Satire: Leunig, http://www.leunig.com.au/ used with permission …
First published July 9
David Leyonhjelm would not have been elected to the Senate had Malcolm Turnbull not bet the house on a double dissolution election, a stroke of Turnbullian genius, according to Annabel Crabb, one of the PM’s many Canberra media fans.
“Turnbull’s a soft cock and a pussy”, David cat-calls merrily this week.
“Fuck-off”, he tells a journo, because this is how Australians talk to one another. He defends his coprolalia by pretending obscenity, like slut-shaming, is a Libertarian thing. His misogyny is undisguised. It’s OK to call women bitches “when they are bitches”, he tells Channel 10.
Even less plausible is his claim to crusader status. It’s his duty to manfully call out misandry. This he does by asking his colleague when she’ll “stop shagging men”. It’s done so softly that it is not recorded in Hansard; not heard by the Senate President, Scott Ryan.
Naturally, he must repeat and expand upon the slur in a series of media interviews.
In the Leyonhjelm parallel universe, men are victims …
In the Leyonhjelm parallel universe, men are victims of a powerful, all-pervasive misandry, because, as Clem Ford writes, “being made to feel bad or implicated somehow in the power advantage enjoyed by men is exactly the same as living with an increased statistical likelihood of being beaten, raped or murdered by one.”
Leyonhjelm refuses to apologise. There’s no such thing as bad publicity for him. Even if the election is not until 2019, voters will recognise Leyonhjelm’s name. It’s all he needs to get his 7000 votes.
By Sunday, ABC Insiders, delivers the nation the ever-popular celebrity-gossip politics, spats and leadership tussles that sustain us. Why risk a slow show investigating the big issues, such as the crypto-fascism of Turnbull’s corporate oligarchy of secrets and lies with its flat tax madness, mass surveillance, its war on workers, the poor and The ABC or its $1bn unfunded GST bid to buy back voters in WA? Happily, it gives an already over-exposed Leyonhjelm another free plug.
But for Leyonhjelm to trash the PM for weak leadership is ungenerous. Cleopatra’s nose knows he should be grateful. If gratitude is a Libertarian thing. Or do Libertarians pretend that gratitude, like offence, can only be taken, not given?
Leyonhjelm owes his place to Mal’s dud judgement. (And tricking some would-be Liberal voters with the Liberal in Liberal Democrat). Turnbull’s genius shrank his government to a one-seat majority; delivered a senate cross-bench like a scene by Hieronymus Bosch, a nightmarish, macabre image of hell complete with mutant monsters and goblins.
So, too with One Nation, the senate’s Cheshire hellcat, now rapidly vanishing leaving nothing behind but its scowl. Yet Turnbull has only himself to blame for having to contend with a One Nation puss too big for its boots. A half senate election may have returned only Pauline herself.
Hey presto, the government has a malleable senate cross bench. a de facto majority
Now, as The Guardian’s Nick Evershed shows, after 23 months, a rapid succession of changes in the senate has seen senators switch parties several times, leave politics or depart because of their dual citizenship. Hey presto, the government has a malleable senate cross bench, a de facto majority. Last week, it passes its socially disfiguring monster income tax cuts.
The nation may never recover. Even if One Nation’s populism is in decline, it’s infected the body politic. We are a less equal nation today partly because of Mal’s courtship of Queen Pauline with her batty flat tax ideas, her state-built coal-fired station and her personal vendetta against The ABC.
And Turnbull’s readiness to use her.
Flat tax? As the IMF reports in its Fiscal Monitor for 2017, “Australia is among countries with the highest growth in income inequality in the world over the past thirty years.” The flattening of our tax system, will ensure that by 2024, when the Turnbull government’s tax cuts take full effect, the rich will pay a lot less than their fair share of tax.
It’s a recipe for increased inequality. Ben Eltham notes that a worker earning $200,000 a year in 2024, will pay the same rate of tax as someone earning $41,000. Scott Morrison’s largesse to the Liberal base will cost a mind-boggling $144 billion dollars which can only come from cuts to spending. It’s the Coalition’s small government, mean-spirited ideology at work.
None of those making the tax changes have the faintest clue what it’s like to get by on $41,000.
