So there are three debates about the stage three tax cuts, or three tangled parts of one debate among the politically engaged, which is maybe 2% of the population.
First is about policy: are the tax cuts an effective use of the maybe $150-200 billion they will cost over a decade (not $240 billion)? The answer to that is likely no, except if you work at the Financial Review. The tax cuts are the product of the pre-pandemic era when the return to a balanced budget was on the cards. And almost certainly there are better uses of such a sum regardless. They will also deepen inequality.
On the other hand, we rely too much on personal income tax; beneficiaries of the tax cuts on incomes like $180,000 are doing well but are by no means “rich” if they’re living in a major city with a million-dollar mortgage.
Second is the debate about the politics: can the new government get away with breaking its promise to keep the tax cuts as legislated? Many, primarily on the left, insist it can, that the electorate will accept that times have changed and the tax cuts are no longer affordable; others say that Albanese and Chalmers should make a virtue of doing the right thing fiscally and economically, even if hurts politically — ultimately that will redound to their advantage.
Those primarily on the right and in the media mutter about Gillard’s carbon tax promise (which, actually, she didn’t break, but anyway), Keating’s L-A-W tax cuts, and Tony Abbott’s spending cuts in 2014. It will hand a huge weapon to the Coalition and undermine, perhaps fatally, perceptions of Anthony Albanese as trustworthy.
The third is the one that far fewer are happy to engage in: what does it mean for political integrity if the government breaks its promise? If Albanese and Chalmers — say, in the May 2023 budget — dump stage three or even amend it significantly, it’s a major broken promise. Labor promised to honour the tax cuts, over and over, before the election, despite everyone knowing Labor didn’t like them. It would mean Labor misled voters.
Perhaps it would be a lie: Labor always planned to ditch the tax cuts, but decided simply to pretend ahead of the election to support them. Or perhaps it would be a falsehood — Labor at the time intended to retain the tax cuts, but had since decided to dump them.
But if it’s good enough to call out Scott Morrison for lies and falsehoods, which we did scores of times, it’s good enough to do the same to Albanese.
Labor supporters, opponents of the tax cuts and most on the left, including most people reading this, will object: but this is different. This is a promise that should be broken. Circumstances have changed. This is a good government governing in the public interest, not a rotten government like Morrison’s.
What that all boils down to is: my side shouldn’t be subjected to the same standard as the other side. We’re better. When we lie, or break a promise, it’s for a good reason.
Of course, that’s what your political or ideological opponents think, too. For them a broken promise or a falsehood is every bit as justified by the public interest, or by the need to keep those awful socialists out of power.
In my book Lies and Falsehoods I wrote about the phenomenon of “blue lies”, a US term for police lying in court to protect their colleagues, or to ensure that a criminal who otherwise might escape justice gets convicted.
Political debate is riddled with blue lies, and it’s becoming worse. Lies that people think are justified by the circumstances. Lies that lead to a good outcome. Lies that are needed. What the left, and opponents of the tax cuts, are engaging in is blue lying, same as the right did ad nauseam when Morrison was PM.
You either apply the same standards in public life to everyone, or you don’t. Few of those making excuses for the government — those who think ditching the tax cuts is justified — would have ever cut Morrison such slack. But Morrison was awful, they’ll reply. This is different. Maybe it’s different, but that doesn’t change the fact that ditching tax cuts would be a broken promise.
There are ways for the government to avoid breaking the promise. It can increase other taxes. It could introduce a high income earners’ deficit levy (including on large corporations). Maybe it could shave the tax cuts to cap the amount the very wealthiest receive from them — though that wouldn’t do much for the budget. A small amendment to the tax cuts wouldn’t be a broken promise, just a bit of casuistry. Not enough to make it onto a putative list of Albanese Lies and Falsehoods.
But ditching them is a broken promise. It’s a lie or a falsehood. Doubtless plenty of readers strongly disagree and will berate me in the comments. But either you’re consistent in the standards you apply to politicians, or you’re cheerleading. Take your pick.
Do you think the government should ditch the stage three tax cuts? Or would you consider it a broken promise worthy of Scott Morrison? Let us know your thoughts by writing to letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name to be considered for publication. We reserve the right to edit for length and
This is another example where the old joke’s punchline fits: Well, I wouldn’t start from here.
