News 
 National News 
 National 
 General 
 Misguided middle-class moaners 

Misguided middle-class moaners

20 May, 2009 03:08 PM
Throughout his time as prime minister, John Howard endlessly repeated his contention that the old class conflict was dead and buried. He was right. These days most people think of themselves as "middle class" regardless of the extent of their means. We're conscious of social status, but we don't think in class terms.

All of us, except Howard. Now he's gone and the dust has settled, it's easier to see how assiduously he worked to advantage the interests of the better-off.

Over eight successive tax cuts (the last three of which are being delivered by Kevin Rudd), he quietly cut the tax paid by the top quarter of income earners by a lot more than he cut the middle. At the same time as he was undermining the government's revenue, he was ramping up government spending on the better-off.

By the standards of the developed world, Australians have never been highly taxed. We pay only a bit more than the Americans. The reason we pay less tax is that we've been careful to stick to a quite frugal welfare state.

We pay low, flat-rate pensions and benefits unrelated to people's former incomes, with payments subject to tight means-testing. If you don't need taxpayers' help, you don't get it.

This system we inherited from the sainted Bob Menzies. Yet his latter-day disciple spent more than a decade white-anting it. He did this mainly by introducing benefits that weren't means-tested.

The classic example was the 30 per cent rebate for people with private health insurance. Then there was the baby bonus, the greatly increased grants to private schools, part B of the family tax benefit and, for that matter, part A, which was means-tested only lightly.

Or, take child care. For a long time, the subsidy for the cost of child care was the means-tested child-care benefit. But Howard added a 30 per cent child-care rebate that wasn't means-tested.

Next, take the self-proclaimed "self-funded retirees". By definition, these are people whose means disqualify them for eligibility for the age pension; they don't need help from the taxpayer.

As everyone but me seems now to agree, Howard allowed the base rate of the single pension to become inadequate to the tune of $30 a week. But he was always slipping handouts to those whose claim to be self-funded was not a proud assertion of their independence, but a complaint that they were missing out. He gave them a special tax rebate, a seniors card and access to cheap pharmaceuticals. Most of all, he eased the age pension means test, cutting the rate at which other income reduced eligibility for the pension from 50 cents in the dollar to 40 cents. This enabled many more people to become part-pensioners (while still professing to be self-funded).

Finally, Howard changed the taxation of superannuation savings, making it obscenely and unsustainably more generous to high income earners (such as my good self).

So unclass-conscious have we become that it only dawned on the battlers they were being got at when Howard went over the top with his Work Choices industrial relations policy.

One of the main reasons economists fear the Rudd Government will have difficulty returning the budget to surplus after the recession has passed is that those eight successive years of tax cuts have weakened the recuperative powers of the budget's revenue side.

So eventually we'll need either explicit tax increases or big cuts in government spending to restore the budget to surplus. Now you see why the budget cognoscenti are urging Rudd to attack (upper) "middle-class welfare", rolling back Howard's profligacy and restoring the welfare system to its former means-tested Menziean modesty.

Rudd put a toe in the water in last year's budget, imposing $150,000- a-year cut-offs on eligibility for family benefit part B, the baby bonus and the dependent spouse tax offset. This year he went further, imposing a means test on the private health insurance rebate, hacking into the superannuation tax rort, tightening the indexation of family allowance part A, phasing up the age pension age to 67, and returning the pension "withdrawal rate" to 50 cents in the dollar (but doing so in a way that exempted the present crop of whingeing self-funded retirees).

There was just one problem: the savings from all those five measures will do no more than cover the huge and ever-growing long-term cost of the increases in the pension. So expect a lot more cuts to middle-class welfare.

It was always going to be interesting to see how much of this crackdown on middle-class welfare Malcolm Turnbull would oppose. He chose to wink at everything bar that old ideological battleground, private health insurance.

Rudd's desire to means test that rebate, he said, was the proof that Labor still hated private insurance because it "encourages self-reliance and offers choice". His objection was not the hit to the pockets of high income earners (including me) but the extra pressure it would put on public hospitals as people gave up insurance.

Nonsense. Because Labor plans to increase the Medicare levy surcharge on high income-earners without private insurance (the stick) as it reduces or removes the rebate (the carrot), even the industry accepts its loss of membership is likely to be minimal.

As for this proving Labor's eternal enmity towards private insurance, it's actually the reverse: the increase in the surcharge is Labor's acceptance of Howard's government-supported, two-class health system.

So there was Turnbull defending a handout to the better-off by proposing it be replaced by higher tobacco tax (which these days mainly hits low income earners, whatever its health virtues).

None of this leaves Rudd as any kind of hero. He came to office promising to increase Howard's 30 per cent unmeans-tested child-care rebate to 50 per cent. He's sticking doggedly to his promise to implement the three unfair and now irresponsible tax cuts he pinched from Howard.

And he's refusing to pass the pension increases on to sole parents and the unemployed, deepening Howard's division between the deserving and the undeserving poor.

