Adam Ford writes: I fail to comprehend how Bernard Keane has acquired such a disoriented bee in his bonnet about the stage three tax cuts (“Why progressives should get behind the stage three tax cuts — no, really”). If he thinks having a tax regime where battlers on a mere $45k a year are taxed at the same rate as people earning $200k isn’t going to significantly worsen inequality in this county in perpetuity and doesn’t represent the absolute acme of neoliberal fantasy thought, then I’m left wondering how he manages to come up with so much insightful and morally grounded work on just about every other topic he writes on.
The proposal is utterly obscene, and if waived through by a Labor government would represent the worst (of many) abrogation(s) of the entire supposed moral purpose of the party. And Keane has done such a good job tallying up all those other abrogations I’m left wondering how this particular blind spot has progressed into a complete failure of all visual faculties.
David McKenna writes: The headline caught my attention immediately. I consider myself one of Keane’s so-called progressives and was astonished to presume there could be a progressive argument in favour of the tax cuts. But I was wrong. It’s a politically savvy analysis of the issues facing Labor’s commitment to high-end tax cuts. You gotta love it when your opinion gets overturned by savvy analysis.
Peta Newbound writes: A federal backbencher is paid $225,742 (2.3 times the average earnings of a full-time worker) a year. It is unbelievable that people at this income level and higher can grant themselves a huge tax cut yet let a single person on unemployment benefits survive on $19,749 a year. At that rate of income, it is more difficult for someone to be able to find work because of all the pressing financial issues that need to be dealt with.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s promise of these tax cuts was a desperate move to grab the votes of the wealthy. This ALP government might be “centrist right” but it is not aiming to help the poor and middle class, right or left. How do those people feel about private education being overfunded by $3 billion and public education being underfunded by $6 billion? How do those people feel when the government is giving tax rebates for private health insurance when they have no choice but to go on a waiting list at a public hospital or spend time searching for GPs who bulk-bill?
Nick Houston writes: Keane is optimistic that the ALP will reform anything. I cannot see any reform happening — just management of the economy. I also cannot see any wage rises when set off against inflation.
What the ALP should do is lure the Liberals into a cost-of-living trap, allow Opposition Leader Peter Dutton to howl about this and allow him to think the ALP might scrap the tax cuts. Then, when the pressure is unbearable, move on with the tax cuts but aimed at lower-income earners, thereby addressing cost-of-living pressure in the battler class. And then put in a super profits tax and use that to pay for the benefits increase. No broken promises and costs of living done and dusted for most voters. The ALP wins government with an increased majority at the next election.
The only thing is, the ALP is both too stupid to do this and does not care about the battler class. It loves the neoliberal economy and dumping shite on poor people while pretending not to be shite dumpers. It’s in its DNA now.
Peter Barry writes: The stage three tax cuts should be adjusted to reflect the current state of the economy. It is not justified for a Labor government to provide large benefits to those already well off while the average Joe/Jane struggles to meet their basic needs. The total amount should stay the same, as promised, but skewed to better support those on lower incomes.
Bill Morgan writes: I was perplexed when Labor allowed itself to be wedged by Scott Morrison to commit to the cuts years ago, but I agree now may be the right time. Viewed logically at the time they seemed absurd, given the Coalition’s “back in black” surplus prediction was mugged by the reality of COVID and the required fiscal indebtedness, and the inflation that then ensued. Given the likelihood of two consecutive surpluses, dampening retail demand and cost-of-living woes, now is the time for the tax cuts.
Perhaps they could be slightly more targeted to the poorer taxpayers. I agree that Dutton and the Murdoch commercial media would be relentless if Labor reneged on its promise.
Greg Hills writes: I agree with Keane’s logic. Better to keep this promise. One less piece of ammo for Dutton.
Cheryl Marquez writes: Maybe if the tax cuts were combined with an increase in all Centrelink payments to above the poverty line they’d be more acceptable?
Dominic Staun writes: All good arguments from Keane, but the fact remains that the stage three tax cuts are fundamentally unfair, and fairness is essential to a cohesive society. If Labor goes ahead with them I will place it second last on future ballot papers.
