Hi, I am Greg and I want to grumble about tax, and payroll tax in particular. Taxes are never popular, but payroll tax is particularly unpopular, being labelled as a tax on employment. However, given that it helps pay for vital state government services, the Productivity Commission speculated that it might be better accepted if it was called a hospital or schools levy.
But in any tax debate, we have to remember that Australia is not a high taxing country by world standards – the 4th lowest in the OECD, and South Australia is not a high taxing state. As a share of the economy, state taxes are about the same as the national average, and per head of population state taxes in South Australia are $300 a year less than the national average.
However, state taxes – especially payroll tax – have long been a bugbear of business and this week the Liberal Party promised a big cut in payroll tax from 2015 if they are elected in March.
I think payroll tax does need an overhaul, but I am not sure I would have done it the way the Liberals have proposed. They are not promising to cut the rate of tax, just to raise the threshold for when businesses start paying the tax. 8,000 more businesses will be exempt from the tax, but any threshold creates a tax disincentive for businesses expanding over the arbitrary threshold. I would have preferred a broader based tax with a lower tax rate for all businesses.
But I also think that simply playing with rates and thresholds is a missed opportunity for tax reform. One of the biggest problems facing workers today is insecure work. Far too many people are struggling on short term contracts or in casual employment. This creates uncertainty and stress for staff, and limits their ability to access loans, housing and to plan and build a secure life. If payroll tax relief is called for, wouldn’t it be better to offer it to employers who offer more secure forms of employment than to employers who maintain workers at the margins but who sneak in under an arbitrary threshold?
Obviously this proposal needs discussion and modelling of its effects – not least because many low paid casuals rely on the loading in their pay to make ends meet. But if we are going to have an election based just on cutting taxes, then I am going to grumble.
And looking at the opening pitches of the election campaign, I am Greg, and I am grumbling.
This Grumble can be heard online or by podcast at https://radio.adelaide.edu.au/gregs-grumbles-13/
First Broadcast: 29 October 2013
Greg's Grumbles can be heard on Radio Adelaide during SACOSS' Small Change program - 6pm every Tuesday night. 101.5FM or online.
Tuesday, 29 October 2013
Monday, 21 October 2013
12. Festival of Ideas
Hi. I am Greg and I want to grumble about the Festival of Talking which was held in Adelaide on the weekend.
University halls were packed with people who clearly didn’t have to work, do the shopping, clean the house, take the kids to sport, or do any of things that people have to do on the weekend. There was discussion of science, of arts, of feminism and of politics, and there were interesting and occasionally provocative ideas being delivered from platforms on high.
But what made me grumble was the lack of analysis of power and material interest in the sessions I went to. For instance, we were told that we are going backwards on climate change because the narrative does not fit with the way our brains are hard-wired. Apparently as a species we have trouble grasping and acting on abstract concepts, so facts about a distant threat posed by an invisible gas just don’t cut it. And so with classical liberalism, we were implored to talk about climate change differently and to build bridges to each person’s individual experience.
Now apart from thinking that abstract concepts like nationalism, god and democracy have historically mobilised masses of people, I wondered where was the analysis of power in society? Where was the discussion of the power of transnational fossil fuel corporations who successfully lobbied to gut climate legislation in face of popular support for action on climate change, where was the querying of an economic model based on particular types of growth or an understanding of the self-interest of living a resource-intensive lifestyle?
Now I am happy to try to adapt messages to maximise their impact, but let’s not kid ourselves that the ultimate issue here is one of discourse – of the way ideas are explained. Liberal ideology might credit ideas with changing history, but feudalism, the divine right of kings and Soviet communism were all defeated not by the idea of democracy but by the wealth created by capitalism and the power of the capitalist class – albeit mitigated (and legitimised) by a social democratic state. And that is the order of magnitude change we may need.
These may be unpopular ideas in a festival based on the idea of ideas, but perhaps if we focussed more on power we would be discussing the organisation of politics rather than its language, equality rather than innovation, and poverty rather than “true crime” (Thanks John Saffron). Why was it that in a festival at the end of anti-poverty week, there was no session on ideas for addressing poverty and sharing wealth?
Don’t get me wrong, ideas are important – and better when entertaining and inspiring, but the key thing about ideas relates to who has power in our society, who benefits from which ideas and how ideas are mobilised in defence of (or in opposition to) that power and privilege.
So, call me an old-fashioned materialist, but I am Greg, I am grumbling.
This Grumble can be heard online or by podcast at https://radio.adelaide.edu.au/gregs-grumbles-12/
First Broadcast: 22 October 2013
University halls were packed with people who clearly didn’t have to work, do the shopping, clean the house, take the kids to sport, or do any of things that people have to do on the weekend. There was discussion of science, of arts, of feminism and of politics, and there were interesting and occasionally provocative ideas being delivered from platforms on high.
