Gillard’s creeping Share-ia Tax and how it will destroy Australia

by on 31 January, 2011


; Dan Nolan writes about the creeping share(ia) of our income that the Gillard Government is trying to take, and how it will destroy Australia:

One of the main memes that has been popping up over the whole ‘flood levy/tax/contribution/firstborn’ tete a tete, is that those opposing the levy are in some way some ultra-randian selfish pr**ks, who seek to do naught but spit on their fellow man and then ground the spit in with a boot until the victim is crushed underfoot in a pate of sputum and despair. This is disingenuous to say the least.

Surely those to be taxed deserve the right of reply,  as it is their money in the first place. Without the right to say ‘hang on a minute, this is my money we are talking about,’ 

we approach the unacceptable situation where the wealth that private citizens hold is simply an aggregate pool for the government to tap into at their discretion.


 Colouring those who wish to have an input as to how their money is taken from them and used, particularly in the instance where this confiscation is confined in a cynically political fashion to not hurt a party’s voting base, as selfishm or even evil is just playing politics for the sake of playing politics.
Say what you will about the motives of those wishing to oppose the tax, but you have no reason to not accept or even uphold the fact that it is their money in the first place. They will, as a consequence of this ur-lien have less disposable income (up to several thousand a year for higher earners).
Arguing that higher earners as a whole shouldn’t feel the pain is an argument of fiscal homogenisation that is as painful to witness as it is to draw to its logical conclusion. We very rarely can speak to the financial circumstances of others, and rightly so; that is their private information (though the government will take a grand exception to this as you would notice RE: income tax).

I’m loathe to tread the same ground that others have, but I feel that there is a primary point to be made in this situation, namely, in a free society, we have input into how our property is used.

It is all well and good to muckrake that those who oppose this levy are heartless or irascible towards government, but it is entirely unwarranted for those who are not targeted or hit by this tax to make criticisms of those who wish to take a moment to pause and reflect on the economic and sociopolitical implications of this tax.

The primary issue of this article is not to denigrate or attack those who think people who oppose this tax are in some way antithetical to the Australian™ way of life. Again, you’re perfectly entitled to your opinions, but it is reasonable to say that the people who are paying this increase in tax already pay a substantial amount in tax already. This is not a tax request ex nihlio, it is an addendum to the already heavy tax burden middle to high income earners pay in Australia.

The primary issue is that the Government’s response to any fiscal uncertainty is to increase taxes in a politically cynical move, to appear to be on the side of those harmed in the floods. Of course funds need to be appropriated for the rebuilding, but this is the same government that spent a ludicrous amount of money in stimulus programs that the Treasury begrudgingly admitted had a negligible impact on the severity  of the recession.

I will leave the arguments regarding economic impacts and moral hazard to other writers, but the point needs to be made that this tax exists purely so the Government can keep an election promise of maintaining a manner of fiscal reliability.

This is not a point of contention: it is a point of fact. The tax increase is purely in order to maintain an election promise. Of course the government has such powers of taxation within its purview, but it seems to me and others that soaking those who already pay a substantial amount of tax is a far easier method to raise the money than actually taking a long hard look at some of the ridiculous white elephants that continue to be funded by the taxpayer.

Many proposals on how to fund the reconstruction have already been made, but here are a few others: A very simple way to fund the required damages would be to scrap the plans for the internet filter (and the ridiculous source of funds that has been). Scrap the school chaplaincy program for savings of a cool few hundred million dollars. Oh, and substantially cut our military expenditure by removing Australian soldiers from Iraq and Afghanistan saving both lives and money as we try to win a battle that not even the Soviet Empire could win. Not only does reducing the amount of soldiers in battle reduce the overall military expenditure, but it also significantly impacts on the overall expenditures required for future medical and mental health of soldiers exposed to combat.

It would seem that there are countless government programs that, quite rightly, should be up for debate if Ms Gillard's claims of there being nothing else to cut in the budget are true.However, it is our right, as the very citizens that contribute to the coffers of the government through our labour, that we be able to question openly the validity of certain government programs and expenditures.

It would appear that the Gillard Government's lacklustre response to the budget imbalance in managing existing Governmental programs is one of a lack of imagination. It also would appear that those who criticise those who wish to question or protest how their money is spent suffer from a fundamental lack of understanding the concept of property rights.

Dan Nolan is a part-time Software Engineer and developer, student, economics enthusiast and a full-time troll.

Leave a Reply