Rather than invest in a democratic and just society, the Coalition chooses to reward the well to do – taking from the poor, impoverishing the many, to give to its rich supporters. The National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling (NATSEM) at The University of Canberra modelling finds “a couple both earning twice the average full-time salary can expect an extra $13,000 in 2024-25”.
What a stroke of good fortune for a lucky few; Morrison’s Aspirationals. Those who need it least.
Cormann promises government can wring billions out of corporate tax avoiders …
Pauline backs the tax cut; betrays her battlers, yet again, thanks to Matthias Cormann’s sweet talk. Cormann promises government can wring billions out of corporate tax avoiders, a fairy story. And Pauline’s keen to get help with her ABC vendetta. Stop all the lies its lefties tell about her; about climate change, Four Corners’ fake news and how she runs her party like a malignant despot.
“Absolute dictatorship. Brutal,” says One Nation’s former Queensland president and treasurer Ian Nelson.
Help is on its way. Who better to look into the left-leaning, Jihadist, ABC than former-Foxtel head honcho Peter Tonagh? Tonagh and former Australian Communications and Media Authority acting chairman, Richard Bean will head the government’s “efficiency review” of the ABC and SBS.
Fox Sports and Foxtel are 65 per cent owned by Jerry Hall’s husband, Rupert Murdoch’s family business, News Corp. The other 35 per cent is owned by Telstra. Rupe is back on deck now after a fall on his son’s yacht, an occupational hazard for billionaires and their kin, and a potential ABC buyer.
“Efficiency review” means cutting funds. Minister for Communications and Complaining About Emma Alberici, Mitch Fifield, who sees no conflict between his role and his membership of an IPA pledged to privatise the ABC, (the Liberal Party Annual Council, last month, voted 2:1 in favour) complains of Auntie’s bias and slack journalism – five times in six months.
“In the fast-evolving world of media organisations, it is important to support our public broadcasters to be the best possible stewards of taxpayer dollars in undertaking their important work for the community,” Fifield says. Nothing about speaking truth to power. Community voice? Never.
An IPA bean-counter orders a commercial rival to review Aunty. What could possibly go wrong?
Without Abbott’s intercession, who knows whom may have benefited?
Pascal is on to something. Had Mark Anthony not been smitten by the beauty of Egypt’s Queen in 41 BC, he would never have gone to war for her; changed the destiny of the Roman Empire and the History of the West, whose civilising legacy yobbo, Tony Abbott, convinced his private health tycoon pal and fellow St Ignatius Riverview old boy, Liberal donor, Paul Ramsay, to leave $3.3 billion to perpetuate. Without Abbott’s intercession, who knows whom may have benefited?
In 2012, Ramsay gave $300,000 to help the now defunct The Kevin Spacey Foundation to aid arts education. Spacey set up his foundation in 2008, when, as artistic director at the Old Vic, he is accused of routinely preying on younger men.
Paul Ramsay wouldn’t have built his private hospital empire without tinpot Neocon general John Howard ‘s dogged determination to subsidise private health insurance; part of his grand plan to undermine the Medicare system, dismantle public health and his dedication to welfare for the wealthy. Battlers like Ramsay deserve a hand up.
Efficiency! Flexibility! The words buzz. And it’s all about choice. Public health is not for everyone.
Forcing the poor to pay more, Howard kept bulk billing rebates down, discouraging doctors from helping the needy by prescribing a low scheduled fee, a goal recently revisited in the Coalition’s thawing of his Medicare rebate freeze. It’s a wee puddle in the permafrost.
“General Practice has been transformed” spruiks Minister for Private Health Insurance, Hyperbole Hunt. GPs weep with gratitude for the few extra cents he’s wantonly thrown their way.
Last July, the Federal Government allowed indexation for bulk-billing incentives – putting an extra 12 cents in doctors’ pockets. This July, GPs will benefit as indexation is applied to GP attendance items.
This adds a whopping 55 cents on a standard consultation. Naturally, GPs must wait until mid-2020 for indexation on a further 140 MBS (Medical Benefits Scheme) items. Had the same price-fixing strategies been applied to private business, Howard, Abbott, Turnbull would be in gaol.
… Coalition health policy is an intergenerational fail
Like Howard’s squandering of the mining boom, Coalition health policy is an intergenerational fail. Twenty years after his 30% subsidy for private health insurance came in, premiums continue to rise every year. The subsidy does, however, sop up those lazy billions we’d otherwise fritter away on education, public hospitals, dental health, refuges, infrastructure or social welfare.
