This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/05/taking-clive-palmer-seriously

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Let's take Clive Palmer seriously Let's take Clive Palmer seriously
(14 days later)
He sometimes makes it difficult, but let’s try to take Clive Palmer seriously.He sometimes makes it difficult, but let’s try to take Clive Palmer seriously.
Australians have a weakness for “colourful characters”, and such figures are increasingly indispensable in the political sphere. In his 2011 book Sideshow: Dumbing down Democracy, former Labor minister Lindsay Tanner argued that politics is now reported largely as entertainment. Within this rubric, politicians are accorded particular adjectives: “charismatic” means “sells newspapers”, and “maverick” means “delivers good copy” (Tanner noted that he himself was generally described as “thoughtful”, meaning “boring”).Australians have a weakness for “colourful characters”, and such figures are increasingly indispensable in the political sphere. In his 2011 book Sideshow: Dumbing down Democracy, former Labor minister Lindsay Tanner argued that politics is now reported largely as entertainment. Within this rubric, politicians are accorded particular adjectives: “charismatic” means “sells newspapers”, and “maverick” means “delivers good copy” (Tanner noted that he himself was generally described as “thoughtful”, meaning “boring”).
Palmer is far from boring; he delivers colour in spades. He’s strong on hyperbole, declaring that there “has never been in Australia’s history a more discriminatory policy than [Tony] Abbott’s policy on paid parental leave” (which would certainly be news to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and anyone excluded from entering the country under the White Australia Policy). He lists “litigation” as a hobby in his Who’s Who entry, is building a replica Titanic and a dinosaur park, and is a reliable source of quotable quotes.Palmer is far from boring; he delivers colour in spades. He’s strong on hyperbole, declaring that there “has never been in Australia’s history a more discriminatory policy than [Tony] Abbott’s policy on paid parental leave” (which would certainly be news to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and anyone excluded from entering the country under the White Australia Policy). He lists “litigation” as a hobby in his Who’s Who entry, is building a replica Titanic and a dinosaur park, and is a reliable source of quotable quotes.
Palmer has not escaped serious scrutiny, and his companies have also been criticised on environmental grounds and for their interactions with native title claim groups and approach towards heritage laws.Palmer has not escaped serious scrutiny, and his companies have also been criticised on environmental grounds and for their interactions with native title claim groups and approach towards heritage laws.
His manifold shiny distractions, though, tend to obscure his eponymous party’s policies. Their major focus is tax. In addition to his promise to scrap the carbon tax and change the way company tax is paid, Palmer has pledged to cut income tax by 15%. He argues that as the money circulates in the economy, “the government will get back the same amount of tax anyway” due to the GST, a claim PolitiFact assessed as false.His manifold shiny distractions, though, tend to obscure his eponymous party’s policies. Their major focus is tax. In addition to his promise to scrap the carbon tax and change the way company tax is paid, Palmer has pledged to cut income tax by 15%. He argues that as the money circulates in the economy, “the government will get back the same amount of tax anyway” due to the GST, a claim PolitiFact assessed as false.
The Palmer United Party (PUP) also promises to abolish fringe benefits tax because “it is a negative tax” which “stops Australians doing things, stifles demand and growth and kills employment”. Palmer calculates that this change will “release over $4bn into the economy”. Fringe benefits tax (FBT) is levelled on most benefits provided by employers to employees. It was introduced in 1986 to reduce the amount of “perks” offered as part of salary packages, such as children's private education fees or payment of rent. Such benefits (unlike salaries) had previously been untaxed: what FBT “stops Australians doing” is avoiding tax by receiving benefits of equivalent value to a tax-free income.The Palmer United Party (PUP) also promises to abolish fringe benefits tax because “it is a negative tax” which “stops Australians doing things, stifles demand and growth and kills employment”. Palmer calculates that this change will “release over $4bn into the economy”. Fringe benefits tax (FBT) is levelled on most benefits provided by employers to employees. It was introduced in 1986 to reduce the amount of “perks” offered as part of salary packages, such as children's private education fees or payment of rent. Such benefits (unlike salaries) had previously been untaxed: what FBT “stops Australians doing” is avoiding tax by receiving benefits of equivalent value to a tax-free income.
