That’s the title of my latest piece in Inside Story, expanding on this recent post. More over the fold

I had a piece in The Guardian a couple of days ago (it’s over the fold) looking at the was the mainstream print and electronic media (mis)handled the debate over the decision to reduce tax concessions on earnings of superannuation balances in excess of $3m. The weight of argument was strongly on the government’s side, and the media commentariat seemed to have conceded that. But the finance lobby has hit back with a series of utterly ludicrous arguments which have nonetheless been given headline treatment, not only by Murdoch but by Nine and the ABC. The main points are

• The government hasn’t yet worked out how the policy will apply to the handful of people still on defined benefits schemes (they would need to be getting a pension of at least $150000/yr to be affected).
• While it only affects 0.5 per cent of the population now, if the threshold isn’t indexed for the next 50 years, it will be five times as many (2.5 per cent)
• Some people might be taxed on assets that have appreciated in value

What explains the breathless coverage of absurd talking points like this. Sadly, it’s the same stuff bloggers have been complaining about for decades. Political journalists love conflict and don’t have a clue about policy. That hasn’t changed and isn’t likely to.

I spend a lot of my time thinking about global heating, where it’s often hard to be optimistic about the future. But there are some bright spots. In particular, there’s a good chance that 2023 will be the year that coal use finally begins a sustained decline, and relatedly the year the carbon dioxide emissions from electricity generation start to fall.