David Howe writes: As the Australia Institute has said: “The stage three cuts due to come into effect in July 2024 are the most expensive and most inequitable tax cuts in Australia’s history. If they were listed as expenditure, they would be the ninth most expensive program item in the budget.”
Those cuts could pay for a genuine program of social reform, such as expanded Medicare to include dental, a sustained public housing construction program, free university (OMG!), fast-tracked carbon-free electricity generation. I mean just think.
But no, Treasurer Jim Chalmers and his fanboys believe it is much more important to do fuck all about the things that matter to the majority and support a tax cut that will permanently flatten the tax system, make it less progressive, and provide the top 10% of earners with a massive ongoing benefit. The fact that politicians are among those getting the cuts seems overly convenient.
Crikey ran a series on state capture. I would argue the stage three cuts if implemented are a clear case of state capture by the rich. The political class that once championed policies to serve the greater good now pursues policies that serve only the rich.
Natasha Stewart writes: Why should I get a tax cut when I earn so much? Give it to those who need it. If Labor changes its mind it won’t affect votes from people such as me, but it may well secure votes from lower-income earners.
Robert Pulie writes: As I understand it, the tax cuts will result from a legislated erosion of our progressive tax system towards something more like the biblical tithe. And progressives are being asked to support something that is, by definition, regressive. Why? To improve the electoral prospects of the party that readily ditched its principles (again) when in opposition to evade the government’s wedging of it to improve its electoral prospects.
There’s no integrity in upholding a promise that’s already broken. And if broken promises are such electoral poison, how will Labor recover from its broken promises on transparency of government, humane treatment of asylum seekers and actual reduction of carbon emissions? While Labor continues to shadow the opposition, progressives will move to Greener pastures.
Don Maclean writes: Axing the stage three tax cuts isn’t an option for reasons presented by Keane. But restructuring them to benefit lower- to middle-income families etc at the expense of smaller tax cuts to the rich is also a no-brainer.
Bracket creep does need adjustment. But tax cut promises based on 2018 legislation and Coalition ideology should be modified by better and fairer formulae as we near their implementation date of July 2024. This is especially true now that harder tax reforms of policies that caused our housing crisis etc are in the too-hard basket.
Albanese wants these unfair and profligate cuts to go ahead unchanged. There is no other plausible explanation for his assiduous work to tie them to Labor ever since Morrison put them up. Roll on the next election when with luck we can force the Sh1t Lite Party into a minority government dependent on real progressives for passage of legislation. Of course, Albanese would probably just form an expanded Coalition with the Libs and Nats, as is his clear preference.
100% this
Just because something might seem tactically like ‘savvy politics’ does not change that the policy in question represents a systematic and cultural failure to communicate a collective interest in improving the health and wellbeing of our communities and society at large. By constantly appealing to pure individual self-interest by framing every policy with significant economic implications (tax cuts will reduce state capacity to provision for services and infrastructure) as ‘getting’ more of yours, it deepens the descent to the bottom of the barrel. Such political framing is a strategic choice regardless of how much it is described as a force of gravity, but its repetition as a choice entrenches the erosion of social agreements that were possible in the past. The political centre keeps making the same ‘choices’ leading us to worsening outcomes that are undermining any faith that government policy can have meaningfully positive improvements for us all as a society. We’re going to pay for this ‘savvy’ with eroding living standards, an unhealthier climate, less opportunities, a landed gentry and a hyperpolarised electorate.
Very well put. The complete lack of any attempt to shape the narrative into something which gives fairness anything more than ironic lip-service is the tell.
The only reason Labor shouldn’t be regarded as*absolute* scum is that the LNP continue to plumb new depths. The current ALP is definitely worse than the pre-Howard Liberal party.
