Bob Hawke has a piece in The Australian, urging the Labor party to get on with the job of governing the country. Still a great party loyalist, he touts the benefits of the current government’s policies, as you would expect, but there is one remark that doesn’t quite make sense.
After July 1, when the carbon price is in place, pensions are up, taxes are down and life goes on pretty much as usual for ordinary Australians, a very heavy onus will fall on the opposition to explain why it would cut pensions and increase taxes, if elected.
We’ve heard this before from the carbon tax proponents, the idea that everyone is going to be so happy with the changes, so no one will want big, bad Tony Abbott to reverse them. This ignores the fact that the winding back of “compensation” and tax cuts would go hand in hand with the axing of the carbon tax.
Only a certain percentage of revenue raised from the carbon tax would be put into compensation, with the rest thrown at renewables, carbon credits and the UN. Therefore, the population would be financially worse off overall. Hawke suggests that when Abbott fulfills his “pledge in blood”, people will be opposed to it, as more would be better off under the carbon dioxide tax. Such an outcome could only be achieved through a substantially uneven redistribution of money. While not the primary goal of this scheme, this example of social engineering is certainly an appealing aspect of this tax to its advocates.
It’s a Labor policy through and through: taking money from some to buy votes from others.