break-even between trust and company for the multi-property cohort. That’s driving the conversation we’re hearing now.

Investment strategies

Are active managers bringing a knife to a gunfight?

How passive investing has permanently changed market structure — and why sophisticated tools are now the price of survival.

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.