It’s costly but outsourcing democracy to titans of industry and commerce is never cheap. Just ask Donald Trump if his BFF, Vlad Putin is thriving along with his fellow oligarchs and Mafia pals.
“Putin’s fine,” Trump says. “He’s fine. We’re all fine.”
Health insurance companies are fine, too, thanks to the nation’s generous taxpayers. $6.5 billion went to insurance companies from the government subsidy alone in the 2016 federal budget. If nothing else, Ken Hayne’s Royal Commission into Banksters , round four, currently playing in Darwin, shows just how fabulously successful our nation’s insurers can be with a bit of a hand up.
If the neoliberal Turnbull government is more attuned to maintaining the rude good health of private health corporations than to improving public health, it does plan to innoculate the body politic against toxic ideas. Or it did, thanks to former failed health minister, now Liberal Party pariah, Tony Abbott who chatted up Paul Ramsay long before Paul had a heart attack on his yacht Oscar II off Ibiza, May 2014 and was subsequently rushed all the way back to Bowral NSW to die.
Now The Ramsay Centre is on the nose despite its promise of “a cadre of leaders … whose awareness and appreciation of their country’s Western heritage and values … would help guide their decision making in the future”. Or because of it.
“a Stasi-like process of commissar-auditors in lectures”
Ramsay wants its lectures to be vetted by what Guy Rundle describes as “a Stasi-like process of commissar-auditors in lectures” but now the ANU has rejected it, all bets are off. Will it be buried out the back of the ACU under the eye of Abbott pal, Greg Craven, as recently forecast? Or will it instead, end up at Notre Dame University at Fremantle and Sydney where its mission to civilise by promoting a bogus western supremacy, will cause far less grief and mischief?
Even if Dr Tony Abbott doesn’t end up as its director, Ramsay’s been exposed as a travesty of the fundamental idea of the university as a university, a place of free inquiry, a notion that baffles Liberals who confuse Uni with job training.
In brief, The Ramsay Centre’s a grubby think tank peddling an entirely spurious and dangerous notion of western supremacy, and Leyonhjelm IPA-type nonsense about freedoms , a cause Dan Tehan, our federal Minister for Social Affairs, takes up in The Weekend Australian where he argues we should have a religious discrimination act. Get us ready for Phil Ruddock’s committee report.
In 2008, a clear majority of Australians favoured some form of bill of rights, according to the report of the National Human Rights Consultation, a Government commissioned inquiry chaired by Jesuit priest and human rights lawyer, Father Frank Brennan. The concept was howled down by leaders of religious groups, predominantly some Christian groups, who claimed that rights would take away religious freedoms, especially the freedom to discriminate. So much for brotherly love.
As befits an urbane civilised westerner, Toxic Tony Abbott, the incredible sulk, the asp forever at Turnbull’s bosom, hisses with malevolence and petty jealousy. Tuesday night, he hunkers down at The Australian Environment Foundation (AEF), a front for the IPA, which keeps its funding secret, but is revealed this week to have overlooked declaring a $4.5m donation from Gina Rinehart.
The Australian flatters the AEF as “a climate sceptic think tank” – as if climate change were a matter of belief not established scientific measurement. It does not burden readers with the fact that the AEF was founded by the IPA. Curiously, no mention is made at all of Don Burke, AEF’s hand-picked celebrity gardener and green-wash mascot.
Snug as a slug in a slag-heap, coal-bagged by climate deniers, Abbott snipes at Turnbull. Abbo doesn’t understand climate change. Never has. Never will. Instead he channels his former business adviser, Maurice Newman, a former head of the Australian Stock Exchange and chairman of the ABC.
“He is either intentionally misleading the public or he is incapable of understanding scientific consensus, in which case he has no business advising the government” warned The Climate Council, a non-profit body set up by former members of the Climate Commission after it was abolished by the federal government three years ago. They had tin-foil hatter Maurice in their sights but it may as well have been The Mad Monk Abbott for his efforts this week.
… the NEG, Turnbull’s singularly unworkable national energy guarantee.
Abbott is all over the media this week trying to bring down the NEG, Turnbull’s singularly unworkable national energy guarantee. It’s his cunning plan to bring down Turnbull.
