Of all the things which most frustrate about the Albanese government is the tendency of ministers to fall into a form of paralysis the moment it meets any sort of organised opposition, particularly from lobbies of the rich and powerful.

Even when negative reaction has been predictable and responses to it have been rehearsed, or dealt with in written distributed materials, the first noise from the enemy seems to send the government into a panic, one that has the nervous nellies wondering whether they went too far. Ministers, from the prime minister down, suddenly seem to stutter or to stumble into long and detailed explanations of the sort that usually appears only when it is obvious that they are losing the argument.

Most of the arguments advanced against Government budgetary measures about capital gains tax, trusts and negative gearing, or about the budget’s slight tilt of the balance towards the younger generation, do not stand up. Not by the Treasury logic and Labor’s statements of intent. Just as importantly by the economic and managerial theories that opponents of the Budget usually use to define ideal economic policy. The gap has been crude self-interest of a small but powerful group of older Australians, pretending a bogus concern for younger people.

The strongest opposition is coming from News Ltd and from segments of the old Fairfax press, not from principle but from the self-interest of a very limited number of taxpayers. Crikey.com.au has pointed to the fact that News.com is these days rather more a real-estate business than a media organisation.

Opposition Treasury spokesman Tim Wilson has convenient arguments for preserving the tax status quo. These contradict arguments he has made himself about the inequity of a system which has tilted the balance strongly against younger generations, many of whom are effectively shut out of the housing market. That examples of alleged disadvantage produced by the opposition, or from media commentators, come from perhaps five per cent of young voters already with a foot into the system, shows how dishonest many of the arguments are. Much fairer criticism, indeed, would come from the proposed slow pace of implementation, and the grandfathering clauses which will slow implementation of the system. It is also noteworthy that a good many of the more vociferous objectors seem to forget that most of the OECD nations, including the United States, have long had capital gains taxes at full rates and do not permit negative gearing on the Australian model. These comparable nations, incidentally, also have so-called “death taxes” in a far clearer form than anything proposed in Australia.

Hard to see that Angus Taylor will survive politically to a day of repealing the tax measures

Angus Taylor, leader of the opposition, has declared that a coalition government elected to power would repeal the revenue measures proposed in the Budget. What can be said, with some certainty, is that it is a meaningless promise, given the odds against election victory over the next six years. Most likely Taylor, who is hardly inspirational, will be well out of politics by then.

It seems clear from polling, for example, is that the number of Australians proposing to vote for One Nation has peaked. Even if One Nation support remains greater than the combined primary votes for the Liberals and the Nationals, the lot, put together, fall well short of the vote supporting the return of the present........

© Pearls and Irritations