Growing up with red hair can be quite an ordeal with all the name calling, pointing, laughing and not to mention the punishment the sun regularly deals out. Although I will say that’s not the case for me, I tan like a champ! I’m what’s referred to as a ‘day-walker’, which is in reference to my tanned skin, lack of freckles and funnily enough dark eyebrows (not sure if that counts but thought I’d get it in there). So anyway as a rule I try and stand by my ‘Ranga’ brethren as much as I can. If there’s a Bloodnut in my group when we’re doing one of our many school or Auskick footy clinics I’m always sure to give him or her a massive pump up in front of the group, a very rare occurrence for our kind! BUT I’m having a bit of a dilemma this week trying to support the ginger in charge of this country with her proposed flood levy.
Despite the initial tone of this piece it’s obviously a serious situation for many Australians effected by the floods around the country at the moment so time to get serious. This proposed levy by the PM has certainly caused a lot of debate over the last few days, with varying opinions from politicians, businessmen and women, ordinary Aussies and flood victims alike. With this being such a sensitive issue let me say from the start I am most definitely in favour of supporting those who need help. Without dwelling on specifics, I personally donate my fair share to numerous charities each year including the flood appeal this year, as I know the majority of Australians do. So my trouble is not that the flood victims shouldn’t get all the help they need and deserve, it is solely with the way the money gets raised, and I don’t believe this proposed levy is the way to go. I’m not the only one who shares this opinion; many of the articles I’ve read in the papers over the past few days have had the same argument.
Let’s be clear from the start, this is effectively another tax, which means it is reflected in the budget figures for the year. I mention this because it seems to be the major point of contention within this whole debate. As I understand it, the basic premise is this levy will help to keep the budget on track to return to surplus in the near future. A key objective that isn’t usually associated with a Labour government, especially one who not too long ago happily splurged on the countries surplus by handing the average Australian a $900 cheque. So why can’t we wait another year or two before bringing the budget back into the black? Terry McCrann in the Herald Sun raised the point that the levy “will raise less than $2 billion in a $360 billion Budget and a $1200 billion economy”. In other words it will make very little difference to the figures for the year. So once again, why implement it? Julia Gillard has said that borrowing the money would be a ‘soft option’, that “in a growing economy, we pay as we go”. But my basic economic understanding (which comes from the rare occasions that I attend Uni!) is that, when it comes to growing economies, investment in infrastructure whether it comes from borrowed money or not is still a wise investment. That the long term returns will generally always outweigh the short term costs.
Talking figures is both complicated and tedious so let’s leave that to the nerds to do! There are a number of associated issues that need also be considered. There is the argument that the government should look to cut some of its other bleak proposals such as its ‘cash for clunkers’ scheme among others. The flood crises is clearly a hugely important priority for the country so why not scrap or delay projects which are not guaranteed to have the same positive effects for our nation.
There is also the fact that many hard working Australians have already donated generously to the Premiers Flood Appeal and now are likely to be slugged again without choice. Could this lead to future appeals falling on deaf ears for the fear the government will do the same again? And how about all those who have generously given their time and resources to those in need. I speak of for example, electricians who have worked tirelessly and without pay to help restore power to effected houses. They have sacrificed thousands of dollars in potential earnings only to be taxed again. Is this fair?
Once again I want to reiterate that the flood victims need, deserve and should most definitely receive all the help they need without delay. My argument, along with many others, is that in a highly developed, first world country with one of the strongest economies, our government should be able to find what is effectively a splash in the pond to help those in need.