He's no class-warrior, just another pragmatic vote-gatherer.

Ross Gittins is the Sydney Morning Herald's economics editor.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size
Page:
1



comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
It’s obvious from your article that you have very little concern about “Middle Class” Australians getting a fair go. You write about Howards “generous” tax cuts to middle and higher income earners, conveniently leaving out that it is those same people that got off their butts worked hard to get a reasonable education in order to get into higher paying jobs. They worked overtime and multiple jobs paid double and triple tax for the privilege. Saved, scrimped and paid into voluntary Super schemes to get where they got, only to find that for all their efforts they are highly discriminated against in later life. Compare them to those that didn’t bother getting off their collective butts, went to clubs and pubs after work and generally enjoyed life whenever they could. However, when it’s time to retire they complain that the government isn’t generous enough and ensure that everything is means tested so that the very people that managed to get the country to where it is today, also get the least benefit, do you believe that is fair? Due to inflation, especially over the last 30 years or so, middle income earners have progressively paid far more tax than upper and lower income earners simply because of “tax bracket creep”, they also pay proportionally more into the Medicare system but get less from it. Then if they have the foresight to contribute to a Private Health system, because the public system is woefully inadequate, they get even less benefits and consequently subsidise everyone else. There have been tax adjustments although you don’t call them that. Well, it’s time these people were given a fair go, “whinging” is what you call it, “fairness” is another term that is far more fitting. If you want people to get ahead there have to be incentives. Remove them and eventually the country slides into a Communism, we all know that doesn’t work for long. If “economics” is about treating people unfairly to get the maximum benefit to our country, no wonder people are disappointed in the “bean counter mentality”.
Posted by Peter from Liverpool, 21/05/2009 2:19:17 PM
Well said Peter. My analogy is this. If three people rent a house and the rent is $300 per week, they pay $100 each. Fair enough? If renter no 1 earns $30k a year, no 2 $60k a year and no 3 $90k a year, they still all pay $100 a week each. Well our socialist government doesn't agree with this theory. If you earn more, you pay more for education, hospitals, public transport etc. Where do they (the socialists) draw the line? Do you pay more for food and clothing because you earn more money? Does a new car cost you more because you earn more money? Do you pay more for petrol or electricity? Socialism is the art of bringing everyone down to the lowest common denominator.
Posted by Al, 22/05/2009 2:13:13 PM
Middle Class Moaners (MCM's)? What a load of rubbish. Why should people who have done the right thing - that is get an education or a trade qualification, subsidise those who haven't? MCM's pay more income tax, consume more so pay more GST and I bet pay a myriad of taxes than those who earn less than them. Screw the unemployed!! If you didn't have a job during the Howard years, it was because you couldn't (people on Sickness & Disabilty pensions) or you didn't want one. I know the ALP depends on a core of drop kick wankers to support them but this is ridiculous. Seeing the ALP is hell bent on scrapping support for people who do the right thing, why don't they just make everything free and print more money? Rudd, I believe, is a fairly decent sort of bloke. Like Whitlam, he is surrounded bu ill educated morons. Swan is a joke - would you want him running your school Tuck Shop? Wong has no idea and Pete Garrett really needs to take a dose of reality and begin looking after people's jobs. This is really looking like a one term government.
Posted by Al, 24/05/2009 7:46:28 PM
To Peter and Al all I can say is Me Me Me
Posted by j, 25/05/2009 5:40:39 PM
How bizarre! If Howard had stayed there any longer, I think Australia may have been on the brink of Civil war. There is such an enormous gap between rich and poor. Howard encouraged such hatred toward those on "welfare"payments such as Disability Pensions, Aged, Carers, Single Parents etc and ran down public Education and Health that we were becoming like America. He tried to make Higher Education available only to the wealthy. Why do you think there are so many robberies and assaults? History tells us that without an adequate Social Security system, society collapses. Once (before Jeff Kennett ripped the heart out of Health & Welfare in Victoria, and John Fahey in NSW, followed suit) each person with Social Security support (or in need) had a Welfare Officer who helped them organised out of their situation and generally visited. That is why I think it is so ironic that Kennett is figure head of Beyond Blue - he exascerbated a lot of Mental Illness & caused it in many burnt "service providers". Now we've gone the way of "super cheap" where people with minimal qualifications make life & death decisions
Posted by Annie, 30/05/2009 5:58:46 PM
Re: "...the 30 per cent rebate for people with private health insurance.' Surely this rebate wouldn't be so necessary if health insurance worked the way many other types of insurance worked - ie, those who have health insurance policies pay less, not more, for their medical bills. Who would want to insure their cars if that meant that they needed to pay more in the event of an accident, than those who didn't bother taking out the insurance.
Posted by Felix, 9/06/2009 8:17:05 PM

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.

Most popular articles

Rod Madsen Solicitor
 
New Year, New You!
 
PC & Laptop Sales
 
Apprenticeship specialists
 
Follow your dream
 
Chartered Accountants
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...