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.

 

5 Comments
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.

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

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 !

Alex Jones
November 26, 2015

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

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.

 

Leave a Comment:

RELATED ARTICLES

Labor should focus on cutting Government spending

The mixed fortunes of tax reform in Australia, part 2

The mixed fortunes of tax reform in Australia, part 1

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

The case for the $3 million super tax

The Government's proposed tax has copped a lot of flack though I think it's a reasonable approach to improve the long-term sustainability of superannuation and the retirement income system. Here’s why.

7 examples of how the new super tax will be calculated

You've no doubt heard about Division 296. These case studies show what people at various levels above the $3 million threshold might need to pay the ATO, with examples ranging from under $500 to more than $35,000.

The revolt against Baby Boomer wealth

The $3m super tax could be put down to the Government needing money and the wealthy being easy targets. It’s deeper than that though and this looks at the factors behind the policy and why more taxes on the wealthy are coming.

Meg on SMSFs: Withdrawing assets ahead of the $3m super tax

The super tax has caused an almighty scuffle, but for SMSFs impacted by the proposed tax, a big question remains: what should they do now? Here are ideas for those wanting to withdraw money from their SMSF.

The super tax and the defined benefits scandal

Australia's superannuation inequities date back to poor decisions made by Parliament two decades ago. If super for the wealthy needs resetting, so too does the defined benefits schemes for our public servants.

Are franking credits hurting Australia’s economy?

Business investment and per capita GDP have languished over the past decade and the Labor Government is conducting inquiries to find out why. Franking credits should be part of the debate about our stalling economy.

Latest Updates

Superannuation

Here's what should replace the $3 million super tax

With Div. 296 looming, is there a smarter way to tax superannuation? This proposes a fairer, income-linked alternative that respects compounding, ensures predictability, and avoids taxing unrealised capital gains. 

Superannuation

Less than 1% of wealthy families will struggle to pay super tax: study

An ANU study has found that families with at least one super balance over $3 million have average wealth exceeding $19 million - suggesting most are well placed to absorb taxes on unrealised capital gains.   

Superannuation

Are SMSFs getting too much of a free ride?

SMSFs have managed to match, or even outperform, larger super funds despite adopting more conservative investment strategies. This looks at how they've done it - and the potential policy implications.  

Property

A developer's take on Australia's housing issues

Stockland’s development chief discusses supply constraints, government initiatives and the impact of Japanese-owned homebuilders on the industry. He also talks of green shoots in a troubled property market.

Economy

Lessons from 100 years of growing US debt

As the US debt ceiling looms, the usual warnings about a potential crash in bond and equity markets have started to appear. Investors can take confidence from history but should keep an eye on two main indicators.

Investment strategies

Investors might be paying too much for familiarity

US mega-cap tech stocks have dominated recent returns - but is familiarity distorting judgement? Like the Monty Hall problem, investing success often comes from switching when it feels hardest to do so.

Latest from Morningstar

A winning investment strategy sitting right under your nose

How does a strategy built around systematically buying-and-holding a basket of the market's biggest losers perform? It turns out pretty well, so why don't more investors do it?

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2025 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.