A rose by any other name …

Most of the discussion of the Abbott government’s recently announced revenue raising measure has focused on semantics: is there a meaningful difference between a levy and a tax, has the government broken its promises and so on. All of this is boringly predictable. The last government to treat its election promises as binding obligations was Whitlam’s. Perhaps Rudd would have kept his promises if it weren’t for the GFC (I don’t think he broke many before that), but with that exception we’ve got used to the various theatrical devices associated with ditching promises: Black Holes, debt crises, Commissions of Audit and so on. The reaction of Bill Shorten and the Labor Opposition is equally predictable. The job of the Opposition is to oppose, and in particular to excoriate the government for breaking any promise, no matter how ill advised.

On the other hand, I’m disappointed that the Greens have taken the same line. Their job, in my view, is to use their leverage to promote sustainable social democratic policies, and to oppose regressive market liberal and environmentally destructive policies, regardless of source. So, for example, they were sensible to wave through Hockey’s abolition of the debt ceiling, even though it involved breaking a silly promise. They can’t stop the government breaking lots of promises on the expenditure side, so they should try and achieve balance by supporting sensible proposals to raise additional revenue.

The case in favor of an increase in taxes for higher income earners[1] is obvious. The big cuts promised by Howard in the leadup to the 2007 election, and largely matched by Rudd were unaffordable at the time and became even more so when the GFC led to slower growth in real and nominal incomes and therefore to less of the bracket creep that normally pays for such cuts. Along with Costello’s massive handouts to “self-funded” (but publicly subsidised) retirees the previous year, these cuts are the main reason it has been so hard to achieve a return to surplus after the GFC stimulus was wound back under the Labor government.

So, it makes sense to increase the rate, and to keep it high until bracket creep finally works its magic and restores the revenue raising capacity of the income tax to something like its pre-2007 level. I haven’t done the numbers but it seems as if four more years ought to do it. So, a temporary increase that can be called a levy makes sense. And, if everything else is held constant, an increase in revenue translates one-for-one into a reduction in debt.

Summing up, if Abbott wants to increase income tax on high earners, I’ll support him. And, if he wants to call this policy a “debt reduction levy”, I don’t have a problem with that.

fn1. Doubtless, we’ll get objections that taxpayers on $80 000 a year aren’t really high income earners, although the median wage for full time workers is around $60 000. But the extra tax payable by someone on $80 000 is precisely zero: the levy is only payable on income in excess of that level. Even at $180k, the levy is only $2000/year or about $40/week – a small fraction of the discretionary spending of most people earning this kind of income.

106 thoughts on “A rose by any other name …

  1. @Fran Barlow

    When the new regime was elected, a qualitatively better process — one that had integrity — attended the CEF.

    Which is precisely what I said – that you suggest the Greens should put process ahead of content, only supporting legislation which implements our policy if we like the process which produced it. It’s hard enough getting legislation passed which improves the progressiveness of our tax system as it is, without adding some meta-qualification to it. But if the Greens are going to only support legislation if it’s produced by a desirable process, they should at least put that qualified against their policies so people who are thinking of them know they plan to put process purity ahead of policy progress.

    If some schyster only has to wink in your direction for you to start wondering whether you should do as he says, then one of the other parties is likely to serve you better than us. It’s our objective to empower humanity rather than offering political cover for scoundrels, however hard they wink at us.

    Name calling doesn’t really substitute for cogent argument. This isn’t a ‘wink’ – it’s a clear cut proposal to tax the rich. To say that we can’t support something implementing our policy because it’s put forward by a ‘shyster’ is to say that the Greens should not support any legislation put forward by Tony Abbott. You keep saying this isn’t your position, then you outline an argument which makes quite clear that it is.

    As @Rob says

    that a party should (attempt to) block *any* bill from another party because one of their other bills/policies/whatevs is disagreeable is a bit silly.

  2. @Rob

    We’re not proposing to block *any* bill. On the other hand, I doubt we will be in the business of letting the regime eat their cake yet have it too.

  3. Fran Barlow :
    We’re not proposing to block *any* bill. On the other hand, I doubt we will be in the business of letting the regime eat their cake yet have it too.

    Indeed I am using the US to illustrate a “logical conclusion” scenario. I don’t think that would happen here, but it makes me wonder, where does one draw the line?