Tuesday, he claims no means yes: he’s the only man in Australia not to know the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, he signed was a binding commitment. Anyway, he reckons now that stable genius Trump has pulled out, that we should never have joined. Or words to that effect.
When it comes to argument, there’s always less to Abbott than meets the ear.
But what is he smoking? In his sights is “the emissions obsession that’s at the heart of our power crisis”. Yep. The reason we don’t have enough power, or cheaper power, or fabulously well-paid coal workers eagerly stoking filthy hot furnaces in power stations fired by the lung-destroying, toxic, dirty black rock is because of our folly to commit to lower emissions in Paris. Obvious, really.
The rest of Abbott’s nonsense may safely be left to the reader. It’s a reprise of his quick study of coal-lobby spin and it hasn’t changed since 2010. He tries to raise insurrection amongst The Nationals, whose new leader, Michael McCormack settles the pit-ponies by telling Queensland Nats that “coal will be in the mix”, an expensive hoax perpetrated by Josh Frydenberg the Minister whose NEG is ill-defined, unworkable and in current draft form, long, verbose and incomprehensible.
Abbott, on the other hand, is going over the top. He wages the same campaign as he waged against Gillard, a campaign he and Peta Credlin now openly admit was based on a lie, ” a label to stir up brutal, retail politics”. This week, Abbott recycles the lie that coal is cheap and reliable.
“Far from wrecking the government, MPs worried about energy policy are trying to save it, with a policy that would be different from Labor’s and would give voters the affordable and reliable power they want.”
Far from fomenting dissent, he is creating some type of cohesion
Sadly, his colleagues avoid him. They fear to join his rebellion lest it be an attack on Turnbull. Far from fomenting dissent, he is creating some type of cohesion. A Liberal wag notes that Abbott has wasted years only to make himself completely irrelevant and the object of his colleagues’ pity.
Modelling done for The Australian Energy Market Commission, Reliability Panel the government expert energy adviser, puts the lie to the scare campaign led by the federal government. The risks of power supply not being met are “so small, they are generally not visible on the chart.”
On the other hand, many old coal plants are unreliable, especially in Victoria, where The Australia Institute reports 16 major breakdowns at Victoria’s three brown coal plants, Loy Yang A, Loy Yang B and Yallourn took place last summer. All saw hundreds of megawatts of capacity withdrawn from the grid almost instantly. This makes Victoria the standout state for power plant breakdowns.
Even more alarming, reports TAI, were two fires. The first was at Loy Yang A on January 6th, within 500m of the mine. Another in the coal pit of Yallourn on February 4th, cost $100 million dollars and endangered the health of 14,000 Morwell residents
Of course, Abbott believes in new power stations, the great black hope of the future for the coal industry lobbyist. Yet even those spun as High Efficiency Low Emissions are almost as polluting as the old. And their prohibitive cost far outweighs installing a renewable plant with battery back-up.
“It takes character to do what’s right and it takes courage to disagree with your peers,” Abbott quotes Bob Carter, a climate science quack, to his fellow climate change deniers Tuesday.
Time to heed your own advice, Tone. Get out more. Cycle down to the library. Open your mind. Do some independent research. There is no time to waste on coal lobby lies and propaganda. Take time out. Malcolm Turnbull would be delighted to arrange a year or two’s study leave.
The week ends with Abbott exposing Coalition division over energy, one of the causes, says Paul Bongiorno of a record 35 News Poll losses. Could it also be that voters are not fooled by a party so keen to bribe the rich with $144 bn of uncosted tax cuts – a government dedicated to the destruction of a just and fair democratic society which its flat tax policy, its social welfare war and its increasing secrecy and surveillance and its relentless clampdown on dissent, all inevitably lead.
*David Tyler (AKA Urban Wronski) was born in England, raised in New Zealand and an Australian resident since 1979. Urban Wronski grew up conflicted about his own national identity and continues to be deeply mistrustful of all nationalism, chauvinism, flags, politicians and everything else which divides and obscures our common humanity. He has always been enchanted by nature and by the extraordinary brilliance of ordinary men and women and the genius, the power and the poetry that is their vernacular. Wronski is now a fulltime freelance writer who lives with his partner and editor Shay and their chooks, near the Grampians in rural Victoria and he counts himself the luckiest man alive. A former teacher of all ages and stages, from Tertiary to Primary, for nearly forty years, he enjoyed contesting the corporatisation of schooling to follow his own natural instinct for undifferentiated affection, approval and compassion for the young.