But what made me grumble was the lack of analysis of power and material interest in the sessions I went to. For instance, we were told that we are going backwards on climate change because the narrative does not fit with the way our brains are hard-wired. Apparently as a species we have trouble grasping and acting on abstract concepts, so facts about a distant threat posed by an invisible gas just don’t cut it. And so with classical liberalism, we were implored to talk about climate change differently and to build bridges to each person’s individual experience.
Now apart from thinking that abstract concepts like nationalism, god and democracy have historically mobilised masses of people, I wondered where was the analysis of power in society? Where was the discussion of the power of transnational fossil fuel corporations who successfully lobbied to gut climate legislation in face of popular support for action on climate change, where was the querying of an economic model based on particular types of growth or an understanding of the self-interest of living a resource-intensive lifestyle?
Now I am happy to try to adapt messages to maximise their impact, but let’s not kid ourselves that the ultimate issue here is one of discourse – of the way ideas are explained. Liberal ideology might credit ideas with changing history, but feudalism, the divine right of kings and Soviet communism were all defeated not by the idea of democracy but by the wealth created by capitalism and the power of the capitalist class – albeit mitigated (and legitimised) by a social democratic state. And that is the order of magnitude change we may need.
These may be unpopular ideas in a festival based on the idea of ideas, but perhaps if we focussed more on power we would be discussing the organisation of politics rather than its language, equality rather than innovation, and poverty rather than “true crime” (Thanks John Saffron). Why was it that in a festival at the end of anti-poverty week, there was no session on ideas for addressing poverty and sharing wealth?
Don’t get me wrong, ideas are important – and better when entertaining and inspiring, but the key thing about ideas relates to who has power in our society, who benefits from which ideas and how ideas are mobilised in defence of (or in opposition to) that power and privilege.
So, call me an old-fashioned materialist, but I am Greg, I am grumbling.
This Grumble can be heard online or by podcast at https://radio.adelaide.edu.au/gregs-grumbles-12/
First Broadcast: 22 October 2013
Tuesday, 15 October 2013
11. Poverty
Hi, I’m Greg and I want to grumble about poverty, or about how as a society we talked too much about poverty – and then we stopped.
It seemed like a good idea in the early 1970s when a bloke called Henderson headed an inquiry which set a benchmark for how much income would be required to meet the basic needs of a family of two adults and two children. It was a narrow family stereotype (well, it was 40 years ago) but conceptually the idea of such a benchmark poverty line is not too different from what another bloke called Justice Higgins did way back at the start of the last century when he set a minimum wage that helped make Australia a more decent society – even if defined in masculine terms of a male bread-winner.
But far from shining a light on poverty in Australia, the poverty line generated endless debates. The academic ink flowed not just around the maths and methodology, but around whether poverty was defined by a set of basic needs or as relative to how much others in the society had.
The debate went on, until others pointed out that money was a narrow measure and there were a whole range of other social barriers holding people down. Education, class, race, sex and sexuality combined in various and often brutal ways to create disadvantage and deprivation, and it was clear that money alone was not the answer. And then it became too hard or just too old-fashioned to talk about poverty and the middle class focus went elsewhere – even though the poor were still poor and the gap between rich and poor was growing.
Sadly now, in anti-poverty week, those still wanting to highlight poverty can’t give you a simple answer as to what the poverty line is, or how many people are living below it. Instead they have to chant ritual incantations about poverty being multi-dimensional, and qualify statements and apologise in advance before talking about income levels. In highlighting the complexity of the problem, we robbed ourselves of the language to talk about poverty.
Of course education, class, race, sex, geography, health and a range of other things are important determinants of poverty, but I have a fairly strong suspicion that if you are missing meals or your electricity is cut off because you can’t pay the bills, or if you are trying to live on $35 a day on a Newstart allowance, lack of money is pretty fundamental.
So let’s talk about all the power structures, cultures and barriers that keep people poor, but show me the money as well! And let’s have a debate not about where or how to draw the poverty line, but about what to do about poverty in our rich country.
But until then, I am Greg, and I am grumbling.
This Grumble can be heard online or by podcast at https://radio.adelaide.edu.au/gregs-grumbles-11/
First Broadcast: 15 October 2013
It seemed like a good idea in the early 1970s when a bloke called Henderson headed an inquiry which set a benchmark for how much income would be required to meet the basic needs of a family of two adults and two children. It was a narrow family stereotype (well, it was 40 years ago) but conceptually the idea of such a benchmark poverty line is not too different from what another bloke called Justice Higgins did way back at the start of the last century when he set a minimum wage that helped make Australia a more decent society – even if defined in masculine terms of a male bread-winner.
