Latham, Labor and tax cuts for the rich : Melbourne Indymedia

Latham and the Labor Tax Debate

While it is impossible to deny that a Crean Labor government would be fundamentally more progressive on a whole host of issues than the incumbent Conservatives, recent statements by Mark Latham will be close to providing ‘the straw that breaks the camel’s back’ for many rank and file Labor activists, and disillusioned Labor voters. Latham’s commitment to ‘tax relief’ for those ‘struggling’ on as much as $60,000-$80,000 a year has many shaking their heads in disbelief. It is enough to prompt one to consider the plight of the unemployed, the welfare-dependent, or the working poor, and their place in Latham’s ‘order of priorities’. Those on Labor’s Left (and even some from its Right) will be searching their consciences in the face of proposals that can only serve to hasten the ‘Americanisation’ of Australia’s social and economic systems. (ie: obsession with small government and tax cuts, ‘flattening’ of an already regressive tax system, marginalization of the interests of workers, and of the poor, destruction of the welfare state)

It is not beyond imagination that at least some of those pragmatists who are advocating sweeping tax cuts actually conceive an ethical basis for their opportunism. For them, it is a matter of ‘harm minimisation’. Organised labour and social democracy, by this reckoning, have lost the ‘culture war’. The only remaining option is to soften the reaction, by internalizing certain of its key tenets. For many ‘pragmatists’, however, opportunism has developed to such a point where even the ideological basis implied in ‘harm minimisation’ is totally absent. Politics is simply a matter of personal ambition, underlying interests, marketing, market-research and shallow ‘product differentiation’.

This, however, is to neglect a number of key concerns. To begin with, there is a growing body of evidence suggesting that Australians are willing to pay taxes which they can closely identify as being linked with spending initiatives and priorities that ‘are in the public interest’.

According to Andrew McCallum, from ACOSS, the Australian Council of Social Services,

"A new analysis of Roy Morgan Research opinion poll data by ACOSS finds
that the importance the public gives to taxation has halved over the
past five years while concern over health and education has risen by 67%
and 89% respectively." http://www.coss.net.au/news/acoss/1066186704_13966_acoss.jsp

Meanwhile, according to additional studies undertaken by Australian Research Consultants publicized in Melbourne’s ‘Age’ newspaper,

“* 75 per cent of voters, including 69 per cent of federal government supporters, would prefer more spent on hospitals and schools, rather than tax cuts
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/08/17/1061059705525.html

Where tax increases focus primarily upon ‘the high end of town’, therefore, Labor stands an even greater chance of building a solid constituency for reform: relentlessly pressing home the message that such reform is in the financial and social interests of the vast majority of Australian voters. Abolition of dividend imputation, a modest carbon tax, an increase in the Medicare Levy for upper income earners, introduction of a progressively scaled ‘education levy’, abolition of capital gains tax concessions, a marginal 1% increase in company tax, the introduction of a wealth tax for millionaires, and the introduction of new PAYE tax brackets for the wealthy could, in of themselves, net over $8 billion in new revenue: the sum of which could be used to:

• bring final closure to the hospital waiting lists crisis, restoring faith in the public health system, and thus undercutting the cost of the private health insurance rebate

• Expand Medicare to include dental care, optical care, prosthetics, physio, and other vital areas of service provision

• Markedly increase support for carers to at least $120/fortnight, while providing the revenue base to provide for an aging population compassionately and equitably

• restore equity, quality and participation in both secondary and higher education, with positive implications for investment and growth, also ‘heading off’ the drift towards a ‘two-tiered’, class-based education system

• allow boosts in pensions and the provision of targeted programs against unemployment, entrenched disadvantage and poverty

• Increase state grants, removing the impetus behind private provision of essential infrastructure such as roads, and the resultant imposition of tolls (ie: regressive, privately-administered flat taxes)

• Expand quality public housing to address the generational poverty issues associated with rising property prices, and plummeting levels of home ownership