• Canberra Times: States swing to Labor in grim poll for Turnbull
davies
July 8, 2018 at 12:50
“Australia is among countries with the highest growth in income inequality in the world over the past thirty years.â€
Again wrong. How many times has this growing inequality issue come up recently and each time it is proved to be completely wrong?
The IMF has Australia at 0.32 on the GINI Coefficient, which once again I remind you is the most accurate measure of inequality by some distance. The OECD average is 0.33.
So Australia’s inequality is right on the OECD average. In addition, our GINI Coefficient has remained basically the same for the last 20 odd years.
For wealth, Australia is 0.60 or 0.66, and the OECD average is 0.75. We are a wealthy country and it is shared reasonably well. I think we are only behind Japan and Belgium.
This is the opposite of what we keep seeing from these articles and, quite frankly, the lesson should have been learnt by now.
Urban Wronski aka David Tyler
July 8, 2018 at 14:53
#1 … Between 2007-08 and 2011-12, and in the aftermath of the Global Financial Crisis, the income Gini fell by about 5 per cent to 0.320.
Unfortunately, this decline in inequality was almost entirely reversed in the latest survey for 2013-14, coming in again at 0.333. Scott Morrison loves to prey on the impressionable by claiming that inequality of incomes has not changed dramatically since the GFC.
But that’s a pretty short time horizon, and the trend of the past decades is towards rising inequality.
Four years ago however, The Australia Institute summarised its research: while income distribution is unequal, the distribution of wealth is even more so.
The top 20% of people have five times more income than the bottom 20 per cent, and hold 71 times more wealth.
Perhaps the gap between those with the most and those with the least is most starkly highlighted by the fact that the richest seven individuals in Australia hold more wealth than 1.73 million households in the bottom 20 per cent.
I would be pleased to supply more evidence and from other reputable sources which may be required to learn about this critical issue.
John Biggs
July 8, 2018 at 15:47
The Gini coefficient is based on income spread, not wealth spread. Different. Also it is based on averages. It doesn’t take into account the poor bastards who are contracted to do a job with no certainty of income, and no penalty rates or super, while CEOs get annual incomes in the millions. Gini coefficients tell us nothing of the suffering of the unemployed, the underemployed or the homeless. It is an index devised by the well-off to hide the real existential inequalities that exist. The richest top 20% own 80% of wealth, give or take. For further detail davies, read your Thomas Piketty
john hayward
July 8, 2018 at 16:56
Cleopatra’s nose may have been a fitting trope for Leyonhjelm’s fluke career, but it’s Pinocchio’s ever-growing nose which best characterises the PM’s leadership.
Malcolm has been wonderfully successful in casting himself as a hostage of the neoliberal branch of the party, rather than their famously calculating ringmaster. He has been able to portray incessant attacks on ABC news, an obvious threat to that hypertrophied nose, as being the work of an extremist IPA minister, rather than the objective of any seriously conservative government.
#1 above may provide a sample of the sort of attack our PM would prefer, in the hope that there is no fact-checking.
John Hayward
davies
July 8, 2018 at 18:53
At the risk of rebuttal fatigue … Why use the GINI Coefficient?
It is the superior measure because it takes into account relativities between [i]all[/i] the ‘slices’ (deciles) and not just some, and more importantly, it takes into account all taxes and transfers. But don’t take my word for it, see what the experts say:
Productivity Commission – “GINI coefficients are the most common summary statistic of inequalityâ€
According to the OECD – the GINI coefficient is a ‘standard measure of inequalityâ€
RAND Corporation, “the best single indicator of inequality is the GINI coefficientâ€
Professor Roger Wilkins, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research said he prefers the GINI coefficient to other measures of income inequality.
So a quick recap for those with cognitive abilities slower than a roofied snail:
GINI coefficient the best measure and experts agree. So what has happened to the GINI in Australia over the last couple of decades?
There are two main sources for the GINI coefficient in Australia. The ABS household income survey shows the GINI has increased from 0.30 in 1995 to 0.33 in 2016 (with a peak of 0.34 in 2008). The HILDA survey (produced by the Melbourne Institute) shows the GINI has decreased slightly from 0.31 in 2001 to 0.30 in 2015.