But far from shining a light on poverty in Australia, the poverty line generated endless debates. The academic ink flowed not just around the maths and methodology, but around whether poverty was defined by a set of basic needs or as relative to how much others in the society had.
The debate went on, until others pointed out that money was a narrow measure and there were a whole range of other social barriers holding people down. Education, class, race, sex and sexuality combined in various and often brutal ways to create disadvantage and deprivation, and it was clear that money alone was not the answer. And then it became too hard or just too old-fashioned to talk about poverty and the middle class focus went elsewhere – even though the poor were still poor and the gap between rich and poor was growing.
Sadly now, in anti-poverty week, those still wanting to highlight poverty can’t give you a simple answer as to what the poverty line is, or how many people are living below it. Instead they have to chant ritual incantations about poverty being multi-dimensional, and qualify statements and apologise in advance before talking about income levels. In highlighting the complexity of the problem, we robbed ourselves of the language to talk about poverty.
Of course education, class, race, sex, geography, health and a range of other things are important determinants of poverty, but I have a fairly strong suspicion that if you are missing meals or your electricity is cut off because you can’t pay the bills, or if you are trying to live on $35 a day on a Newstart allowance, lack of money is pretty fundamental.
So let’s talk about all the power structures, cultures and barriers that keep people poor, but show me the money as well! And let’s have a debate not about where or how to draw the poverty line, but about what to do about poverty in our rich country.
But until then, I am Greg, and I am grumbling.
This Grumble can be heard online or by podcast at https://radio.adelaide.edu.au/gregs-grumbles-11/
First Broadcast: 15 October 2013
Monday, 7 October 2013
10. SLAPP Suits
Hi, I’m Greg and I want to grumble about SLAPP suits. SLAPP stands for Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation. The name is American, but unfortunately law suits against activists voicing community concern are alive and well in Australia.
Perhaps the most famous Australian example was the Gunns 20 case where the Tasmanian timber giant Gunns sued Bob Brown, The Wilderness Society and 18 others over protests against logging old growth forests. The case dragged on for five years before it finally collapsed with Gunns having trashed their own reputation and paid over a million dollars in court costs.
But there have been other cases. In South Australia environmentalists got sued for saying a developer was chasing “fool’s gold”, and for saying that you would have to have “rocks in your head” if you wanted to build a housing estate in a particular place. And then there were the animal activists sued over a T-shirt about battery hens, and the social justice activists sued for saying that there had not been adequate consultation with Aboriginal people over a particular project.
I grumble about this because I spent 10 years of my life defending these cases, but I was a lot more than grumbling last week when I heard that the Victorian Supreme Court had just slapped injunctions on protesters who had been blocking the building of a new McDonald’s at Tecoma in the hills outside of Melbourne. Now I don’t know the protesters, or whether their concerns about local businesses, culture and environment, healthy diets, or the rights of the local community are widely held or well-founded, but I do know that they have a right to effectively protest the burger-isation of their town. Such political issues should be sorted out in public debate, not by a court process where a global corporation has all the resources and rights.
But what is even more outrageous in this case was that the judge made a “representative order” – effectively gagging whole groups of protesters who were not even parties to the case. So, if you were one of those protesters upset by this particular Hamburglar and you now go to protest by symbolically occupying the site for say 10 minutes, you might not only be charged with trespass by the Police, you could be sued for tens of thousands of dollars and be guilty of contempt of court to boot!
I blame McDonald’s, and I blame the judge and the lawyers, and I blame the legal system that makes court cases so expensive and stressful. But mostly I want to see legislation to ban such attacks on the right to protest, and no, I won’t have fries with that!
I am Greg, and I am grumbling.
This Grumble can be heard online or by podcast at https://radio.adelaide.edu.au/gregs-grumbles-10/
First Broadcast: 8 October 2013
Perhaps the most famous Australian example was the Gunns 20 case where the Tasmanian timber giant Gunns sued Bob Brown, The Wilderness Society and 18 others over protests against logging old growth forests. The case dragged on for five years before it finally collapsed with Gunns having trashed their own reputation and paid over a million dollars in court costs.
But there have been other cases. In South Australia environmentalists got sued for saying a developer was chasing “fool’s gold”, and for saying that you would have to have “rocks in your head” if you wanted to build a housing estate in a particular place. And then there were the animal activists sued over a T-shirt about battery hens, and the social justice activists sued for saying that there had not been adequate consultation with Aboriginal people over a particular project.
I grumble about this because I spent 10 years of my life defending these cases, but I was a lot more than grumbling last week when I heard that the Victorian Supreme Court had just slapped injunctions on protesters who had been blocking the building of a new McDonald’s at Tecoma in the hills outside of Melbourne. Now I don’t know the protesters, or whether their concerns about local businesses, culture and environment, healthy diets, or the rights of the local community are widely held or well-founded, but I do know that they have a right to effectively protest the burger-isation of their town. Such political issues should be sorted out in public debate, not by a court process where a global corporation has all the resources and rights.
