The dispute over the Greens apparent intention to oppose a more progressive tax system has heated up again, on Facebook and elsewhere, especially given indications that the proposed return to indexation of petrol excise will be passed, as it should be. In combination, if pursued, these policies can be presented, with some justice, as pandering to the self-interest of the stereotypical Greens voter: high income, inner city, with no need to use much petrol.
I haven’t seen anyone defend the pro-rich tax policy on the merits, but I’ve had vigorous pushback from people whose views I would generally respect, taking the following lines
* Labor is doing the same thing, why pick on the Greens
* The policy may be right, but it’s being advocated for the wrong reason (deficit fetishism)
* The policy may be right, but it’s being put forward by the wrong people (evil Abbott government)
* This is only a small step, we need something much bigger and more comprehensive
I’ll respond to these points over the fold, but for the moment I want to observe that these excuses, or minor variants, can be and have been made for every policy sellout in the history of politics. No one gives them the slightest credence when they are put forward by people who aren’t close allies.
The fact that so many intelligent people are willing to buy this sort of case when it’s put forward by the Greens is evidence of the proposition that none of us is immune to the kinds of biased thinking that have completely corrupted the intellectual base of the political right. Fortunately, I think, the left as a whole is more self-critical, so that this kind of reasoning gets a tougher run. But for me, this emphasises the importance of not being aligned with any political party to the extent that loyalty clouds my judgement on the issues. That doesn’t immunise me from various kinds of biases, but at least it helps with problems like this.
Responding briefly to the substantive points, such as they are
* If the Greens want to be held to the same standards as Labor, that’s their choice. Given a choice of two vaguely left parties driven by political expediency, I’ll vote for the one that has a chance of winning government
* The second and third points imply that the Greens should reject everything the government does in pursuit of its fiscal strategy. That will be totally undercut if they (rightly) support the indexation of petrol excise
* If the Greens had a serious prospect of forming a government, there might be some point to going for a comprehensive strategy, and holding off until that could be implemented. As it is, they can only choose to support or oppose government policies (and of course even this is true only until the new Senate takes office).
John Quiggin 
I’d have thought the Greens would support re-indexation of the fuel excise, given that it was Mr Howard who removed it. Never mind that it’s a good idea.
Of course it applies to the diesel concession too, since 0% indexed is still 0%.
Voltaire said it a long time ago: ‘do not let the best be the enemy of the good.’
Interesting observation on urban greens vs survivalists. The latter chop the heads off chooks and routinely get covered in dirt. The former buy glossy magazines and read the Range Rover ads perhaps wondering if they can get one in the same colour as their $400 goretex jacket.
It’s not just suburbanites vs bush blockies here in Oz. I’m also puzzled by the contrast in pragmatism between the Swedes and the Germans, the Swedes being pragmatic and the Germans tending to ideology. Perhaps it’s an accretion process like stars forming from cosmic dust. Certain notions take seed and cement the surrounding population. Some affluent urban greens seem to me like Homer Simpson in that they have done better than they should due to the prevailing economic regime. Maybe they will thin out as times get tougher.
@Hermit
Oh come on, you don’t have to be a survivalist to chop off the head of a chook. Any farmer has done that. Most farmers and their kids have shot vermin, shot game, shot badly injured stock etc. etc. I spent part of my childhood living on farms, part of my youth working on farms and the greater part of my adult life in cities. The biggest and stupidest artificial divide to set up is that between country folk and city folk. We are all pretty much the same in my experience. Educational opportunities vary and each style of life gives you a different kind of life education.
The main point is that country and city folk are mutually dependent: they need each other and each other’s products. The way of life in country and city at least since the 1950s has been well removed from survivalism. Survivalism is a niche activity now.
There is nothing to be gained by sneering at groups (like urban greenies or backblock cow cockies) or whatever. We need to take the whole view. Green (sustainable) values are for everyone who wants our civilization to survive long term.
could the stereotyping of greens voters be a bit out of hand?
my experience at the last election was people were quite happy to say they voted green and not belong to any of the “types” mentioned.
the weird thing is ,i haven’t found any one,not one, who has been happy to say they voted coalition.
nasty suspicious mind can’t help wondering if the “misplaced” votes were the first votes “misplaced” or the first votes we have heard of being misplaced.
hells bells,there are heaps of people working for the AEC and only one or two given an overseas bank account of sufficient magnitude “misplacing” votes on the margin and lo, a landslide.
99.99% honest ? yes.
It is obvious political expediency, not wanting to alienate the top income decile in inner city seats. Whatsmore, it continues their opposition mentality and opportunist approach to public policy.