By comparison, any real tax cuts aimed at Australians living on above Average Weekly Earnings will come from the budget bottom line. Quite directly, this will result in reduced social expenditure, and the imposition of further regressive user charges in education, health, aged care and basic infrastructure including roads.
In this way, such tax cuts must ultimately come at the expense of the majority of Australians. When social services in Health, Education, Aged Care and elsewhere, are not provided for by the State, on the basis of progressive taxation, with contributions made on the basis of ‘capacity to pay’, demand for such services does not simply ‘disappear’. Instead, provision of such services usually reverts to the market, where the cost of services is determined by ‘supply and demand’. In this context such user charges comprise the equivalent of a regressive flat tax. At best, a two-tiered system is created: private affluence and public squalor – where the public system is progressively marginalized, as are those who depend upon it. At worst, those on average incomes find themselves paying a greater proportion of their total income for basic services, while those on lower incomes and welfare are simply ‘priced out of the market’ altogether. Hence US-style health care, where capacity to pay determines between life and death.

If there are to be tax cuts of any sort, then they should be in the form of tax credits or rebates, aimed at benefiting only those on Average Weekly Earnings and lower, while at least maintaining public revenue (and hence outlays) in real terms. This, then, should be coupled with a progressive restructuring of the PAYE tax scale to restore distributive justice. Such reform could finally be complemented by the indexation of the lowest PAYE tax brackets , enabling protection from bracket creep for those on lower and average incomes.

Labor Shadow Treasurer, Mark Latham has pointed to the demographics of three marginal Liberal seats: Aston, Casey and Hughes, where median incomes range between $45,000 and $65,000, in an attempt to bolster his plan to slash the top PAYE income tax rate. While Aston is a true marginal, however, 2001 figures put Hughes at a 6.1% margin, with a total of 40 electorates within closer ‘striking range’. http://www.australianpolitics.com/elections/2001/results/pendulum.shtml
In the 2004 election, therefore, neither Hughes nor Casey are likely to play the decisive role.

Conservative political commentators, plying a deceptive agenda, are prone to point to average full time adult earnings of approximately $48,000/year to construct a ‘snapshot’ of the ‘average Australian’. Such figures, however, ignore those Australians who are unemployed, welfare-dependent, retired, or in part-time or casual work. This considered, according to the 2001 Australian Census, the ‘average Australian’ survived on “$300-$399 a week”.
http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/52BF7AD1530122AACA256C75007E400F Even assuming a figure of $400/week, this would place the ‘average Australian’ at barely $20,000/year. For employees only, meanwhile, the figure rests at just under $36,000/year. http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/0/07a4693170a8da91ca256cae00057fc4?OpenDocument

According to ‘The Age’ (20/11/2003), ‘Confidential Labor Party research’ suggests that a “squeeze’ on the cost of living will be a “potent election issue”,
In the opportunist drive for tax cuts, Latham ignores the electoral (and social) impact of failing to deliver substantially and qualitatively better health, education and aged care programs to middle and lower income groups, the unemployed and the welfare dependent. Furthermore, he ignores the tangible benefits in regard to ‘cost of living issues’ that would be provided by an expansion of the social wage: from which the vast majority of Australians would benefit. If Labor is to maintain, let alone expand, Australia’s social wage, and thus govern in the interests of the majority of Australians, if cannot afford to provide real tax cuts to those on average full-time adult earnings, let alone the relatively wealthy.

Failing to address the question of revenue will inevitably relegate Labor to merely ‘tinkering around the edges’ in regard to health, education, welfare, aged care and other concerns. When Labor talks about committing approximately $2 billion to Medicare and Higher Education respectively, it ought be remembered that this is in the context of an economy of well over $700 billion.(!) Meanwhile, John Howard’s recent tax cuts, providing a mere $4 a week to certain voters: passed by Labor in the Senate, abandoned a source of revenue sufficient to fund Labor’s entire Higher Education strategy. This, thus, provides a clearer perspective, and thus a better understanding of the priority such issues are given in this country,

Labor should take heart from successive studies demonstrating the willingness of voters to pay tax in the event that such revenue is linked with clearly identifiable ‘social goods’ in health and education. Rather than moving again onto the ‘back foot’: into a ‘harm minimisation’ approach, characterized by a ‘bidding war on tax’, Labor needs, now, to be setting the foundations for a real social justice strategy that provides a comprehensive and qualitative alternative to the Conservatives.

