In 1996 the Howard Government, in response to the shocking massacre at Port Arthur, introduced a gun control policy that banned semi-automatic firearms. To assure that those who owned such weapons were not put at a financial disadvantage, Howard offered a 'buyback' scheme, where gun owners would sell their soon to be illegal rifles to the Government who would then destroy them. Howard had decided to use the political will of the moment to quickly introduce reform, a poll put national wide support of this action at around 90%.
The buyback was estimated to cost in excess of $500 million, the Government was in debt (as they kept telling us, remember 'Labor's black hole'?), and half a billion dollars back in the mid nineties was a lot of money (roughly 5% of the overall debt). They didn't want to pay for it, because they'd spent so much time whinging about debt and how they didn't like it. So if they borrowed money they'd look like what they were: hypocrites. So what did Howard do? He introduced a one-off levy, or more correctly he increased the Medicare Levy for the 1996-97 financial year to cover the cost. Aside from a bunch of farmers in North Queensland, clinging to the M16s they regularly use to blow a rabbit's arsehole through its face, there was a relatively low amount of bitching about the policy and the tax increase. Why? - Because it was a good cause, and a relatively small amount of money.
In 1999, Howard did it again, finding it necessary to increase the Medicare Levy to bolster the nation's defence budget for the upcoming excursion to East Timor after its independence vote. This time the increase levy would bring in $900 million. In both of these cases the opposition agreed almost without question.
Back to the present, and the Gillard Government is faced with an estimated $5.2 billion rebuild of infrastructure in southern Queensland. That cost is in addition to the millions already spent on emergency cash for flood victims and the rescue effort. The Government is in debt, and has spent a lot of energy saying they will have it paid off soon. So, like Howard, they've decided that a one-off levy in addition to the rollback of programs is in order. For some reason though, this has set everyone off, this has apparently never happened before and is some sort of shocking travesty. The Opposition isn’t playing ball either, instead preferring to drag out their same tired lines and score some points. Clearly Australia's collective memory has been pissed away on that rock at the back of Dave's house, during his last annual meat, beer and misogyny party.
The first issue raised is people who have already contributed to the various victim charity funds. "I've already given money (I'm awesome that way), so why should I have to pay more?" Well, you gave money to the victims of the flood (good on you by the way) BUT the cost of the flood to the victims is a drop in the ocean compared with fixing all the roads, rail, sewers, power, pipelines and other general infrastructure damaged by the flood. That's what the Government wants your money for, not for getting all the mud out of Nanna's kitchen. People have actually said they want their donation back, and to them I give a big middle finger…right in your eye you heartless prick. Charity is not conditional, either you give or you don’t. Do not swan around like you now own the place. You are not the messiah and your family secretly hates you.
The second issue raised is the financial heat on tax payers and a negative affect on consumer spending. I've got two words: bull and shit. If you earn $50 000 a year, admittedly not middle of the road, you will pay $1 dollar a week or around $52 extra tax for the year. So instead of the $9050 you would usually pay in tax (if you don't have a HECS debt) you will pay $9102. If you earn $100000 a year, you will pay roughly $5 a week or $260 extra for the year. So instead of the $26950 you would usually pay in tax (if you have private health), you will pay $27210. If that piddling amount reduces overall consumer spending for the whole year then we're already in deep shit.
The third issue raised is that the levy shows poor planning on behalf of the Government. Well…it perhaps shows a lack of flexibility in the budget and there is a reason for that. The implementation of such levies reveal how terrified Governments are of going further into debt, because some people hate Government debt so much they would rather sell every public asset in existence before the nation borrows fifty cents. The fixation on surplus in this country borders on the insane. People seem to think that if the Government is in debt, they will soon be living in a failed state. Like they think Government borrowing is the bureaucratic equivalent of failing at life. This view is juxtaposed with the fact that most Australians cannot wait to get into debt themselves by purchasing an over-priced monstrosity of a house, situated only 20 minutes from the middle of nowhere.
The Government had three choices after the flood: Borrow more money, cut $5.2 billion worth of Government services, or issue a levy. Given that the fist option is just plain unthinkable, they went with a combination of options two and three. Was that the right decision? Was it justified? All things being equal, the answer is no, but things are far from equal. This is politics.
No comments:
Post a Comment