  4. Ths conversation seems to be about the user pays system and how some users can afford to pay more. The recent audit, compiled by representatives from the Business Council, seems to have excluded business as a user who should pay. One could argue that the Business Council is not merely an objective observer and is actively lobbying on behalf of its members. Followers of NSW ICAC have been exposed to the corrupting influence of business on government and the threat business presents to the democratic process. It may well be too late.

  5. @yuri
    You are evidently aware that some schools are far more luxuriously appointed and lavishly equipped than others. I am confident that you are also aware that when Fran Barlow advocates an end to public funding for ‘wealthy’ schools, the schools she is referring to are the most luxuriously appointed and lavishly equipped ones. If you have some substantive objection to this proposal, you are free to make it. It is deceitful to obscure the issue by focussing instead on how Fran Barlow’s use of the word wealthy violates your personally upheld canon of usage.

  6. @J-D

    Indeed. I’ve no problem in principle state funding non state schools in areas that are poorly serviced by state schools. That’s not at stake here though.

  7. I was flabbergasted, if I heard correctly, that The Greens support Abbott’s bizarre PPL after the insignificant trimming of the upper limit to payments – aren’t The Greens opposed to policies that provide more help to those that need it less, and less help to those who need it more?

    Re Prof Q’s fn1 – I’d feel fabulously wealthy on $80,000 a year; I’d be able to support my daughter’s education properly, buy a reasonable car and even contemplate a brief holiday; $50,000 a year seems like a more reasonable threshold, though it’s out of reach to me.

  8. A day late, but with the CoA in mind

    Arise ye heads of exploitation
    Arise ye paragons of greed
    For avarice thunders extirpation
    Of those who live in need.

    No more the workers’ chains shall bind us
    No more are we in thrall
    Privilege shall rise on new foundations
    What can be bought
    shall now be all …

    Noting May Day and recalling the Haymarket Martyrs and the many who have fallen in the cause of the struggle for the empowerment of working humanity.

    Solidarity ….

  9. The Greens support progressive income tax. However, the first step is for a higher tax on personal incomes of over $1M. Hence, the $80K as proposed, is far too low a threshold.

    It looks like my disagreement with the Greens is substantive, not process-based. This is an incredibly lame excuse for a progressive policy, identical (ignoring the difference between $A and $US) to the position of the US Republicans. A tax on the component of income in excess of $1m will affect hardly anybody and raise hardly anything.

  10. @John Quiggin

    OK, let us look at income and wealth distribution.

    “Measures that focus on the very top income earners show a strong gain in their share of national income, as is the case in most OECD countries.” – Aust Govt Treasury.

    “… the wealthiest 20% of households in Australia account for 61% of total household net worth, with an average net worth of $2.2 million per household.” – ABS

    I would suggest that a focus on the wealthiest 20% (income and wealth taxes) would go a fair way to fixing the budget. The next 20% could possibly pay a modest income tax increase as well. The lower 60% should either benefit or the revenue could fix the budget if the deficit is considered excessive.

    The real substantive issue of course is why does our system generate inequality which then necessitates transfers? A better functioning and more equitable economy would not necessitate much if any need for transfers. The system of ownership and wealth distribution is flawed in the first place.

  11. @Fran Barlow
    Did you see my other comment (after the one you responded to)? Think I ended up much closer to your position after some thought.

    Though I agree with ProfQ #36 to an extent – setting the bar at incomes over 1 million seems far too high.

  12. @John Quiggin

    I stand by what I’ve said in the past. I’m for taxing people on and under my income progressively more. I’d prefer an infinitely incremental scale so that each new dollar is a new tax bracket.

    It seems that anyone not in the bottom 60% of income earners ought to be paying more and getting less state assistance. Conversely, there should be a lot more direct state assistance to those in the bottom 40% and somewhat more for those in the middle 20%.

    Yesterday’s revelations from the CoA underline that what this regime is about is not progressive tax reform but rather, a shifting of transfer payments away from the bottom 40% and by default, in favour of the top 20%.

    To be talking about supporting a tax measure from this regime is simply to focus on the growth of a sickly sapling in a forest that is in the process of being clear-felled.

  13. @Ikonoclast

    If you want the wealthiest 20 per cent to pay substantially more, you need to increase marginal tax rates starting somewhere below the 80th percentile (if you start there, then people at the 80th pay nothing extra at all). That’s going to get you pretty close to $80k for a single earner.