Labor’s horrible decision to vote for the cuts, thereby sacrificing all principles to short-term tactical calculations, and then to dig in and repeat in the most absolute terms it would keep the cuts, elevating them into one of Labor’s key election promises, is the reason for this unresolvable mess. There are no good options because doing the right thing for the economy and for fiscal policy now requires Labor to shatter its own credibility and do wonders for the opposition. Labor will lose badly whatever it does now.
(There was some fool on the radio this morning saying Labor had to keep the cuts in order to preserve its reputation for fiscal responsibility. Of course the truth is the opposite, but that seems to be irrelevant.)
I guess the short term political calculation was “do we want to be in government or not?”. The opening line in Bernard’s article says it all – the economic case is, although legitimate, only really understood by a very small part of the voting population as the 2019 election attests.
I’m yet to see an argument that practically overcomes the self interest of the 70%+ who voted for pro tax cuts candidates. I’m also yet to see one mainstream media source that is willing to cover this issue as anything other than a wedge. Very few said “lib tax cuts bad” prior to the last two elections (remember when they all said Morrison’s net zero plan was a stroke of political genius?)
It’s not all bad, in exchange we get the NACC, 43% as a floor, renewed international reputation…
You seem to be saying Labor would not be in government if it had not voted for and insisted on keeping the cuts. That’s quite an assumption, and the observation about the number of votes that went to parties with that position (i.e. Coalition plus Labor) does not prove it without some demonstration, or at least a convincing argument, that the Coalition would otherwise have retained power.
I think Bizzy is suggesting they could have abstained. Morrison had the Senate numbers to pass the omnibus bill without Labor support.
Not without some very exensive concessions to PHONie – ‘Labor’ was a much easier & cheaper…route.
Yes, that is true. Hence, it made no difference if Labor would have voted against it. However, they would have been accused not to grant a tax cut to the lower income earners. That they had abundant their base etc. Remember, the low income worker’s tax cut were tied to the high income.
They were wedged as the legislation included lower income workers for whom the tax cuts would be needed
I think it is a fair assumption after the experience of the 2019 election, where Labor committed to tax changes that impacted a relatively few and wealthy, which was beat up by the LNP and their media allies (which is pretty much all the mainstream media) as an “attack” on all workers.
Some one I know felt that Morrison would lose the election regardless if he voted for him or not, and as Labor promised to keep the tax cuts; hence, it was safe voting for them . But as well I know someone who is saying that he had been looking forward to the tax cuts, but feels that they are morally not justified.
“do we want to be in government or not?”
Do we want an ALP government that in most respects is Coalition-lite anyway?
To paraphrase Mr Morrison, I reject the premise of your question. The “coalition lite” tag is a mischievous lie long propagated by those supporting the LNP aimed at disarming any change in government.
However, were I to take it at face value, my response would be: NACC, 43% as a floor, improved international reputation etc…
Quite the opposite – it was disappointed, discouraged and disgusted LABOR voters who first began and now most often use the phrase.
The RWNJ would think it a compliment.
You say ‘Labor will lose badly whatever it does now’. You do not for a fact know if this is correct. If I was a betting person my money would be on you simply because the economic values of neo-liberalism now also hold sway as our societal values, that is, self interest, competition and consumerism.
For a sense of justice to prevail justice must first be in each person’s heart. If Labor does lose badly it will be a sad reflection on the moral bankruptcy of Australian society and they deserve everything such a position dishes out. .
I do know it. Either
Those are the only available options. Both are bad for Labor. Labor loses either way.
Albanese shouldn’t have cooperated so wholeheartedly with being wedged in the first place. It’s almost as if he wanted these cuts…
What’s the salary levels for federal politicians these days? Are they above the $180K mark? Asking for a friend…
Base salary is $220K pa + perks, PPS receives an extra $40K and Ministers $120K with the PM approaching $400K.
Similarly Opposition pays almost as well.
There would not be a single journalist/stenographer spruiking these cuts receiving less than the threshold.
Apparently none can spell nor comprehend ‘conflict of interest‘.
Once again old sport you ‘do not know’. Again I suspect that you ‘may’. be right.
You appear to totally discount the possibility that informed and civil debate way lead to some overall consensus of what ‘fairness’ and a sense of social justice really means and what is required to bring about such a result.