The Greens are responsible for ripping into Labor’s primary vote and directly antagonising blue collar workers with their blasé and selective approach to industry policy, leaving Labor with the can on matters like the Carbon Tax!
The proposed levy on high incomes is not a more progressive tax system, and the Greens are right to oppose it.
The ‘problems’ with our Budget are not that we are running a deficit which can be fixed by a temporary levy. The problems are structural, and eventually we will run into a wall where we either need to reduce services or lift government income. In other words, we need to fix the tax system properly and not apply bandaids. If this levy was a change to the top tax rate and it was a permanent change, then the Greens should (and I bet they would) support it.
@may
The official AEC statistics show 5.9m primary votes cast for the Coalition parties in the most recent election for the House of Representatives.
If I have to choose between scenario 1, where that 5.9m figure is largely the result of deliberate fabrication on the part of a few corrupt individuals in the AEC, and scenario 2, where that 5.9m figure is correct but you have not encountered any of those Coalition voters because the people you encounter are all people with whom you have things in common, I am going to rate scenario 2 as the more likely one, and so should you.
@mandas
As far as I can tell, your response comes under the fourth of John Quiggin’s four headings (‘This is only a small step, we need something much bigger and more comprehensive’). I find his corresponding response persuasive.
@Ikonoclast You don’t chop their heads off, you break their necks with a quick flick.
Surprising the number of people that are squeamish handling whole chickens, head feet skin and all. It has to be skinned and wrapped in a plastic shroud to be acceptable.
“pandering to the self-interest of the stereotypical Greens voter”?
That is a bit of a stretch JQ. The debt levy supposedly applies to incomes above $150,000 or $180,000. How many “inner city greens” are likely to be on that sort of money. Not many I would thought.
Milne makes it clear their opposition is because of the “temporary” nature of the tax indicating that they would support a permanent tax on high incomes.
Do you have any information to suggest that is not the case?
@mandas Yes, the levy while a tiny step does not add much to the balance sheet esp after deducting carbon tax and the MRRT. None of the parties AFAIK are addressing the shortfall in revenue as nobody wants to go against the political trend of lowering income tax.
Your first “response” isn’t even an argument. It’s not a deconstruction of any other argument, either. It’s just an irrational bit of spite. Why do you think it’s better to vote for the party that’s got the greater chance of forming government? You don’t get any prizes for tipping the winner, you know. And anyway, we have preferential voting, so you don’t have to pick one lefty basket to put all your eggs in.
Also, that party you like to vote for – the one that’s got the greater chance of forming government – they’re responsible for Manus Island, an inhumane policy that the Greens completely and resolutely oppose. So, you know, congratulations on caring less about the mental and physical wellbeing of the world’s poorest than you do about whether or not the Greens oppose a particular tax.
@Ikonoclast I know some farmers who home kill but it’s a lot of work. Even graziers who judge cattle buy their meat from woolies.
And one might add that voting for a political party is not merely an exercise in instrumental calculus. For those of us interested in inclusion and learning, elections are teachable moments
We Greens believe in good process and that entails transparency and accountability, neither of which attach to this levy. Indeed, even now, there is no precise policy to support or oppose. It is hard to imagine that the policy would be warranted by any bona fide aim of government.
On the other hand, the excise indexation restoration is something we have expressly called for so is quite different.
How sincere the Greens are here will soon become obvious. Presumably the Bill for the levy will have an explicit sunset clause so the government can sell it as “a mere temporary levy – nothing like a great big new tax”. If the Greens want it to be permanent then all they have to do is move an amendment to remove that clause.
@James
James, I think you need to actually read the post.
@James I guess I should add #5
We’re good on other issues so you should cut us some slack on this one
@mandas
The definition of a progressive tax system is one in which the rate of taxation increases for higher incomes. So, I’ll be fascinated to read your explanation of how an increase in the top marginal rate does not make the tax system more progressive.
For the rest, what J-D said.
@Fran Barlow
Say what? The next election is nearly three years away. What does a piece of cheap political pandering have to do with the educative function of elections?
@rog
Yes, I am thinking of farmers in the 1960s and 1970s when I was old enough to pay attention. It was common enough to kill and pluck chooks for roast chook. An axe, the old wood-chopping block, a firm grip on the chooks legs and a tub of very hot water for dunking it in before plucking. I saw sheep farm-slaughtered and cut into major cuts. Let’s say I learnt to truth of the phrase “lamb to the slaughter”. Sheep go as easily as lambs if handled right. I didn’t see anyone tackle a cow for home butchering.