    @fran fact that it’s proposed by “this regime” is irrelevant. Obviously, anything that happens in national policy over the next three years is going to be done by “this regime”. If you’re going to oppose everything (even policies you would support in substance) on that basis, then you should say so and remain silent thereafter. Certainly, there’s no point in banging on about how bad the government is – you don’t need to convince me or the vast majority of people who read these comments.

  14. @John Quiggin

    Fair enough, I agree with your assessment then. But I would like to see the super rich hit a bit more too. There is no good reason that individual billionaires should be tolerated at all.

  15. Too many rich hippies who bankroll the Greens would be hit by a debt levy that kicked in at $80K.

  16. If you’re going to oppose everything (even policies you would support in substance) on that basis, then you should say so and remain silent thereafter.

    Plainly not. This regime sought and obtained our approval to abolish the debt cap. There might be other things to which we would not object. If for example, the regime decided to abandon the joint strike fighter deal or the Collins Class submarine replacement, I can’t imagine that we’d oppose that. If they decided Manus was too expensive and decided to process onshore and in the major cities, again, we’d support that, as unlikely as that is.

    But as things stand, this debt levy is a bridge too far.

    It’s also manifestly stupid — $2.4 bn p.a. when there are any number of more simple ways to raise much larger sums of revenue from people on higher incomes — the super concessions merely being perhaps the most obvious.

  17. @Terry

    One day I’m going to meet a rich hippy who supports us. I feel sure it will happen one day. As it stands the people I meet most often are low to middle income baby boomers, (some of whom may well once have been hippies but even I’m too young to have been one) younger tertiary educated people, often in education or the public service, retired people and quite young peopole (17-25).

    As yet nobody has suggested we go for a latte or chardy and I’m yet to meet anyone from The Greens wearing sandals.

  18. Do you know Graeme Wood, the founder of Wotif? Or MONA impressario and successful gambler David Walsh?

  19. Fran Barlow :
    One day I’m going to meet a rich hippy who supports us.

    There are quite a number of them around. BZE was bankrolled by a few for a while (may be still), and if you drop the “rich” threshold to include the top 5% of taxable income Bob Brown may even qualify. But drop it too far and a parliamentary salary would push you into “rich”, and we can’t have that. It’s bad enough that half of them start in the top marginal rate (before negative gearing drops them to something more reasonable).

  20. @Terry

    Do you know Graeme Wood, the founder of Wotif? Or MONA impressario and successful gambler David Walsh?

    I’ve heard of both of them but

    a) 2 is a small number, and hardly “too many”
    b) Neither of them has any say in Greens. As far as I know, neither is even a member.
    c) By supporting us they support our policy, which is for more sharply progressive taxation. I’ve never heard either complain about this policy.
    d) It’s actually quite hard to work out when Wood was born but he looks much too young to have ever been a hippy. Walsh was born in 1961, which was around the time the hippy period was also in embryo and at the time of Woodstock he’d have been 9. Apparently he was raised a Roman Catholic, which makes him an improbable hippy. Now he’s reportedly a “rabid atheist” which is still not very hippy. At a guess, I’d say most hippies are deists of some kind or followers of some variant of Buddhism.

    As both seem to be into left-liberal philanthropy, I doubt taxa rates would be an issue for them.

    So your claim that the large wealthy hippy demographic would object seems to fail on more than one basis. If there were one, they haven’t blocked our progressive taxation policy, and the two you cite seem very quiet on the matter and probably haven’t been hippies.

    And no, I’ve not met either, though one day, I suppose I might.

  21. Totally agree with John Quiggin. As soon as I saw Abbott’s proposal for the levy I was relieved that at least there was some possibilty for those earning $80,000 plus to ‘share the burden’ of this Government’s bloodbath. When I then heard immediately that the ALP and Greens would oppose it, I laboriously emailed all ALP and Green senators saying that the levy was not a problem, while all the other horrors were.
    Only heard back from Christine Milne, patronisingly telling me that income tax on those earning $80,000 and over was unfair to ordinary Australian families and companies should be paying more tax not individuals.
    Tax is paid by individuals not families (apparently if you’re not in a family you aren’t of interest) and company tax is based on dubious principles and not necessarily redistributive.
    Love you John Quiggin!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s