It is though an understanding of “Public Reason” – debating issues openly and rationally form the perspective of what justice demands of us and in particular what best serves the interests of the least advantaged that societies may advance to be more just and equal ones. The Nordic states such as Norway and Sweden broke the power of the ruling economic elites many years ago through just such a manner by forming non-violent coalitions of groups who were prepared to bring to reality a democratic, more caring and equal society. That is the disparate groups shared the basics of a common vision of what a ‘better’ /more just society should look like.
You presume that such a movement cannot occur in Australia and once again I suspect that you ‘may’ be right. BU if you are then there is no alternative but to give up all hope for a ‘future’ Australia based on similar principles as the Nordic nations fought for.
Indeed, if we were more like the Nordic states in terms of social justice we would not currently have 13% of our children living in poverty while the Nordics comparable figures all sit below 5%.
Already ‘polls’ show the number of Australians open to the idea of changes to Stage 3 tax reforms are growing and moving in favor of change..
All hope is not yet lost.
That’s the equivalent of betting on a tossed coin coming down on its edge. I’ll stick with the possibilities of either heads or tails, as I’ve described.
It must be nice to see things only in black or white. To lie or not to lie, that is the question? So simply!!!
I really do not see why there is so much angst over the issue of the Stage 3 tax changes. Sure it would be ‘good’ if everyone always kept their promises but sometimes this is not possible or desirable. The ALP was blackmailed into accepting the stage 3 changes, in other words the low-life previous excuse of a government was prepared to deny and use the threat of no tax relief to lower income households as a club to batter the ALP into submission on stage 3.
Please explain how this differs to police badgering an innocent person to accept a plea bargain (so as to not hold up the wheels of justice) rather than risk all in a court room or in this case for the ALP an election? I thought the wheels of justice were meant to protect people not run all over them.
I would have thought that the bigger issue here is what is the fair/just thing to do? Countless definitions of (social) justice emphasize the importance of viewing policies/actions from the perspective of the least advantaged. You have to live on Bizzarro world to believe that the Morrison tax package was aimed at improving the position of the least advantaged or at even basic level reduce inequality.
There is a burgeoning growth of evidence showing how more equal societies are better off and far happier than more unequal societies. The Nordic nation constantly head the list of the happiest nations in the world just as they head the list of nations who most believe that their governments govern with the interests of the people at heart. Oh and just by chance they happen to be far more equal that Australia and surprise, surprise they pay a higher amount of overall tax than Australians.
However, the stage 3 tax cuts are an occasion when repealing them is doing more overall ‘good’ for more Australians than doing bad but more importantly it is the ‘right’ thing to do as well. Social justice as ‘fairness’ means looking after the interests/well being of the least advantaged before giving even further advantages to those already quite well off.
Against all of this stands the ‘cost’ of a broken but forced promise. Really? The question is can the ALP make the case for change and make it stick? This is their window but can they see it or will it simply pass them by?
To compare this to Sports rort or Robo-debt just doesn’t cut it. To say a policy once decided upon must be maintained in its entirely when hard evidence clearly shows it to be the wrong one is to act on stupidity with one’s head firmly stuck in the sand.
Of course this will provide the primates like Dutton and his intellectually limited fellow cave dwellers a chance to do what hey do best lie, deceive and divide. The big plus is that Dutton is an intellectual midget, a moral bankrupt and people see him as Morrison version 2.
Many oldies think of Moe, Larry and Curly when we speak of the Three Stooges They were a famously popular comedy group of the 30’s and 40’s. According to Wikipedia ‘their hallmark styles were physical farce and slapstick’. The good news if the ALP does decide to back track on Stage 3 tax cuts is that the three stooges will be making a comeback as Dutton, Ley and Taylor who are currently acting to sell out audiences under the guise of pretending to be politicians of substance.
Their new comedy sketch as the re-born three stooges is simply called ‘broken promises’. The questions of whether the Stage 3 tax cuts are ‘good’ for Australians overall or ‘right’ in terms of fairness and social justice are way beyond a laughing matter to these comedians. They are good and right because the three stooges say so. Trust us. Would we lie to you??
Yes, I think the situation we are now in where politicians are so unwilling to admit error or change in response to circumstances is a significant part of the whole problem. In my workplace, if you make a mistake or find new information the most important thing is that this is communicated to the team and an appropriate response developed. It’s like climate change, you can lie, obfuscate, distract as much as you like, reality will win.
The govt should do what is best for the country, and even some ppl on the right (Bridget Archer & Dai Le included) are saying the cuts are bad policy.
Broken promise? Yes.