Tristan Ewins, ALP member, freelance writer

Tristan Ewins is a long time rank and file ALP activist and freelance writer based in Melbourne. He is the author of ‘Policies of the Future’: a comprehensive policy document submitted to the ALP’s ‘Macklin Policy Review’, and has a chapter on ‘civics and citizenship education’ appearing in the 2004 edition of ‘Labor Essays’, published by the Fabian Society and Pluto Press.

What do you expect when you participate in bourgeois politics?

****************************************************
Tristan Ewins is a long time rank and file ALP activist and freelance writer based in Melbourne. He is the author of ‘Policies of the Future’: a comprehensive policy document submitted to the ALP’s ‘Macklin Policy Review’, and has a chapter on ‘civics and citizenship education’ appearing in the 2004 edition of ‘Labor Essays’, published by the Fabian Society and Pluto Press.

*********************************************************

The thing with that is at major conferences Labor spend little time on actual policy work while the majority is taken up with factional infighting and back stabbing.

The test will come this week when the Medicare Safety net is either passed or universal healthcare principles are upheld. If you can't agitate and organise to stop this swindle from Abbott then I hold out little hope on any other issue.

If Nelson's education package is passed then this too will ring alarm bells about just how effective this opposition is at present.

Steve, Labor is firm in its opposition to both the higher education and Medicare packages. It's the minor parties and independents -- who hold the balance of power in the Senate -- that you should be worried about.

This morning Democrat Senator John Cherry announced that he might vote in favour of the education package. That is seriously scary shit. Later reports suggest he has been pulled into line by his party, but the fact that he is even thinking about voting with the Government is disgraceful.

Labor aren't the problem here. It's Dems and Greens who might think about doing a Meg Lees-style deal in order to boost their personal profile.

Hi Tristen very good to see you are still around on the IMC and well scribed as usual.

Although I think you and most people have Latham all wrong. He maybe a bit authoritarian- (broke a taxi drivers arm, wants the strap back in school)- but generally Latham has heart and vigor. This is what’s needed in politics.

This is very premature, Tristan, “Organised labour and social democracy, by this reckoning, have lost the ‘culture war’”

The culture war between Adams, Windshuttle etal couldn’t and should not mean shit to most people and this is where Latham stands tall – more comprehensive reading on this in ‘From the Suburbs” by Mark Latham.

Anti-elitism at both spectrums, third way Latham is targeting the old labor guard workers and the new professionals. Tax cuts for the aspiring class and innovative uni-class professionals should be implemented. The rate is simply too high and the Howard government is the biggest taxing government ever.

The broader questions remain.

Just were taxes are going? And how could they be used to best serve Australia? This is the fundamental question Latham is looking at while others revert to myopic, tax, tax , tax the people and spend- when it suits- regressive policy.

“Redirecting” taxes is the newspeak term, take the diesel subsidies for example and private school hand outs. With taxes taken, redirected, middle income earnersa alleviated, we can generate more social programs (social capital), better education and offer more opportunity.

Corporations and the elite are palpably the target of Latham’s progressive taxing and this will become more evident in the coming months.

Now let’s see, in the true liberal spirit, if Latham will target his own profession.

“Australians are willing to pay taxes which they can closely identify as being linked with spending initiatives and priorities that ‘are in the public interest”.

I agree, but how do we make an equitable tax system that is viewed Sweden style, as a benefit, for society.

The same as we get a gym pass, a membership and also we give people who pay their hard earned dollars positive reinforcement, ie stats, benefits.

We can kill the opposition in every respective if we adopt liberal progression over mediocre ‘social conservatism’ that dominates both left and right politics.