The PUP’s platform is predicated on the twin assumptions that our economy is in a uniquely parlous state (most economists disagree) and that Australians pay excessively high rates of tax, which is demonstrably untrue. As the Treasury’s handy pocket guide notes, our tax-to-GDP ratio is low by international standards: in 2010, Australia had the fifth lowest tax of the OECD countries. Our tax-to-GDP ratio was 25.6%, while the OECD average was 33.8% Nevertheless, the argument that we are paying too much is often an easy sell.The PUP’s platform is predicated on the twin assumptions that our economy is in a uniquely parlous state (most economists disagree) and that Australians pay excessively high rates of tax, which is demonstrably untrue. As the Treasury’s handy pocket guide notes, our tax-to-GDP ratio is low by international standards: in 2010, Australia had the fifth lowest tax of the OECD countries. Our tax-to-GDP ratio was 25.6%, while the OECD average was 33.8% Nevertheless, the argument that we are paying too much is often an easy sell.
Policies of the kind described so far are fairly standard libertarianism-lite, the sort of thing that appeals to economic rationalist ideologues and the very wealthy. The party’s platform then deviates sharply from this path, though, swerving headway into benevolent state paternalism. As well as nods to economic nationalism and support for regional areas, Palmer proposes to increase the old age pension by 20%, and “inject” both “$80bn into the health budget”, and “$20bn into the education system”. Clichés about “magic puddings” seem inadequate to describe this strange don’t-tax-just-spend concoction.Policies of the kind described so far are fairly standard libertarianism-lite, the sort of thing that appeals to economic rationalist ideologues and the very wealthy. The party’s platform then deviates sharply from this path, though, swerving headway into benevolent state paternalism. As well as nods to economic nationalism and support for regional areas, Palmer proposes to increase the old age pension by 20%, and “inject” both “$80bn into the health budget”, and “$20bn into the education system”. Clichés about “magic puddings” seem inadequate to describe this strange don’t-tax-just-spend concoction.
Palmer is a former life member of the National Party (he broke with the Queensland Liberal-Nationals in dramatic fashion last year), and the internal inconsistencies in his proposals may reflect the old tussle between agrarian socialism and economic rationalism within the Coalition.Palmer is a former life member of the National Party (he broke with the Queensland Liberal-Nationals in dramatic fashion last year), and the internal inconsistencies in his proposals may reflect the old tussle between agrarian socialism and economic rationalism within the Coalition.
Alternatively, the cynical observer may conclude that these spending promises are merely sweeteners designed to render a radical anti-tax platform more palatable for the Australian electorate, given that this agenda suits the interests of a wealthy minority. An individual’s own position in life will naturally colour their view of the world and their policy prescriptions for it, although pointing out this obvious fact generally elicits cries of “envy politics” and “class warfare”. This isn’t to say that sinister motives necessarily lurk behind the PUP’s bright yellow leaflets; just that a healthy scepticism is appropriate when the super-rich propose policies that would lower their own tax burdens.Alternatively, the cynical observer may conclude that these spending promises are merely sweeteners designed to render a radical anti-tax platform more palatable for the Australian electorate, given that this agenda suits the interests of a wealthy minority. An individual’s own position in life will naturally colour their view of the world and their policy prescriptions for it, although pointing out this obvious fact generally elicits cries of “envy politics” and “class warfare”. This isn’t to say that sinister motives necessarily lurk behind the PUP’s bright yellow leaflets; just that a healthy scepticism is appropriate when the super-rich propose policies that would lower their own tax burdens.
As with the Wizard of Oz, it’s important to look past the charm, bluster and razzle-dazzle and focus attention on the man (and the plan) behind the curtain.As with the Wizard of Oz, it’s important to look past the charm, bluster and razzle-dazzle and focus attention on the man (and the plan) behind the curtain.
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.