I think the ALP is drawing this out to get more and more ppl urging them to ditch the cuts so they can say their hand was forced by circumstances
Agree, while media inc. Crikey forgets that our media is all right wing or LNP leaning and can crucify the centre right through left on any initiative they make.
I hope that you are right
Labor could allow the tax cuts to proceed as they have promised. But they could consistently emphasise the cost of the tax cuts in terms of revenue foregone and needed programs not funded. From there they could develop the argument for genuine reform of the government revenue base, which they could take to the 2024 election. In short, they could, by keeping this commitment, build the public confidence they need to achieve successful reform. Please forgive me if I don’t hold my breath waiting.
Or they could drop them right now and then append to every major spending announcement for the next three years, “and we wouldn’t be able to afford this if we hadn’t gotten rid of the Stage 3 tax cuts”.
I like it! But I still won’t hold my breath. I fear that many, if not most, Labor MPs still believe the neo-liberal crock. Now they find the economic climate is changing. But like most apparatchiks in this type of situation, they take refuge in denial.
Here’s a thought…How about we wait and see what Labor actually does about the stage 3 tax cuts. All this conjecture is a waste of everyone’s time and in my case patience.
That’s what was said in the last weeks about ‘Labor’ whimping out on an effective FICAC – give ’em time.
No, they’ve had too much already, the last 9 years (some might say almost 40…).
It’s TIME!
Agree, it’s mainly the media whipping this up into a frenzy. The stage 3 tax cuts are not due to come into effect for almost 2 years. Given the precarious state of the global economy and our own budgets pressures, it would be wise for Albo and Chalmers to make no rash decisions in the near term, and rather just observe global markets a major economies before making a decision on whether to retain, amend or scrap the tax cuts. It doesn’t have to be done right now just because the media demands it.
Taking time to observe was what Liz Truss didn’t do, to her detriment.
Agree. Just what does “scrapping” the tax cuts in 2022 actually mean?
It means repealing the legislation for the cuts.
Modifying the cuts means revising the legislation.
HTH.
Like Truss’s ‘Trussonomics’ from the same radical right libertarian swamp, in fact known as ‘Kochonomics’ also behind Brexit, but dumped for now under advice from her own party, polls and media?
In US Jane Mayer (‘Dark Money’ fame) explained regarding the GOP, being informed by ‘radical right libertarians’, that their economic policies are so extreme no one would vote ‘for’ them, and that they need sociocultural wedge issues e.g. Christianity, nativism, wokism, voter suppression etc. to deflect attention and gain votes.
You mean journalists could find something else to beat up Labor with? Low-hanging fruit, laziness, Australian journalists. If only journos would explore the insane nuclear subs commitments. Now there is a serious pi**ing of billions up against a wall.
How about we not sit on our hands until the ALP says in 2024, “it’s too late to do anything about them now!”
You are assuming that they’ll win an election before then.
Whether they’ll deserve to do so is yet to be ascertained.
It’s as though the media are willing Labor on to rush straight into a ‘libertarian trap’ under the guise of ‘promises’; pro Russian types do similar referring to documents and conservations from decades ago suggesting Ukraine had/has no rights of sovereignty.
But ditching them is a broken promise. It’s a lie or a falsehood.
No Bernard, a lie is not the same as a broken promise. A lie is deliberately saying something you know to be untrue – Scott Morrison, as you point out, did it constantly. A broken promise is not doing something you said earlier that you would do. The latter, to my mind, is more excusable.
An article down the page seems to have a more forgiving attitude:
Bob Hawke might have slightly overpromised in 1987
They could try wheeling out the Rodent’s all-purpose, oleaginous evasion which served him so well to satisfy the media, “non-core promise” or does that not work when it’s against Moloch’s interests?
Agree, by coincidence George Costanza from Seinfeld would too 🙂
BK uses “falsehood” to cover broken promises and distinguishes the term from “lie”.
“Perhaps it would be a lie: Labor always planned to ditch the tax cuts, but decided simply to pretend ahead of the election to support them. Or perhaps it would be a falsehood — Labor at the time intended to retain the tax cuts, but had since decided to dump them.” para 7
Mostly we are not in a position to tell the difference, even with Morrison.
If Labor want to break this promise they need to make the case. But even if they “win” the public argument they might still lose the politics – i.e. people might say and even believe that the moral thing to do is to scrap the tax cuts, but vote against Labor anyway – and precisely because they scrapped the tax cuts.