If you want to see a classic example of selfishness posing as high
principle, look no further than the fuss big business's high
income-earners are making over the deficit/debt levy/tax expected to be
imposed in Tuesday's budget.
Jennifer Westacott, of the Business
Council of Australia, said "raising Australia's already high dependence
on personal income tax will place an increased burden on workers [note
that word] and could weigh down an already sluggish economy. If we are
serious about lifting our productivity and competitiveness, we should be
lowering taxes, not increasing them."
Dale Alcock, of the home
builder ABN Group, said the tax could dissuade people from working hard
to earn more. The "government needs to get its own house in order first
and get its government departments working efficiently. Once you've done
that, then come back and talk to us."
Sound like a convenient
argument to you? Now try this for logic: he would prefer an increase in
the rate of the goods and services tax that, by its nature, raised
revenue from wealthy, high-consuming individuals, as opposed to a
class-based deficit tax.
So a tax increase paid by everyone would
be preferable - why? Would it be fairer? Better for the economy? - to a
tax limited to high income-earners.
Innes Willox, of the AiGroup
business lobby, said the levy "will only serve to dampen our economy at a
time when we need growth". A one-off debt levy on "people who are
working, who are contributing to our economy, who are spending at a time
when our economy is already fragile, we think is deeply problematic".
So
what are you saying, Innes? Better to take money off people who don't
work - say, the elderly, the unemployed, sole parents with little kids?
People who don't work don't spend? People who spend don't contribute to
the economy? I'm not following you.
According to the Financial
Review, a senior Liberal figure, who did not want to be identified, said
the tax increase was not just a broken promise but poor economics and
an attack on the Liberal Party's base.
"We didn't vote for a
f---ing Abbott government to increase taxes, did we?" he said. Ah, do I
detect a note of self-interest creeping in among the high-minded concern
for the health of the economy?
Trevor Evans, of the National
Retail Association lobby, said the tax would reduce discretionary
spending and damage economic confidence. "A debt levy, even a temporary
one, on medium- and higher-income earners would damage consumer
confidence at a critical time," he said.
Great argument, eh?
Anything you don't like the sound of - especially since you and your
mates will be paying it - is a bad thing because you just know it will
wreck confidence. My old boss Vic Carroll used to speak with cynical
amusement about the "easily frightened fawn of business confidence". Do
anything business doesn't fancy and the economy will stop dead.
Speaking
as one who's been on the top tax rate since 1982-83 - when it was 60 cents
in the dollar, and stayed there for another three years - and escaped it
for just one year, 2008-09, when Peter Costello's salary sacrifice
superannuation rort was at its height, all this is self-serving rubbish.
Yes,
as a failed accountant I do keep a record of income tax I pay, though
it goes back only to 1969-70. And do you seriously believe being on the
top tax rate has discouraged me from working hard or aspiring to be editor?
Do
you think money's the only thing I get out of my job? Do you worry I
might quit Oz to be economics editor of The New York Times or The Wall
Street Journal? (Tip: not many vacancies in the Big Apple for people who
think they're hot shots from Down Under.)
Do you think being on
the top tax rate - and hence a pretty flash salary - has discouraged me
from saving much in the past 30 years? Do you think my obscenely
taxpayer-subsidised super payout won't be as big as a lottery win?
And
though all my fellow victims on the top rate don't get the ego reward
of having their opinions broadcast to the world, do you think senior
executives, people in financial services, city lawyers, medical
specialists and the like get no satisfaction from being a winner in the
socio-economic status race, or from having kowtowing underlings to boss
about?
As best I can determine from the leaks seeping under the
door of the Prime Minister's press office, Joe Hockey plans to impose a 1
percentage point tax levy on the part of individual taxpayers' earnings
that exceeds $150,000 - or maybe $180,000 - a year.
If so,
someone on $200,000 is facing a punishing tax increase of $500 a year,
or $9.60 a week. Really? That's what's going to destroy incentive, swell
the brain-drain and foster rampant tax avoidance, not to mention stuff
economic growth?
Estimates by Ben Phillips of the University of
Canberra point to about 650,000 people earning more than $150,000 a
year, making up the top 7 per cent of taxpayers.
If the threshold
turns out to be the higher $180,000, this would affect 400,000 people,
making up the top 4 per cent of taxpayers. (Note how quickly the number
of people affected falls as you move further away from the median
taxpayer's income of about $55,000 a year.)
What gets me in all
the propaganda above is the evidence the disease of fiscal monoculism
has reached epidemic proportions. This is the sickness that allows
people to see only one side of the budget.
A budget deficit, for
instance, can only ever be caused by excessive government spending,
never inadequate tax revenue. And though an increase in taxes would kill
consumer demand, equivalent cuts in government spending would have no
adverse effects. Can't see it, myself.