Prof Roger Wilkins of the Melbourne Institute argues that the HILDA is more reliable because ABS changed their methodologies made between 2003-04 and 2007-08.
What is the average of comparable countries to Australia? The OECD average is 0.33 …
So another quick recap: Australia basically stable since 1995, and it is right on the average of comparable countries.
This is the opposite of what you are saying.
But what about wealth inequality?
As I stated in previous threads …
According to the ABS Wealth Survey, which takes into account the net household wealth, Australia has a GINI of 0.60 in 2016. This has increased from 0.57 in 2004. The main reason for the rise has been asset inflation, particularly housing. But how does Australia compare globally?
The most comprehensive analysis of global wealth distribution is the annual Credit Suisse Global Wealth Report. The most recent report found that wealth inequality in Australia is relatively low. Only 11% of Australians have net wealth below USD $10,000 which in comparison its 22% in UK and 35% in the USA. The proportion of those above USD $100,000 at 55.8% is the fifth highest of any country and almost seven times the global average. And we have 1,688,000 people in the top 1% of global wealth-holders accounting for 3.5% of this top slice despite only having 0.4% of the world’s adult population.
So Australia is wealthy and in comparison with other countries fairly equally distributed. Our wealth GINI is the third lowest in the world behind only Japan and Belgium. Any graph you want to look at in the Credit Suisse Report shows Australia is going exceptionally well in distributing the wealth.
Globally, to make the top 1% of earners you need to earn $32.5k US pa. Top 1% wealthy you need net wealth of $770k US.
So hello fellow 1% ers.
Urban Wronski aka David Tyler
July 8, 2018 at 19:02
#3 … An incisive summary, John.
It puts the Gini back in the bottle. Morrison [i]et al[/i] use it in a scurrilous attempt to obfuscate – and deny – the real issue of [i]rampaging inequality.[/i]
Thank you.
Urban Wronski aka David Tyler
July 8, 2018 at 19:18
Income and wealth inequality has worsened in recent decades. Real wages are stagnant or declining while profits soar – up by 40 per cent last year.
Inequality? The gap is widening. Australia’s income inequality is the 12th highest among the 35 OECD (or most developed) nations.
Mining profits are up 59.8% over last year to $101.2 billion. It’s a new record, beating the previous best by nearly $8.5 billion.
Profits in professional, scientific and technical services were up a huge 49.5% to a record $16.3 billion.
Financial and insurance services profits are $5.9 billion, up 46.9% on last year.
Manufacturing continues its recovery with profits up 9.9% to $30.1 billion in the year to June.
Although that quantum is below earlier highs, this is the fourth consecutive annual rise, and the strongest.
New all-time high profits were recorded in electricity, gas, water and waste, rental and real estate, transport, postal, and warehousing, and administrative and support services.
Wealth inequality has grown enormously in the past decade.
In 2005-06 the wealth of Australia’s richest 10 per cent was 35 times that of the poorest 10 per cent; in 2015-16 it was 45 times.
TGC
July 9, 2018 at 01:08
It may be that the misery guts stuff churned out by UW will be overshadowed by the glorious news from that reliable and absolutely fair-minded newspaper, the Canberra Times, suggesting that Bill Shorten is home and hosed.
Suddenly – a “just and fair society”?
philll Parsons
July 9, 2018 at 11:53
Abbott and Credlin still believe they can return the Lieberals to the heartless and dumb policies of 2013, and perhaps they even believe Abbott can rise again.
All this whilst polling shows the bad ship Lieberal will strand and break up at the next election.
Believers in Miracles, such as Abbott, will continue to hold the faith .. a lesson from his boxing career, a career that induces brain damage in many ..
John Biggs
July 9, 2018 at 17:19
It’s interesting to distinguish the two quite different approaches to this issue of inequality: the abstract quantitative approach using statistics to make broad points that say nothing about people on the ground; and a qualitative approach that looks at the quality of life of people, particularly the ones who suffer from inequality.
Gini coefficients say nothing about the latter. It is interesting to speculate about the interests and motives of who adopts what approach. The quantitative one is the way of neolibs and conservatives whose bottom line is economic, perhaps particularly about their own personal economic well-being, whereas the qualitativists are from the left, to whom inequality and unfairness is a matter of social justice. Given these diametrically opposed values, one side is hardly likely to be influencing the other. Labor tries a bit of both, which is a worry.