If Labor doesn’t care about its traditional values as appears the case self-interest should inspire them to abandon ax the upper income cuts as:
Under the coaltion we had:
> free RATS
> readily accessible PCR tests
> income support for workers so workers could stay home with covid (stunning that ‘Labor’ pulled this)
When they removed free RATS I asked my chemist the cost and was told they only sold 5 packs at $38 which means they were unaffordable for low income workers and pensioners. I looked up PCR testing and the only way to access them I could find was to see a GP – most of whom don’t allow people with respiratory symptoms into their surgeries – and even without this issue finding GPs who bulk bill is at an all time low and paying to see one is unaffordable.
Where the LNP looked after workers and the sick ‘Labor’ threw them under the bus and imagined their spin that these supports Had to end because the LNP had legislated an end date and the Budget had to be their highest priority as they had inherited “LNP debt” would fly. Surely some of them had to recognize that what they called LNP debt most of us regarded as valuable and appreciated services???? And that the public aren’t idiots who can’t see this a fob off and don’t mind having their intelligence insulted??
Imagine, you are or know someone who:
> got Covid
> got long covid
> gave it to a friend, family member, or coworker – and worse they got long covid or died
> are an employor whose business suffered when a worker worked with covid
> had telehealth and psychology services cut like the mother on The Project whose son suffered PTSD
> petrol excise reduction which cut household costs as well as reduced cost of transported goods – by 0.25% according to an LNP member on an Afternoon Briefing when they were in power which if so would have spared home buyers an interest rate cut
These are mere headings that ignore the experience of attendant suffering. I still feel heartbreak when I bring to mind a twitter of a year or more ago from a distraught mother with 2 small children with long covid who didn’t know what to say when they repeatedly asked her “When will I feel better again Mum?”
Imagine you are working 2 jobs, stressed out of your mind about losing your house, family relationships are strained due to stress caused minor illnesses and no time to just be or energy sufficient to address conflicts. Or those who must choose between medicine or food or heat and become yet more ill. Or someone on Job Seeker who believed a Labor government would at least bring up to the poverty level.
Labor says you have to endure this as it’s vital for the country that they are prudent financial managers. The International Monetary Fund and 100s of economists say stage 3 tax cuts are unsound in an inflationary economy and put at risk essential services – already sub par under Labor imo. https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/imf-report-underscores-economic-risks-of-stage-3-tax-cuts-experts/
Politicians ‘had’ to have a $13k pay rise – half a year’s salary for some – while workers must bear small increases due to inflation. Now those on 200k and up must get $9000 tax rebates for sake of not breaking an election promise as to do so would savage trust. Um . . . do any of them actually believe following through with these cuts will foster trust??? The premise itself is a nonsense as consistency doesn’t ipso facto engender trust – someone who spits at me every time I see them is consistent. Feeling that others are acting in ways that consider our welfare is far more important to founding trust as without this there can be none. Second only to the Coalition patting Scomo on the back instead of censuring him is Chalmers telling the single mother on a Q&A that he understands how she is struggling. I very much doubt I was the only one who felt like screaming: “Well do something to help her ffs! She doesn’t want your sympathy, she needs help!!!”
I am deeply deeply concerned about the impact of a Labor gov making the rich richer at the expense of the severely struggling many on the future of our democracy as this is how far right populists gain power. Trust in govs is at all time lows, there are fewer democracies each year and impact of this coming from a Labor gov will have far far more impact given their history of being on the side of the little guy. What hope when the party we thought would help fails us?? Chilling. I really do fear this.
As to Labor’s self-interest they are helping the LNP get elected imo as why would anyone disaffected by their withdrawal of services or suffering cost of living pressures vote for them when they actually had it better under the LNP??? As to me, and as someone who contributed to Labor’s election campaign, their support of Stage 3 cuts made me join the Greens and contribute to them instead.
STRATEGIC NOUS – really?
Strategic would be – Real reform on the Petroleum Resources Rent Tax (PRRT). Real Reform to the PRRT, via, a Rod Simms (former ACCC Chair) recommended 66% deductions cap, would provide $billions in Govt Revenue, for eg Health; Education; NDIS; Weather Event victims. Many Lismore etc weather victims remain homeless 3 years’ on. Without PRRT reform releasing billions to the taxpayers, there remains no chance of appropriate adequate compensation, from the culprits responsible for these global disasters.