But what is even more outrageous in this case was that the judge made a “representative order” – effectively gagging whole groups of protesters who were not even parties to the case. So, if you were one of those protesters upset by this particular Hamburglar and you now go to protest by symbolically occupying the site for say 10 minutes, you might not only be charged with trespass by the Police, you could be sued for tens of thousands of dollars and be guilty of contempt of court to boot!
I blame McDonald’s, and I blame the judge and the lawyers, and I blame the legal system that makes court cases so expensive and stressful. But mostly I want to see legislation to ban such attacks on the right to protest, and no, I won’t have fries with that!
I am Greg, and I am grumbling.
This Grumble can be heard online or by podcast at https://radio.adelaide.edu.au/gregs-grumbles-10/
First Broadcast: 8 October 2013
Tuesday, 1 October 2013
9. Fact Checking
Hi, I’m Greg and I want to grumble about facts. Well, actually about journalism and facts.
During the Federal election there were at least 3 Fact Checking websites set up to check the factual accuracy of things politicians say. The ABC had a staff of about 10 people in their “Fact Checking” unit, while the US-based “PolitiFact” set up a branch in Australia to keep an eye on our pollies' claims. This added to Crickey.com who was running a regular fact checking service, “Get Fact”.
Now don’t get me wrong. Independent fact checking and calling our politicians to account is a good thing. By why is it needed? Isn’t that what journalists are supposed to do as their day job?
Apparently not. Tight news cycles and inexperienced journalists mean that most of the political news coverage we get is he-said/she-said competing claims with no analysis and no way the public can work out what the truth is. Journalists could check with independent experts and either present those views, or inform themselves and make an assessment of the facts and issues and then tell us the story. But instead what we often get is simply a packaging of sound-bytes from political leaders. The “news story” is not about the issue, but what one person said about what the other person said about the issue.
And then there is the issue of balance. Any journalist actually trying to do an assessment of issues and present facts about who is right or wrong on a particular issue will inevitably be the subject of a complaint of bias. This is particularly the case if they work for the ABC – not because the ABC is biased, it is just easier to complain about. And so, we get an even more extreme version of political debate where if one view is put, “balance” requires that the opposite view be put. The views may be bizarre, offensive or incredible, and such balance may make shows like Q&A unwatchable, but it is balanced – apparently! Well, I’m sorry, the earth is round, climate change is real, and you can’t live properly on a $35 a day Newstart Allowance – and I don’t need to hear from someone providing me “balance” on this.
So, good luck to the fact checkers checking the facts that the journalist fact checkers don’t check. And long live community radio where you can actually discuss issues.
I am Greg, and I am grumbling.
This Grumble can be heard online or by podcast at https://radio.adelaide.edu.au/gregs-grumbles-9/
First Broadcast:1 October 2013
During the Federal election there were at least 3 Fact Checking websites set up to check the factual accuracy of things politicians say. The ABC had a staff of about 10 people in their “Fact Checking” unit, while the US-based “PolitiFact” set up a branch in Australia to keep an eye on our pollies' claims. This added to Crickey.com who was running a regular fact checking service, “Get Fact”.
Now don’t get me wrong. Independent fact checking and calling our politicians to account is a good thing. By why is it needed? Isn’t that what journalists are supposed to do as their day job?
Apparently not. Tight news cycles and inexperienced journalists mean that most of the political news coverage we get is he-said/she-said competing claims with no analysis and no way the public can work out what the truth is. Journalists could check with independent experts and either present those views, or inform themselves and make an assessment of the facts and issues and then tell us the story. But instead what we often get is simply a packaging of sound-bytes from political leaders. The “news story” is not about the issue, but what one person said about what the other person said about the issue.
And then there is the issue of balance. Any journalist actually trying to do an assessment of issues and present facts about who is right or wrong on a particular issue will inevitably be the subject of a complaint of bias. This is particularly the case if they work for the ABC – not because the ABC is biased, it is just easier to complain about. And so, we get an even more extreme version of political debate where if one view is put, “balance” requires that the opposite view be put. The views may be bizarre, offensive or incredible, and such balance may make shows like Q&A unwatchable, but it is balanced – apparently! Well, I’m sorry, the earth is round, climate change is real, and you can’t live properly on a $35 a day Newstart Allowance – and I don’t need to hear from someone providing me “balance” on this.
So, good luck to the fact checkers checking the facts that the journalist fact checkers don’t check. And long live community radio where you can actually discuss issues.
I am Greg, and I am grumbling.
This Grumble can be heard online or by podcast at https://radio.adelaide.edu.au/gregs-grumbles-9/
First Broadcast:1 October 2013
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)