Sure, use statistics to back up your point .. but they are a means, not an end. Neolibs make the figures the end. Unfortunately, crunching all too often crunches people.
max
July 10, 2018 at 02:32
What is inequality? Are the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer? What does it matter?
What does matter is the way our government treats people. Is it right to put the retirement age above the age that some can no longer work? If, for some reason beyond your control, you are out of work you go on New start and you have to survive on New start until you reach 67 and going on to 70.
New start allowance …
Single, no children $274.40 a week
Partnered $240.40 a week
Keith Antonysen
July 10, 2018 at 12:48
Of interest in relation to the privatising of the energy market is the creation of higher costs to consumers outlined by an ACCC Report.
https://www.theage.com.au/business/consumer-affairs/accc-calls-for-major-reset-of-energy-sector-to-drive-down-power-bills-20180710-p4zqom.html
davies
July 10, 2018 at 20:49
Well, some of you now get it. I have provided the most accurate and up to date figures showing quite clearly that inequality has barely moved in 20 plus years, and that we are at the OECD average. Even better, our wealth distribution is the third best in the world! We have the 2nd lowest proportion of adults with net wealth below US$10,000 and the 2nd highest proportion of adults with wealth above US$1,000,000 ! These facts are incredible, yet most of you are not happy because it does not fit your skewed narrative.
So now the argument turns, predictably, to ‘Well, that’s just the quantitative data .. what about the qualitative data?’ and ‘Well, those who produce the quantitative data and rely on it must be nasty right-wingers’ … In other words you lost the argument so now you have to sidetrack and besmirch. Good luck with that.
Your’e so concerned about poverty, yet none of you have mentioned what the poverty rate is, nor how to decrease it. The poverty rate is that proportion of people who earn less than 50% of the median income, and that proportion is coming down. In 2001 it was 13% and in 2015 it was 10%. More importantly, the data shows that most of those who are in poverty are able to move out of poverty relatively quickly. According to the Melbourne Institute (HILDA), 40% of those in poverty remain in poverty for just two years, while only 10% remain in poverty for 10 years or more.
Once again this appears to be the opposite of what most of you in this thread are suggesting.
John Biggs
July 11, 2018 at 14:18
#13 … “So now the argument turns, predictably, to ‘Well, that’s just the quantitative data .. what about the qualitative data?’ and ‘Well, those who produce the quantitative data and rely on it must be nasty right-wingers’ … In other words you lost the argument so now you have to sidetrack and besmirch.”
Davies, you seem determined to stick with statistical generalities that don’t say anything about the life space of particular people. I don’t believe I have lost any argument .. just that you are unprepared to see alternatives to your own.
Both quantitative and qualitative methods have their place. It depends on your purpose. In saying that right wingers tend to use the numbers style of argument, usually in economic units, is not “besmirching” as you like to accuse, but stating an empirical fact. Look at ScoMo chucking numbers around to justify his right wing policies such as the arbitrary argument that tax income should never exceed 23.5% of GDP.
In the second part of your argument you are using statistics that don’t stack up with the living space of people. Defining poverty as less than 50% of median income is too broad. Try 20% or even 10%. These are people in real trouble financially, and they remain in poverty sometimes over generations, not just two years
These considerations mean that you need both statistical data, and methods, to define the boundaries of the question and to distil conclusions that have some generality, but also qualitative insight into how the lives of those who are being affected within what boundaries we have quantitatively defined.
It is obvious that the tax policies of the federal government, for example, increases inequality by giving more tax breaks to the well off than to those not well off. This may not appear to be the case before an election but the true picture emerges after: Abbott’s Government being a super-example.
Better still, as I suggested earlier, read Thomas Picketty’s “Captital in the 21st Century” He sues quantitative methods to reveal a very, very different story from yours and your Gini coefficients.
TGC
July 12, 2018 at 13:13
“The poor you will always have with you.”
davies
July 12, 2018 at 16:39
Defining the poverty rate at 50% of median income is a generally accepted global measure. Even the UN uses it.
Are you seriously suggesting that 10% below the median income should be counted as poverty? That is a ridiculous statement. Go and research the median incomes of western countries and see if 10% below that should indicate poverty!