No self-respecting farmer today would buy meat from the supermarkets. I think they would know a good local butcher. But I agree, farm-slaughter would be rare now. It’s just another way that the lives of city folk and country folk have converged. We become more alike and homogenised by the all pervasive consumer culture of late stage capitalism.
Hockey said they would “tie in law every dollar of fuel excise raised to road funding”.
The Greens can’t vote for that.
@Pete Moran
Realistically, money is fungible, and this pledge is less important than the restoration of indexation. Equally, a “temporary” levy that outlasts the current Parliament is just about as good as a permanent increase in tax rates.
By supporting one, and opposing the other, the Greens gain credit neither for consistency nor for good sense.
John, the mistake you seem to be making is in looking at the “deficit tax” in isolation. I suppose if you do this it makes sense to accuse the greens of inconsistency.
But it’s not an isolated policy. It’s part of a package, the main part of which involves the government creating a fiscal problem by removing various sources of revenue (most of which were also discouraging undesirable behaviour, or encouraging desirable behaviour), reopening rortable loopholes that the former government had closed and refusing to fix a range of obvious problems with the tax system. And the problem is permanent, but the “solution” is just to kick the hand grenade a little down the road.
What happens when the tax expires? Either the rest of the government’s highly regressive agenda will have made it unnecessary (they hope), or they’ll be in opposition and ready to turn the full force of their noise machine on anyone who suggests renewing it or anything like it.
It shouldn’t come as a surprise that the greens haven’t taken the bait, unless you think they really are quite stupid.
@Ikonoclast Not true farmer would….
Lots of farmers sell to supermarkets.
@John Quiggin
But it won’t be what’s presented.
The bill will be Fuel Excise tied to Road Funding. Attempts to amend/separate in the Senate will be voted down in the House.
Are we any further ahead than the Greens present stance? I don’t think so.
@derrida derider A bill imposing a charge or levy for revenue raising purposes is considered a taxation bill, and as such cannot be initiated or amended by the Senate.
The ALP appears to have infiltrated the Greens much the same as they did with the Democrats.
Like a virus or parasite they worm their way in and then destroy the host.
The ALP attacks on the Greens over Rudd’s useless climate change policy was framed as “don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good” and the Greens, rightly in my view, held out against that criticism on the basis that it would be locking in failure.
Then they did the deal with the ALP to get the carbon tax/ETS whatever and they said, rightly in my view, that it was workable because it could be built upon. It looks as though, one way or another, that is now going to be unwound.
I saw that Christine Milne’s argument against the rich tax was that it was temporary rather than permanent (please correct me if I’ve got that wrong – but that was the way I took the argument).
If a temporary rich tax was introduced, in isolation, and the Greens couldn’t get an amendment through to improve it (such as ensuring it was isolated &/or permanent) but voted in favour of it, anyway – I can’t see how that would lose them votes from, or faith with, “real” Greens (as opposed to the mythical voters from the ALP who ‘park’ their votes with the Greens, or some other mythical grouping).
John, that’s a really cute line, but you still haven’t told us how “I’m going to go vote for the winning team” makes any sort of sense whatsoever.
To be clear, I wish the Greens weren’t opposing this, but this “throw your toys out of the cart and vote for labor” position is just stupid. It’s not that the Greens are “good on other issues”, it’s that they’re opposing a systematic torture regime that’s supported by both Labor and Liberal alike. If you’re seriously going to make a post about who you want to vote for, and if you’re seriously going to say that you’ll vote Labor ahead of Greens, you need to address refugee issues. Because if you don’t, you need to explain why.
i think the rich – whatever – will see the levy as a temporary imposition, i know i would if i were rich – whatever. if i were a rich man – whatever – i would rationalize that, in exchange for pain of limited duration, i would, in liberal hands, be safe from any reforms that might lead to a progressive tax system, where i would, in the future, maybe pay more tax than i might lose now to the levy. i’m no economist, or even a rich man – whatever – but does this make any sense? -a.v.
PrQ
Technically, about 29 months away, assuming Abbott runs full term, which I don’t assume and somewhat doubt. In theory, he ought to be planning a double dissolution to fulfil his “blood oath” sometime later this year. Education should occur whenever there’s a chance.
In politics, the context in which people learn most rapidly is when those who are in charge are exposed as political bankrupts, because this disrupts constituency and forces the defenders onto uncertain ground. We want this regime to break — confounded by its evident mal|ce and incoherence.
We may not get a s57 of course, and if we don’t it will be in part because we’ve helped make the regime’s persistent claims to fiscal rectitude and populist authenticity impossible to reconcile and both untenable.
