We all thought we knew roughly how the lines of battle were drawn between Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and his enemies on the right. The latter were basically the old Tony Abbott gang with their roots in the DLP — big on religion, big on cultural issues, big on so-called national security.
Despite their habit of calling him a “socialist”, Turnbull’s enemies have never seemed particularly big on economics. As I pointed out back in September:
“Turnbull’s signature differences with the man he overthrew … are on climate change, same-sex marriage and the republic: none of them economic issues. To the extent that they involve government influence on the economy (e.g. carbon pricing vs direct action), Abbott’s view inclines more to the command-and-control model than Turnbull’s.”
But you might have got a different impression from last Thursday’s Australian Financial Review, where my friend John Roskam, executive director of the IPA, launched a full-throttle attack on Turnbull. Although he mentions those “signature issues” in passing, his centrepiece is taxes on superannuation: “Unbelievable. But true. The Liberals are now in a bidding war with the ALP as to who can increase taxes on superannuation the most.”
Superannuation is complicated in detail but simple in principle: to encourage people to save for their own retirement instead of having to rely on the age pension, the government effectively subsidises such savings by reducing the tax that would otherwise be payable on superannuation contributions.
But for people who are too wealthy to ever qualify for the age pension in the first place, that has never made a lot of sense. Now, in an atmosphere of fiscal difficulty, both major parties (in different ways) are planning to wind back this concession in the case of the very rich.
The fact that Roskam can’t see any economically liberal argument for this course of action suggests he’s given up entirely on the idea of tax neutrality.
Of course, in a sense, any removal of any tax concession is a “tax increase”. But it’s absurd to conclude that therefore every such concession, no matter how distortionary, should be retained in perpetuity. We wouldn’t, for example, say that a special 50% tax discount just for Muslims should be supported as a bold step towards lower taxes.
No one thinks that a special tax concession for a minority group is anything other than a subsidy — except, of course, when the minority group is the rich. And it’s especially strange that Roskam thinks that clawing back some tax revenue somehow counts against a “commitment to fiscal responsibility”.
There’s a thriving debate in America about just how to understand the hard-right tendency that in recent years has taken over the Republican Party. One argument, put regularly, for example, by Jon Chait at New York magazine, is that the constant in Republican policy is low taxes for the very rich, and that hard-right cultural policies are just there to build an electoral majority to back this key goal.
Others, including myself, have argued that economic issues are rarely fundamental to partisan division, and that while things like tax cuts for the rich might be a valuable fundraising tool, most people in politics are driven by deeper attitudinal issues that emerge in questions like immigration and same-sex marriage.
Moving back to the Australian scene — which takes so many of its cues from the US — I have to admit that Roskam’s column looks like evidence against my view. Turnbull’s foes, he seems to be saying, will tolerate his heresy on climate change and the like, but will die in the last ditch to defend the interests of the wealthy.
But I’m not entirely convinced. I think it’s possible to read Roskam the other way, as saying that Turnbull-hatred is pre-existing, cultural, even visceral, and that the moves on superannuation are just the latest issue that the Abbott group will latch onto in their effort to swing more mainstream opinion around to their point of view.
In other words, perhaps defence of the rich is not central to an anti-Turnbull view, but is more characteristic of the non-ideological heart of the Liberal Party, to which the anti-Turnbull forces are opportunistically willing to pander.
Whether that really paints the party in any better a light, however, is a matter of opinion.
“The Liberals are now in a bidding war with the ALP as to who can increase taxes on superannuation the most.”
I am reminded of Abbott’s pre-election commitments – worthless.
Also this looks like window dressing – not least because it distracts from the expiry of the high income levy.
It’s accurate to say as you suggest that the Coalition are no match for their Unions/Greens Labor opponents when it comes to anyone who “turns the screws” on an opponent.
True enough Norman, they don’t the intellectual firepower to do it, and they do have the press baron to do that for them.
Whatever else, what a benign time of it all Malcolm has had in comparison to the absolute beatings that Gillard took by deposing Rudd, and that wasn’t just Rudd’s work, he had a highly complicit and mysogynist press to help in that work.
No, it was all about knocking off a PM! BS, Malcolm is the immediate example of why so much of the hatred towards Gillard was gender-based. And as a politician, she far exceeds Turnbull in achievements.
+1
Abbott could not be trusted and his nutter right-wing supporters have Malcolm in a strait jacket. He is, indeed, Abbott-lite. If he wins the election, it will only be because Labor apparently can do no better than Shorten.
You seem to have it in for Bill Shorten, sf.
Might I remind you, that he is just another minister (shadow)…first among equals. We do NOT vote for, or elect, a Prime Minister. That is up to any winning party to arrange.
It is the Labor shadow cabinet/caucus, and the POLICIES they have and will announce over the election campaign period, you should be concentrating on. And if you don’t think the members of that group are far superior to what we have now, then I suggest that if you had half a brain, it would be lonely!!
Labor is more than Shorten just as the Liberals are more than Turnbull. Look at the party issues and their policies. The Liberals look much less substantial and Labor by comparison looks the more substantial at least at this point in the not formally launched election campaign.
On the article itself: Charles, if John Roskam is the head honcho at the IPA…what else would you expect him to say/write?
Haven’t you read the IPA 100 manifesto of fa++ist BS!!
Roskam has absolutely no credibility amongst the general public…and neither will you have, if he is your friend who you ‘maybe’ agree with on ANY issue!!!
I understand that super tax concessions cost more than the old age pension, that makes sense!
I don’t think Turnbull is much different from his colleagues, he just says what he thinks people want him to say at any given time. He was a boss at Goldman Sachs during the gfc, when they were hedging against the people whose savings they were busy losing. He is still investing in hedge funds.