These last few years have been less than kind to the policy agenda of economic liberalism, as both major parties in office federally have turned their backs on the principles of fiscal discipline and smaller government.

This is no better illustrated by the appalling state in which the previous Rudd‑Gillard government had left the federal budget, and the inability of the current Abbott‑Turnbull government to seriously clean up the debt‑and‑deficit mess.

Despite the way in which various interest groups try to spin the numbers, the fiscal arithmetic presented in last December's Mid‑Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook, the prelude to next week's budget, sets out Australia's problems very plainly.

According to MYEFO a record collection of revenue receipts of $395 billion in 2015‑16 is expected to be received by the commonwealth government, belying the oft‑stated claims that this country is suffering a "revenue deficiency".

International comparisons show that Australia is certainly not a low‑taxing country, and including compulsory payments in superannuation, health insurance, and workers' compensation only makes Australia's ranking as a high taxer even less flattering.

Even so, this record revenue has been insufficient to cover payments for commonwealth general government sector functions, which have also been set at record levels over the last few years.

Taking into account Future Fund drawdowns, the government expects that it would incur a budget deficit in the order of $37 billion for 2015‑16, and a figure of similar magnitude will probably be confirmed in the upcoming budget if recent monthly financial statements issued by the Finance Department are of any guidance.

In fact, the government has incurred budget deficits for eight consecutive years to the 2015‑16 financial year, despite Australia officially avoiding a recession in 2008‑09 and now firmly situated in the midst of a post‑GFC economic recovery.

And one of the crucial financial manifestations of persistent, multi‑year deficits has been a substantial growth in public sector debt, which is unsustainable given economic growth, the government's interest repayment profile, and the state of our fiscal imbalance.

The only credible alternative to the budget failings of the past few years is a clear, unambiguous plan for fiscal recovery based on economically liberal principles of lower taxes, significantly less spending to accommodate tax cuts, and a credible plan to reduce public sector debt.

Only senior Turnbull government ministers are aware of the actual details in the forthcoming 2016‑17 budget, but speculation regarding some major policies in the document does not give great hope for any fiscal reform based on these principles.

Given Australia's tax burden is already too high, one of the more shocking notions to arise through pre‑budget speculation is that the government, elected in 2013 on a platform of lower taxes, plans to at least match Labor in imposing new taxes on superannuation savings.

The headline proposal publicly canvassed is that a 30 per cent superannuation contributions tax would be imposed on anyone earning $250,000 or more each year, in line with a Labor opposition proposal.

But even earlier in the week, the speculation was that the Coalition would reduce the 30 per cent super contribution tax threshold even further down, to those earning $180,000 or more per annum.

Assuming more superannation tax is headed our way, the proposal seems animated by a desire to hit the wealthy, who disproportionately bear the burden of paying Australian taxes, with an even heavier tax impost.

The reality is, however, the people most likely to be harmed by this policy will be working women, who may take a career break to help start a family, and other aspirationals who wish to earn more today to bank up more in super for their retirement years.

Also on the speculative list of tax increases in the upcoming budget is yet another excise increase on tobacco products, which would only serve to bolster an already rampant illicit tobacco trade, as well as additional measures to address tax avoidance.

The government will try to allay concerns about its tax increases by arguing it will implement nip‑and‑tuck tax cuts elsewhere, including by confirming an already scheduled end to the deficit levy, but, in the end, tax increases (including reduced tax concessions) are still tax increases.

What makes this pre‑Budget period even more conspicuous than most is there have been very few "strategic leaks", or other disclosures, about the kinds of spending reductions the government has in store.

The most likely explanation for this, of course, is that this forthcoming budget, scheduled close to a highly anticipated July election, won't have spending cuts that make any real dent into our public sector overspending problem.

In fact, the 2016‑17 budget will need to incorporate a litany of new spending commitments Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has made since his ascension to office last September, which on some estimates have exceeded $10 billion (or $45 million each day).

These include promises for more military spending arising from the Defence White Paper, the commonwealth's recent backdown on public hospital funding to the states, Innovation Statement spending largesse, and another backdown retaining federal climate change bureaucracies.

And, of course, major expenditure legacy issues left behind by the former Rudd‑Gillard government, most notably the National Disability Insurance Scheme, will be left largely untouched and will start exerting a major fiscal impact as of next financial year.

What we need, but almost certainly won't get, is a thoroughly liberal plan to eliminate corporate welfare, scale back federal school education and hospital funding, and put anti‑growth regulatory agencies on a tight leash by greatly reducing their administrative budgets.

And it's because of a lack of a strategic plan to reduce overspending to date that Australians will continue to be saddled with substantial public debt, the growth in which has been among the rapid in the developed world.

Given the irrational aversion to privatisation within the electorate, nobody could seriously expect the next budget to present an agenda to sell off assets, retiring the debt burden sooner, in an election year.

The pre‑budget period has regrettably trotted out several bad ideas, but at least there are only a few sleeps left until Australians get their chance to rate the fiscal credentials of the first Turnbull budget.

Mikayla Novak is a senior researcher with the Institute of Public Affairs (www.ipa.org.au). Twitter: @NovakMikayla