Dr Tristan Ewins
Last month Anthony Albanese announced that not only was Labor backing away from contentious reform of Negative Gearing and Capital Gains tax ; it was also prepared to back income tax cuts for the wealthy ; such that Australia will drift towards a flat and regressive tax regime with Labor’s implicit consent. As Greg Jericho writes for ‘The Guardian’, Labor is supporting the entrenchment of a tax regime which will see those on below-median and below average wages effectively paying the same rates of tax as income earners between $120,000 and $200,000.
Rob Harris – writing
for the Sydney Morning Herald – explains that these tax ‘reforms’ will cost the
Budget “an estimated $137 billion” over their first six years. Specifically, the 37 per cent tax rate will be abolished and a 30 per cent rate will apply to all
income between $45,000 and $200,000.
This will occur at a time where ordinary Australian workers will need to
service the massive debt induced because of Covid wage subsidies and other
subsidies for business. Those subsidies
were (and at the time of writing still are) necessary ; but the debt should not
be serviced in a regressive fashion which affects those least able to pay. And because those on lower incomes spend a
greater proportion of their incomes, policies which impact negatively upon them
will be ‘bad for the economy’ as well.
Yes, there is a very small minority of wage labourers
and others earning over $100,000 a year.
Maybe ten per cent. But because of their
relative privilege parts of this ‘labour aristocracy’ can be inclined to
support economically-Liberal distributive taxation policies which minimise
redistribution. The vast majority of wage labourers and
vulnerable Australians will not benefit from this policy. In fact, the scope will be also reduced for
improvement of social security and the social wage. Labor will be restricted in its capacity to
deliver reform of Social Security, Medicare, the NDIS, public and social
housing, Aged Care. In the field of social security, easing means
testing of recipients with partners could also remove a perverse incentive for
disabled Australians to shun relationships because ‘they cannot afford not to
be alone’. Reform of the Jobseeker
Allowance (previously ‘Newstart’) is also long overdue and widely accepted.
With Aged Care, Labor is committed to staff ratios ;
but to provide this without regressive user pays mechanisms the funding needs
to come from somewhere else. Either
reform will be funded progressively or regressively ; or otherwise (even after
the Aged Care Royal Commission) it will not happen at all. After the Royal Commission findings ; which
identified gross structural neglect of Aged Australians receiving care ; this
would be a damning indictment of the major political parties in Australia who
failed to mobilise public opinion around reform even after the shortcomings of
the system were laid bare for all to see.
It is not too late to embrace a progressively structured ‘National Aged
Care Insurance Levy’ to fund reform of Aged Care in this country.
True, Labor is also intending to reform labour market
regulation ; but that in itself will not make up for the distributive
consequences of this policy. It will be a case of ‘one step forwards, two steps
back’ for Labor where nothing can make up for capitulation on the principles of
progressive taxation and redistribution in the most basic sense. Nonetheless if reform of labour market regulation
is strong enough it could still make a difference. Specifically minimum wage
rates need to increase significantly ; as well as Award rates for struggling
workers – many of whom work in feminised professions such as Aged Care. Teachers – many of whom also already work
unacceptable levels of unpaid overtime – could also do with improved wages and
conditions ; and this is essential to attract and maintain the most capable
practitioners in the system.
Talk of ‘aspiration’ clouds the fact that Labor’s new
tax policy will favour the top ten per cent at the expense of everyone
else. There was a time when radicals
would have seen talk of ‘aspiration’ as a kind of ‘false consciousness’. But
today Labor is so afraid of the ‘class warfare’ label that it shuns policies
that impact even modestly on the top 10 per cent and in favour of everyone
else. Yet ‘flat taxation’ itself is in
fact a kind of ‘class warfare’ against the vast majority of working people.
The fact is that in the last election Labor had strong but reasonable tax
policies ; but failed to sell and explain those measures at crucial
conjunctures. Chris Bowen said those who didn’t like Labor’s tax policies
shouldn’t vote Labor. And when many voters failed to grasp Labor’s policies
that is exactly what they did.
Furthermore, in the final days of the election campaign – with Bob
Hawke’s death – Bill Shorten came across as flat, unconvincing and unemotional.
Despite his commendable work on the NDIS
; and the credit for embracing progressive tax policies in the first place –
this fact remains.
Conclusions to the effect ‘it is impossible to sell
tax reform’ neglect the fact that Labor failed tactically in mobilising public
opinion. Some Labor figures are reacting
defensively to criticisms from the Greens to the effect that Labor is
supporting a drift towards flat taxation.
But while the Greens can afford to be more radical because they depend
on a narrower electoral base, that does not change the fact that Labor is
capitulating on the most basic social democratic principles. It does not change the fact that we are
failing to sell policies that are objectively in the interests of the majority
of Australians.
Again: where a bipartisan consensus on radically-regressive tax restructure is
conceded, even where Labor does win with such a Platform it is probably a case
of ‘one step forward, two steps back’.
Progressives have to actually deliver progress if they are to be seen as
credible. At the moment the best hope is a National Aged Care Insurance Levy, and strong labour market reform.
Here’s hoping Labor ‘finds its way’ between now and the election.