I have already read as much as Piketty’s book as I can stomach. It is turgid and more importantly, it is flawed. The only real life example of his wealth redistribution policies ended up such a failure the French Government quickly annulled their 75% super tax. And why did they do that? Because it cost them tax revenue, the loss of capital and the move away of an estimated 2.5 million higher-earning French people.
And Piketty wanted an even higher rate of 80% and stated that other countries would have to follow suit. For an economist, he is remarkably ignorant of Laffer’s Curve.
John Biggs
July 12, 2018 at 16:57
My figure of 10% was meant to indicate 10% from the bottom, not from the median.
Apart from that, I think I would rather rely on generally accepted Picketty’s analysis, turgid thought it might be, to your own.
davies
July 12, 2018 at 17:58
By Robert Ekelund and Phil Gramm in the Wall Street Journal in regards to income equality once taxes and transfers come into play, and also explains why Trump may have got in.
The bottom quintile earned 2.2% of all earned income in 2013, but after adjusting for taxes and transfer payments, its share of spendable income rose to 12.9% – six times its proportion of earnings.
The second quintile’s share more than doubled, rising from 7% of earned income to 13.9% of spendable income. For the third quintile, middle-income Americans, the increase was much smaller, from 12.6% to 15.4%.
Not surprisingly, high earners lost a considerable share of their earnings after taxes and transfers are taken into account. The fourth quintile’s share fell from 20.5% to 18.6%, while the top quintile dropped from 57.7% of earnings to 39.3% of consumable income.
In other words, the top quintile’s share of earnings was 26 times that of the bottom quintile, but after taxes and transfer payments its share of spendable income it was only three times as much.
Even more startling is the near equality among the bottom three quintiles. The bottom quintile, which earned only 2.2% of all earned income, had virtually the same share of spendable income as the second quintile, lower-middle-income Americans. This equality is despite the fact that lower-middle-income workers earned more than three times the share of income and worked 21/2 times as much, measured by comparing each group’s number of full-time workers relative to its working-age population.
Middle-income workers earned almost six times the share of income, and worked almost four times as much compared with the bottom quintile, but they enjoyed only about 20% more spendable income.
This equality in income endured in spite of the fact that many middle-income families worked far harder for what income they did have:
And even these numbers understate the huge difference in work effort. Compared with the bottom quintile, the lower-middle-income quintile had almost four times as many working-age families whose members worked two or more jobs, and the middle-income quintile had more than seven times as many families with members working two or more jobs.
davies
July 12, 2018 at 18:30
#17 For starters it is PIKETTY. And his analysis has many critics. And as his one real-life example shows his proposals to offset inequality do not work.
And I am quoting from the generally accepted best sources of data on inequality. It is not my analysis.
See #18 for what happens when taxes and transfers start kicking in. Your bottom quintile spendable income is only 20% below the middle quintile and that’s despite a massive difference in work effort.
philll Parsons
July 13, 2018 at 11:57
It’s all very well to write about how the fifths of income earners are doing in a spendable income race, especially when they each have to pay the same amount for a Big Mac burger. One could argue the poorest have to pay three times that of those with the highest income.
Then there is no analysis of asset ownership and how that affects outcomes over time, and nor is the affects of the difference between having security and control over your life on you quality of life or its span.
From my own experience, davies has failed to convince me that the poor are somehow well off and that little needs to be done to address their poverty.
John Biggs
July 13, 2018 at 17:22
Two issues are still muddied in this discussion.
We started with whether inequality is rising in recent years in Australia. Davies says No it isn’t, and that it is constant over the years, and quotes various gross figures like the Gini coefficient to support his case. On the other hand, the wage price index published by the ABS shows that wages growth is lower now than at any time since the index started in 1997 .. while profits and salaries for CEOs have risen annually at around 20%, and more in some years. That looks awfully like inequality.
The other issue is where the various commentators are coming from. If you see your reality in terms of statistics and economics, then you will construct your words at one remove from the existential space occupied by people. If on the other hand you see the well-being of people as important using such lenses as fairness, compassion, and such human rights as having sufficient food and housing and the right to a comfortable life, then the question of inequality looms large.
Attempts to communicate meaningfully between those two groups is, as a Chinese saying puts it, like a chicken talking to a duck.