You say you’d prefer to vote for a party with a chance of winning government, but unless the regime is torn down, you’re voting Liberal. We can only negotiate over policy if parity exists between the parties. That we can hope for this outcome in ways that pull the curtain away from the spivs shaping policy now makes our course entirely warranted in principle and practice.
The rather pathetic debt levy is a pretense that the high end is doing their share of the ‘heavy lifting’; a sop to deceive the ‘middle people’. I don’t see why Labor or the Greens should support such a corrosive strategy. After the next election, if the coalition retain power, they will claim a mandate for further changes to pensions or similar (they have already hinted as much), to manage the structural deficit. The debt crisis (they will claim) will have been averted, so therefore the levy can come off.
I have been trying, unsuccessfully, for ages to get the exact figures – but the ALP and LNP voted together to get the vast majority of recently passed legislation through both houses (especially the Senate, obviously).
The only time a lack of a Senate majority matters in practice is when the ALP and LNP don’t agree on passing some piece of legislation.
That is precisely why we need a non-ALP “left” party/parties.
Both houses of parliament and our ‘democracy’ are just a sick joke when the two “sides” that really run the show are indistinguishable on any issue of importance.
PS: a.v. am i just being over-sensitive, or are you taking a shot at me? m.
It would seem that Hockey has returned the responsibility of education and health to the states (not our problem) and the cost (not our problem) so its up to the states to agree to increase GST.
This is most probably the end of Abbotts election promise on Gonski.
There are two hopes of any sensible public policy in Australia now, none and Buckley’s. The same ideology directing the USA and the EU is now strongly infiltrating into Canada and Australia. Our economies will enter a long recession (as the EU’s has) the more we implement these pro-cyclical austerity policies.
The US recovery from the global recession of 2009 has been dead cat bounce founded on a few factors soon to be history. These factors are the dollar’s status as a reserve currency and the interim profits, mainly to the finance sector and the oligarchs, of transferring US manufacturing to China.
The great art of political compromise is to choose options that advance your agenda without doing violence to your principles. It’s hard to believe that neither the ALP or the Greens would fail to recognize the “debt levy” as a chance to improve inequality, even if temporarily, even if minimally.
Megan, i’m genuinely surprised, but, no, i’m not taking a shot at you. i don’t recall you splitting hairs & calling for a definition of “rich” or “rich school” – whatever.
its tax reform they really fear & loathe. and, in liberals they trust to not reform the tax system while the levy is on. the levy will be over in three years, at which time they will revert to full pay in a tax bracket where they continue to pay less tax than they would if labor were, say, a socialist party and gained power. -a.v.
@rsp
That’s an absolute mess. Cut out all the negatives and make your assertion.
I’m confident I get your drift, but not confident that your text supports it.
substitute “either” for “neither’ and yr larfing, imo. -a.v.
@James
I think we are agreeing furiously on the points that
(i) this is a bad decision by the Greens
(ii) there are still good reasons to prefer the Greens to Labor
But the willingness of so much of the Greens base to support Milne on this is a very bad sign for the future. Looking around the commentary on this, it’s clear that this decision has the potential to wipe out years of effort to present the Greens as being a genuine alternative party with a coherent view on economics, as opposed to a protest party based on feelgood gesture politics, of the kind well represented in this comments thread and elsewhere
JQ39
I am not so sure that so many greens are supporting Milne, but more so the loudest. I think 4 is a reasonable argument only if the Greens specifically state what that something more comprehensibe is. This can then be negotiated in the Senate.
@NathanA
No, it can’t be “negotiated with the Senate” because the regime is simply not going to accept that. There is no vehicle for putting together a coherent budget outside of the executive. Arguably, there should be one, but as things stand and in the foreseeable future, there is not.
That’s why process is so important. A willingness to accept piecemeal sops gets you the worst of all possible worlds. The regime wants to rip $80bn out of education, then leave the states to handle education themselves after four years. Why would we want to endorse that, for example?
Our biggest challenge as a party is to range the rules of the existing plebiscitary dictatorship, in favour of inclusive governance. It’s hard to see where supporting a temporary and completely bogus “deficit” levy fits into that.
Given how the two major parties carry on and the success of PUP I’m not sure a coherent view on economics is any kind of electoral advantage. Hyperbole, bare-faced lies and the ability to attract the support of the wealthy and powerful have been proven considerably more effective and with the tame media their doesn’t seem to be any price to pay for it either. That said the Greens are always going to be struggling to share power and keep their supporters.