Hey Nick - thanks for your long and detailed reply -

*** He maybe a bit authoritarian- (broke a taxi drivers arm, wants the strap back in school)- but generally Latham has heart and vigor. This is what’s needed in politics. ***

Yes - he certainly has 'vigour' - and has done a sterling job of taking a strong stand on foreign policy...
(I mean this - quite honestly) But this does not alter the unworkable and insulting nature of his savings policy (try saving money on $20,000/year while paying the rent and raisng kids), and the regressive nature of his tax proposals. By handing $1 billion or more back to the highest of income earners, we are forgoing enough money to fund certain dental services in Medicare, ease means tests on semi-self-funded retirees (who may take a lifetime to save $80,000 - and then end up no better off), or add 50% to Labor's higher education commitment, with the resultant benefits for quality, participation, equity... This is without even considering the very PRINCIPLE of a progressive scaled taxation system - which is at stake... Now.... as a party of social justice, supposedly governing in the interests of most Australians (the majority of which are on $20,000/year - $36,000/year for employees) - WHAT IS OUR FIRST PRIORITY? I often wonder why tax is such a dirty word in the ALP these days is not only because of shallow opportunism (because the vast majority of voters are NOT earning $60,000/year or more) - but rather because we no longer have a working class membership base - and we have socially liberal professionals who aren't willing to put their money where their mouths are - and pay their fair share to help the poor and the disadvantaged....

**** The culture war between Adams, Windshuttle etal couldn’t and should not mean shit to most people and this is where Latham stands tall – more comprehensive reading on this in ‘From the Suburbs” by Mark Latham.

Anti-elitism at both spectrums, third way Latham is targeting the old labor guard workers and the new professionals. Tax cuts for the aspiring class and innovative uni-class professionals should be implemented. The rate is simply too high and the Howard government is the biggest taxing government ever. ****

Nick - the working class need much more than 'rough talk' - they need a government that is willing to govern in their economic INTERESTS - that is: a return to class politics.... Having tax cuts to the rich, that directly take away from programs of benefit to the working class and the poor, or otherwise force them to shoulder a greater proportion of the tax burden - is NOT governing in their interests....

*** This is the fundamental question Latham is looking at while others revert to myopic, tax, tax , tax the people and spend- when it suits- regressive policy.

“Redirecting” taxes is the newspeak term, take the diesel subsidies for example and private school hand outs. With taxes taken, redirected, middle income earnersa alleviated, we can generate more social programs (social capital), better education and offer more opportunity. ***

Nick - we are not even willing to trash the private health insurance rebate - so where's the money going to be 'redirected' from? John Quiggin estimates it would take approx $5b to get hospital waiting lists down to acceptable levels... Now - where are you going to get that kind of money by 'redirecting'???? Already, Jenny Macklin has told as that the Coalition has taken maybe $6 billion from Higher Education... Labor's commitments in Higher Ed and Medicare add up to a total of $4b out of an economy of $700b... That is: we are only 'scratching the surface' of the problem.... There's just not enough money to 'redirect' to solve the problem - as our timid proposals show.

*** Corporations and the elite are palpably the target of Latham’s progressive taxing and this will become more evident in the coming months. ***

Well, if he proposes to put company tax up by 3%, say, maybe I'll start taking him seriously.

“Australians are willing to pay taxes which they can closely identify as being linked with spending initiatives and priorities that ‘are in the public interest”.

**** I agree, but how do we make an equitable tax system that is viewed Sweden style, as a benefit, for society. The same as we get a gym pass, a membership and also we give people who pay their hard earned dollars positive reinforcement, ie stats, benefits.

We can kill the opposition in every respective if we adopt liberal progression over mediocre ‘social conservatism’ that dominates both left and right politics. ****

No - I don't think so - you are resigning us to a losing battle - one step forward two steps back - only it's even worse than that.... I believe that if we have proposals that are in the interests of the vast majority of voters.... and we make very clear connections between our tax proposals and the envisaged social gains - backed by research - then we can win on that basis... I don't think people are so stupid as to believe you can improve health and education without getting the money from somewhere.... And if - overwhelmingly - the money's coming from the 'top end', the case can be put even more strongly - that Labor's proposals are in the direct economic and social interests of the vast majority of voters....

Tristan