@John Quiggin
Are Liberals and Labor both parties with coherent views on economics? It would be hard to argue they are. Economics is a second order concern. Running society equitably for all is the first order concern. We must remember that economic management is merely a means to an end. First we must politically agree on equitable outcomes then we must adopt the economic policies to meet them. While our society persists in thinking economic management is the first order concern we will get nowhere. These ares kinds of budget fetishism, surplus fetishism, interest rate fetishism, money fetishism etc.
I liked Bill Mitchell’s quote (very roughly from memory): “The budget is not a patient, it is a set of accounting numbers. It is real people’s requirements that must be met.”
However, I don’t know why I bother. There appears vanishingly small chance of defeating neoliberalism before it collapses our economy. Then there might be a chance, once people clearly see the havoc it has wrought.
Prof Q, I honestly think you’re wrong on this. I’ve had a look at the official Green position on the temporary levy, and it seems quite coherent and defensible to me. Fran has explained why in greater detail that I could be bothered with, above.
Lets also not forget that this is a budget that is not as the press is dressing it up as economically responsible it is in fact the opposite. This gang of gongs is saddling the country with massive future problems that we are all going to pay for. Stranded assets in roads to nowhere, the gutting of renewable energy, a US style mc’education system, expensive social problems from it’s war on the poor and a utterly gutless avoidance in dealing with the real undeserving recipients of government largesse.
FranB 41
I just saw on PB that Abbott is not willing to compromise and is threatening a double dissolution. If that is indeed true, then you’re right and I’m wrong.
@Fran Barlow
Was there any “transparency and accountability” in the Coalition’s (sensible) decision to reintroduce fuel indexation? No, but it’s OK because the Greens “have expressly called for it.” The Greens have also expressed called for higher income tax on very high income earners – so why does that get rejected. Following the Budget, there is now a very specific policy which the Greens will have to vote for or against in the Senate.
Sure, move amendments aimed at making the income tax hike permanent, but if that is rejected then why on earth vote to stop very higher income earners paying more tax.
For what it’s worth, I don’t think this is at all driven by a Greens desire to protect the wealth of well off inner city types. The best I can make out is that it’s some sort of ‘it’s not permanent so it’s not good enough’ argument – which is at best a political justification, not a policy one. So the poor will still get clobbered, but the rich won’t even have to pay the minor amount extra that was going to be extracted from that.
Hard to see a Greens policy or principle that matches that outcome.
Are we seriously expected to believe that the Greens would oppose the fuel tax rise if it was only going to be a one off, or the indexation was only going to be for the next few years? (I sure hope the answer isn’t yes).
@Christine Black
The transparency and accountability reflects the fact that tuntil Howard abandoned it for political advantage in 2001, it was entirely transparent and accountable, and was supported by us then and along with many others, subsequently for the last 13 years or so.
This mistates our policy, which can be found here
Point 14 (in Principles), says:
Even in this bald summary, the language does not speak expressly of wealthier people paying more tax, but the system, taken as a whole should settle burdens and benefits in a way that is “progressive” (i.e. reduces inequality). Higher taxes for the relatively wealthy are one part of that but they are only one part. If the system Abbott is implementing as a whole is not only regressive but more regressive than what it replaces, and the levy is aimed at underwriting that regression, it doesn’t fit even the first part of this principle.
Clearly, the revenue Abbott seeks to raise though this measure must be weighed against what is being given up — taxing miners and polluters more generally. Those are also in our principles and aims at the link above.
The preceding principle states:
Principle 13 under Aims specifies:
You can no more cherry pick that you can ask a person who wants a bird whether he will accept a few feathers from a bird he could go out and slaughter. I’m reminded of the famous Parrot Sketch — Beautiful Plumage!
I’d certainly oppose it if that were what were proposed because again, it would imply that we agreed that there was a temporary emergency in the state’s fiscal position, which is a lie.
More broadly, I find it perplexing that you repeatedly ignore the central question of good process, which is inseparable from the policies that should attend it. The other parties think that this is all about horse-trading, but for us, the public and public discourse matter. For mine, this underlines the dreadful consequences of the decades of debauching of public discourse by the alternative ruling parties of Australian capitalism. You’re obviously not stupid, but are unable to see the obvious when it is staring you in the face.
Process arguments are the last refuge of the desperate. If you really care about the substance, no one gets too worried about the process.
But in this case, I can’t even see how the supposed process concern makes any sense. You have seven weeks in which you can either raise taxes on the rich or leave them as they are. Anything you don’t approve will be passed on to the new Senate (ie Palmer). It’s not as if the cuts are part of a package you get to approve or reject. The idea that the Australian public will see your decision as anything other than political cowardice is absurd.
Perhaps the measure was partly intended to wedge the Greens in just this way.